Birds of a feather, flock together

By Henry Lamb
web posted November 10, 2003

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 "Viet Nam-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 <a href="http:
//wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35427">wants to
put NATO in charge</a> 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 <a href="http:
//www.socialistinternational.org/5Congress/XXIICongress/xxiide
claration-e.html">Declaration</a> which 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 worlds' 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 th U.N.'s <a href="http:
//sovereignty.freedom.org/p/gov/madec.html">Millennium
Declaration</a>.

The Socialist International claims to be the largest political
organization in the world, with more than <a href="http:
//www.socialistinternational.org/5Congress/XXIICongress/xxii-
Participants-e.html">150 organizations</a> 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 that 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 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, or from
global socialism, or from a bunch of Bush-bashing buzzards.

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental
Conservation Organization, and chairman of Sovereignty
International.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com