The globalists and their enablers – the media elite – are in shock. Dumbfounded. Since taking office a short six months ago, that amiable simpleton George W. Bush has thrice told all of them to go pound sand. Why are they in shock? Well, it’s beginning to look like pounding sand is what they may have to do for the next three-and-a-half years.
President Bush – who has sworn a solemn oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” – apparently takes that oath seriously. He has rejected out of hand three attempts by the globalists to impose unconstitutional, extra-national constraints, sanctions, limitations, taxes and penalties upon the domestic – not international – activities of American citizens. The U.S. citizens targeted by the globalists included you SUV-driving soccer moms, you handgun owners and you micro-brewers.
The Clinton-Gore administration spent the last seven or eight years negotiating away U.S. sovereignty to the globalists and had gotten three protocols – implementing agreements to international treaties – all ready for President Al Gore to sign.
But, whoa! The Electoral College rose up last November and smote the globalists smack dab between the eyes. Thanks to the federalism of our Founding Fathers, we elected a nationalist, not a globalist. Despite the opposition of much of the rest of the world – including most Democrats in Congress and some Republicans – President Bush is determined to jealously preserve and protect, first and foremost, our national interests. He has flat-out rejected all three protocols that globalist Gore would have signed.
And guess what? While at a meeting of the eight industrialized nations last week in Genoa, Dubya got together with fellow nationalist Putin, and they reportedly decided that it is in the national interests of both Russia and the United States to toss the U.S.-Soviet ABM treaty – and most of the associated weapons of Mutual Assured Destruction – into the dustbin of history.
The ABM treaty of 1972 was essentially an agreement by the U.S. to make no attempt to defend ourselves against the zillions of Soviet ICBM nukes, while the Soviets reciprocally agreed to make no attempt to defend themselves against ours. Can you believe that? If you think the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction has an appropriate acronym – MAD – then welcome to the club.
Well, that was then and this is now. Both Bush and Putin are determined to defend their nation-states and have deliberately linked the dismantlement of those zillions of Cold War nukes – and the peaceful disposition of the nuke materials recovered from them – to the development of a U.S.-Russian cooperative ABM defense, directed against the dozens – not zillions – of nuke-carrying missiles with which rogue states and terrorist organizations might threaten either of us.
Now, you would have thought that this stunning agreement – linking nuke disarmament with national ABM defense – by Bush and Putin would have been cause for dancing in the street, both by demobilized Cold Warriors on the right and the globalists and eco-wackos on the left.
Wrong!
The globalists are opposed to anything that strengthens nationalism, and Bush and Putin – by telling the European Union, the U.N., and the rest of the world to “butt out” of our internal affairs – have just strengthened the cause of nationalism, big time.
And on the right, many Cold Warriors – still attending Reserve meetings each weekend – want an excuse to punch somebody out, and the agreement of both Bush and Putin to just toss the ABM treaty in the trash deprives them of their last best excuse for the Earps to go gunning for the Clantons.
As for the eco-wackos, with zillions of nukes being turned into nuclear reactor fuel and no nuclear-winter to worry about, they’ll just have to find something else to worry themselves sick about. Which brings us back to Dubya already having told the globalists to go pound sand on global warming, gun control and micro-brewery snooping.
First, global warming. Now, the U.S. Senate had already refused to even consider the 1997 Kyoto Protocols negotiated by former-Vice President Gore because the non-industrialized parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were not required to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions, whereas it was estimated that in order for us to not exceed the “limits” set for us under the treaty, the United States would have to cut back our emissions of carbon dioxide by about a third. That would be the equivalent of shutting down all our coal, oil and natural-gas power plants. Every one of them.
On the other hand, countries like India or the People’s Republic of China would have no limits at all on the amount of greenhouse gases they could emit. In particular, they could build as many coal, oil and natural-gas plants as they wanted or needed to build.
Had Gore been elected, he would certainly have committed us to the Kyoto Protocols, and the only way we could have met the limits on carbon dioxide emissions imposed on us would have been to build nuclear-power plants. That is, we would have had to replace almost all our coal, oil and natural-gas-fired power plants with nuclear-power plants. Nuclear-power plants produce no greenhouse gases of any kind, including carbon dioxide, but Al Gore is on record as recently as November of 2000 being adamantly opposed to nuclear power. So what could we have done?
Well, the Kyoto Protocols established a globalist greenhouse-gas regulatory agency – called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – which was supposed to assist countries like India achieve “sustainable development,” which essentially means keeping them back in the pre-industrial age.
The CDM would “allow” us to implement “emission reduction” projects in developing countries, for which we would receive credit in the form of “certified emission reductions” (CERs), which we could “count against” our mandatory national-reduction targets. But the CDM would allow us to implement only certain kinds of emission-reduction projects. In particular, nuclear-power plants – although achieving enormous emission reductions wherever built – would not qualify.
So, what if we didn’t or couldn’t obtain enough CERs of our own – for example, being able to shut down only half of our fossil-fuel plants – to meet our mandated emission limits? Why, we would have to buy CERs. CDM would have issued magnanimous CERs to various baggies-on-bulls projects in the Third World and we would have to buy the CERs we needed from them. How much would the CERs cost us? Well, that depends upon how badly we need them, doesn’t it?
