Curmudgeonalia
I see I taste I write Links What?
March 30, 2005

The Hardly Conservative George Bush - Part III

Blog . . 30-March-2005 - - - The hardly conservative George Bush - Part III

Relevant quotes of the day:

“As a nation of free men we live forever, or die by suicide.”
Abraham Lincoln

“If American radical leftists, pacifists and libertarian isolationists prevail in promoting a pacifist political culture in the U.S., then it is only a matter of time before the world is dominated by a military superpower whose leaders have an ethos [of totalitarians].”
Michael Lind

“There is only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second--surrender.”
Ronald Reagan

“When you don’t know what you’re talking about it’s hard to know when you’re finished.”
Tommy Smothers

Would you believe that the ostensibly conservative –W- is

• An alleged—and in selected situations the demonstrated--staunch defender of the U.S. who will not secure our borders, indicating that those invading our country are “peaceable people” who come here for employment are just seeking opportunity. (The euphemism “undocumented workers” is substituted here for factually accurate: “illegal immigrants”). For the many, “peaceable people” is likely true, but no nation can remain a sovereign or a free self-determining realm without exercising control over its borders. We can . . . and must! Compromise over such an issue, with Liberals, Democrats, the press and/or the business community, the Hispanic vote and/or the Mexican government, is both untenable and unforgivable. When did being elected become more important than doing what is right when necessary? He overlooks the fact that a huge majority of our nation’s citizens, including a majority of Hispanics, favors border control and oppose illegal immigration. Even liberal Europe is beginning to get the message! Why not “43?” Will it take another 9/11 to get his, and the government’s attention?

• Further, this alleged guardian of our safety and freedom of action, is in favor of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which will give control of the right of movement upon, study and, yes, exploitation of the oceans of the world to a body every bit as corrupt as the U.N., the World Trade Association (WTO), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the and promulgators of the Kyoto Treaty. Unlike the U.N., however, we will have no veto power. WTO made some sense, perhaps, but Kyoto was voted down by the Senate 95-0 (because it spells economic disaster while avoiding the problem it is assumed to address), and LOST 19-0 in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (because it curtails defense, science, industrial progress, and who knows what else.) Bush, at great political expense, stood and stands against the ICC and Kyoto. Why not against LOST?

I have no problem with compromise. That is the nature of politics. But one must not compromise principal, national security or independence. That represents the death-knell for sovereignty. (Sovereignty remains a subject for a later rant.) It is important to know exactly what is at stake, and “what you’re talking about!”

Political correctness, trolling for European support and behaving as the world opinion believes we should is getting a little old. Yeah, they didn’t like the invasion of Iraq, though some are now having second thoughts; and they didn’t like our pulling out of Kyoto, though it is to be recalled that Clinton signed on (despite the senate vote--and for altogether political reasons) during his last days in office whilst Bush simply signed off in the same fashion.

(Recall that they didn’t like it when Reagan pushed missiles into Europe in contravention of their wishes, but was successful in forcing the USSR to remove theirs as an “even trade.” And they didn’t like Reykjavik, or “star wars,” but Reagan prevailed and won. The Germans were apocalyptic when Reagan delivered his “tear down this wall” speech. Reagan did what was necessary and correct despite flak from all quarters, including more than a little from the “peaceable” (and the pacifists) in the U.S.

So . . . “splain” to me just why any conservative, let alone this “compassionately conservative” President, would hamstring the U.S. by refusing vigorous defense of our borders, and pushing the passage of LOST. The latter is worse than giving our Panama Canal away. Sure, the Liberals will like it, because it will interfere with the world class U.S. Navy, make exploration and exploitation unaffordable and/or impossible (not just difficult). The oceans will belong to “humanity,” whoever in hell that is, and are to be controlled by an agendized committee which will determine who can move where, when and for what purpose, and by whom all subsequent development is permitted, as well as to whom the fruits of such labors will be awarded. That is, we spend the money, we exercise the expertise, then we give the profits to the third world (or whomever the committee decides.)

We won’t be able, with any degree of assurance, to go anywhere in the world on water without checking with someone. No territorial land-mass control by sovereign nation, or territorial waters to honor, despite the fact that many claim 50 miles and others up to 400. If ratified we won’t be able go anywhere without abrogating the Law of the Sea. Gotta’ check with the U.N. or some other NGO to do most anything. It won’t fly and oughtn’t.

We don’t need treaties for that. We just need to surrender. It’s as simple as that!

Posted by respeto at March 30, 2005 2:44 PM