'xenophobic' Bush
Posted: November 8, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Henry Lamb
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
When bad news from Baghdad arrives, the Dems descend like buzzards flocking to road-kill. Bush-bashing becomes a feeding frenzy, criticizing everything from the "shooting gallery" environment to "Vietnam-like quagmire."
Interestingly, however, when really good reporters zero in,
asking what the Dems would do differently, they tend to scatter, sort of like buzzards on a highway do when challenged by an oncoming car. The only alternative offered by any of them is to turn the mess over to the U.N.
Bill Clinton wants to put NATO in charge of security in Iraq, under the authority of the U.N.
Is it just a coincidence that this is precisely what the Socialist International wants to do?
Democrats seem to have forgotten why the world was plunged into a decades-long cold war after World War II: Americans – including Democrats – were unwilling to allow communism to enforce its brand of societal organization on the world. Now, Democrats are promoting the enforcement of socialism on the world through the United Nations. The difference between socialism and communism is about the same as the difference between global governance and global government. This difference is tactical, not philosophical. This difference is much like the difference between date rape and rape. One begins with seduction; both end in violence.
At its 22nd International Congress in Brazil, the Socialist International issued a Declaration that identifies "exacerbated nationalism" and "xenophobic attitudes" as threats to peace. These threats must be overcome, they say, by assigning the security of the world to the United Nations. What socialists call "exacerbated nationalism" and "xenophobic attitudes" is actually the belief that the American system of self-governance is superior to any other system yet devised.
George Bush remembers why we fought the Cold War, and he is unwilling to surrender our sovereignty to the U.N., even if he is condemned by the world's socialists. Nor is he willing to place the security of the United States in the hands of 190 nations, most of which want nothing more than to redistribute our wealth and control our power.
This makes George Bush an obstacle to the published goals of the Socialist International, according to its president, Antonio Guterres, former socialist prime minister of Portugal. Gueterres says, "The Bush administration [is] impeding efforts to establish a new world order." Apparently, George Bush's xenophobic attitude is exacerbating nationalism.
The Democrats want the same thing the Socialist International wants – to get rid of George Bush.
The Bush administration, along with the mainstream of the Republican Party and the remnant of the old Democrats – the few Zell Millers that remain – are the only hope America has of preventing the new world order – the global governance – described so vividly by the Socialist International Declaration, and the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration.
The Socialist International claims to be the largest political organization in the world, with more than 150 organizations participating in this recent gathering. Their avowed goal is to create world government under the authority of the United Nations – which, of course, is controlled by socialists.
When the Berlin Wall fell and America celebrated the cold war victory over communism, few people realized that our enemy had not lost the war. They did not realize the enemy had simply changed tactics and had already seduced many Americans into supporting its new, kinder, gentler war plan, disguised as "sustainable development," defined by Agenda 21 and sold as the answer to their manufactured image of global environmental degradation – all to be administered by a "reformed" U.N.
Bad news from Iraq must never be misinterpreted as anything less than another critical battle to defend this great nation and the principles of freedom written in the blood of America's youth from Bunker Hill to the Battle of the Bulge, and now in the streets of Baghdad.
We can no more turn over Iraq to the U.N. than to the terrorists. The principles of freedom are at stake. If America is to retain its brand of freedom, endowed by God, then it cannot acquiesce to the U.N.'s brand of freedom, which is granted by an omnipotent socialist global government.
For America to keep its God-given freedom, we must defend it to the death from all threats – whether from terrorists, from global socialism or from a bunch of Bush-bashing buzzards.