At the conference just concluded at Bonn on the revised Kyoto Protocols, in an effort to get Japan, Russia, Canada and other industrialized nations to sign up, the emission limits were raised considerably, the time by which the limits are supposed to be met was substantially increased, no enforcement mechanism was put in place for meeting those limits and there is no penalty for failing to meet them. Under the new terms, Japan, Russia and Canada will be allowed to accumulate CERs from their forests – which are supposed to act as sinks for carbon dioxide. There have been estimates by the media elite that the CERs awarded to Russia for their trees might be worth as much as $10 billion per year. This infuriates the eco-wackos, who claim that all Russia and Canada now need to do is to sit back and watch their trees grow. (Trees just love carbon dioxide.)
Of course, since President Bush stood his ground, refusing to sign on at Bonn to even the emasculated Kyoto Protocols, we have no need to buy CERs from anyone. (Nor do we have to ante up $400 million to the one billion dollar slush fund at CDM, required by the Kyoto Protocols, to buy beach umbrellas for Eskimos.) So who’s going to pay the Russians $10 billion to watch their trees grow?
Here’s a happy thought: If the European Union goes ahead and shuts down all the nuclear-power plants in Europe – as it intends to do – and has to import more natural gas from Russia to burn in power plants, emitting millions of tons of carbon dioxide, to make up for the loss of nuclear power, it will be the Europeans that pay that $10 billion per year to the Russians for those CERs. That will be in addition to whatever they will have to pay the Russians for all that extra natural gas. Europe is already heavily dependent upon Russian natural gas. Such a deal for Putin. No wonder he signed.
Then, in addition to telling the UNFCCC to go pound sand last week, President Bush also told the U.N. Conference – on the iillicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects – that the United States opposes any measure infringing on the “right to bear arms” by U.S. citizens, as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, the U.S. opposes any constraints by the United Nations – or requirements that the U.S. government, itself, impose constraints – on what is now the legal manufacturing, sale, trade or civilian possession of small arms. While supporting measures to prevent manufacture, trade or possession of truly illicit small arms, President Bush has essentially told the U.N. that U.S. law is none of their beeswax.
He shouldn’t have had to tell them that. Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, recognizes the “right” of individual and collective defense in member states and also recognizes the legitimate internal security demands of all countries. More than 100 U.N. member states rely on small arms and light weapons for their legitimate national defense and internal security needs.
Consequently, the U.N. poohbahs claim to understand that most small arms are legitimately manufactured and traded internationally. Nevertheless, it is clear that if they could, they would make ownership and trade of all small arms and light weapons illegal.
This U.N. Small Arms Conference has been working on these small-arms control measures – that President Bush has just rejected – since the mid-1990s. What gun owners among you can doubt that Al Gore, had he been elected president, would have accepted them, as written.
Finally, also last week, President Bush told the U.N.’s Convention – on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction – that the draft protocol, designed to strengthen the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, by establishing a mechanism for confirming compliance, was unacceptable to the United States.
The need for intrusive procedures for confirming compliance with the BWC became obvious in the aftermath of the Gulf War, when it was discovered that Iraq – a BWC signatory – had been violating the treaty left and right with impunity. The problem is that the facilities used to brew beer or to make pharmaceuticals during the day can also be used to brew toxins or to make biological agents at night. Even if you inspect a suspected site every day, you might not find anything unless you also drop in unannounced in the middle of the night.
Now the Clinton-Gore administration had already agreed to such routine inspections for all U.S. facilities, subject to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) of 1993. Because the dual-use nature of facilities for making biological agents is also true for chemical agents, the CWC had included extremely detailed procedures for ensuring compliance at a wide variety of government and civilian facilities. The U.N.’s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons – based in The Hague, with a staff of approximately 500 – is the mechanism for verifying compliance with the CWC.
As a result of our CWC experience, even under the Clinton-Gore administration, the United States had worked to limit the scope of on-site BWC inspections of breweries, pharmaceutical labs or genetic engineering firms to protect them from industrial espionage by suspicious inspectors. Similarly, since research and development on biological agents for defense is allowed by the Biological Weapons Convention, the United States has objected to the proposed inspection of biological defense installations run by the Pentagon.
Now, this week, U.S. negotiator Donald A. Mahley has totally rejected the BWC draft protocol on the grounds that it would pose unacceptable risks to both our national security and to the confidential business information of our private-sector firms in the bio-tech field.
So there you have it. On four separate and distinct issues within the past several weeks, President Bush has placed our national-security interests and the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens first and foremost – to the absolute dismay of the globalists and their enablers, the media elite. They are in shock. Dumbfounded.
Eventually, of course, the European globalists will recover, but the eco-wackos probably never will. The globalists can go to Siberia to watch the trees grow, for which they are going to have to pay the Russians $10 billion per annum. As for the eco-wackos, well, they can go along to sell sun glasses, beach balls and beach umbrellas to the Siberians.
Haven’t all you SUV-driving soccer moms, handgun owners and micro-brewers out there enjoyed the show thus far? Who says elections don’t make a difference?
