Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Media Coverage is LOST

by Frank J. Gaffney Jr. - October 30, 2007 - FrontPage Magazine

Ronald Reagan rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty twenty-five years ago. We have been able to survive ever since without being a party to it, following Mr. Reagan’s direction – observing its provisions regarding navigation, with which we can live, and not being bound by those [provisions] hostile to our interests.

The latter involve, among other things, a supranational, UN-affiliated government of the seas with the power to extend its authority to our interior waters, sovereign territory and even our air. There is no justification for haste, let alone stealth, in trying to make such a treaty the “supreme law of the land.”

When I learned about George W. Bush's support for this treaty, I was shocked. Just as shocked as when this self righteous man sneered at patriotic Americans who oppose open borders by calling them vigilantes. His support for amnesty to illegal aliens who have invaded our nation and support for giving the United Nations veto power over our sovereign rights are both simply astonishing. George W. Bush is, and has been since before we elected him, an anti American global socialist more in line with the "democrat elites" than with average Americans.

"Compassionate Conservative" has turned out to be double talk for a form of socialism I call big-business socialism. It has been turned into support of the domestic agenda of the neo-conservative movement on a more massive scale than the strategic goals of either philosophy implied. I have considered myself a neo-conservative for some time, but as the implementation tactics for the domestic portion of the neo-conservative movement strategic goals have proved more and more in violation of states rights, I am moving away from my support, at least for this domestic agenda. I agree with their goals but not how they want them implemented.

I do not consider that the goals of the global business elites are of interest to true patriots of our nation. George W. Bush clearly disagrees. I think that marks his true colors. It also brings into question his own claim to be supportive of either America or the goals of the conservative-libertarian party that he is a part of. He wants to change both America, and the Republican Party, into something that the people would not recognize.

Questioning the patriotism of our President is not something that I do lightly. However what else can you believe when he is so out of touch with what true patriots believe. On both these issues (Law of the Sea Treaty and Illegal Alien Amnesty) more than 80% of Americans oppose his plans. The 20% that supports the goals of both are anti-American global socialists. Bush has chosen sides. This is the man who understands "you are either with us or against us". He is against us.

I will not concede we owe him any deference just because he has proven sound on the issue of the war against Islamo-fascism. Even on this issue he is so overly sensitive about the views of our enemies that he uses the waffling term "war on terror" so our enemies will not be annoyed.

At least one thing that confuses me is why there is such virulent hatred of this man by the liberal democrat elite with which he shares so many values. Is it the democrat view that you must support their agenda 100% or you are an enemy? I can think of nothing else that explains their hatred, and it is true they ran the neo-conservatives out of the democrat party with the same virulent hatred for not toeing the line. Can you explain it any other way?

Truly sad update as of 11/1/2007 - In a 17-4 vote, this treaty was recommmended for passage by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The following liberal Republicans voted with the democrats to approve it: Richard Lugar (R-Ind.),Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), John Sununu (R-N.H.), George Voinovich (R-OH) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).


Post a Comment

<< Home