|
Unsafe in Any Form
Those who think that getting half a loaf is better than getting nothing may be correct in the case of the starving man. But in political matters, the adage can play right into the hands of an enemy. This may turn out to be the case with the impending creation of the UN’s International Criminal Court (ICC). In this instance, a congressional measure supposedly designed to protect some Americans from any future ICC prosecutions may, in fact, be leaven for the half loaf, and help bring into being a temporarily toothless international court whose teeth can be put in place later, as the political climate allows. The measure, entitled the America Servicemembers’ Protection Act, would bar U.S. military assistance to any non-NATO nation that ratifies the ICC treaty. It would prohibit U.S. troops from serving in any UN peacekeeping operation unless the UN grants them immunity from possible prosecution. And it would authorize the use of force to rescue any American or allied soldier held by the soon-to-be-created court. House leaders have even threatened to hold up payment of back dues to the UN until they receive assurance from President Bush that he will support their move. This sounds like a tough stand for which supporters in Congress (it has already won approval in the House by a 282-137 margin) should be given a pat on the back. But the measure only protects one category of Americans. What about politicians, writers, organization leaders, teachers, and others whose stands might be considered genocidal or racist, or might otherwise be construed to fit into the ICC’s incredibly open-ended category of "crimes against humanity"? The International Criminal Court will claim jurisdiction over everyone on the planet as soon as the ICC is ratified by 60 nations, an arbitrary number chosen by its globalist architects to allow the Court to open up shop. President Bush says he opposes U.S. ratification, but the move by the House amounts to an admission that the proposed ICC is a fait accompli. As such, the House measure is no more than a weak palliative, intended only to make the court more palatable for conservatives. But we must remember the proven tactic of first getting a law or institution on the books and later "reforming" it so it can accomplish everything its authors originally intended. The restrictions on the proposed ICC sought by the House in this Act could be negated down the road. This strategy has been used before. The cabal that brought this nation the Federal Reserve system in 1913 knew everything it sought couldn’t be obtained all at once. All it wanted from Congress was to get the monster born. Most Fed opponents believed Congress had created a relatively toothless entity that would pose no major problems for the nation. Once established, however, additional legislative "reforms" supplemented the Fed’s power and built it into what it is today. Now, the nation can be yo-yoed from boom to bust, from inflation to deflation, from expansion to recession; one man, the supposedly infallible Alan Greenspan, makes economic decisions affecting 270 million Americans, not to mention the overwhelming majority of the world’s other inhabitants. Another example of this process is the UN itself. In 1945, a war-weary Senate voted overwhelmingly to have our nation join the United Nations as a way to prevent future wars. In the ensuing years, there have been more wars, not fewer. Today, the world finds the UN sticking its nose into population control, religion, property rights, education, military, weapons ownership, parental rights, environmental concerns — virtually everything imaginable. The UN, well on the way to becoming the unchallengeable world government most of its founders expected, is constantly being "reformed." Then there’s NATO. In 1949, over the objections of a minority in the Senate, the U.S. agreed to the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Sold to the American people, and to many naïve senators, as a way to defend against Soviet expansionism, NATO was at its outset solely a military alliance. But it has now been "reformed" to include political and economic roles. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is another example of this strategy at work. Did those who allowed passage of the ESA expect it to shut down logging industries, ruin livelihoods for farmers and ranchers, and stop industrial development? Was the Clean Water Act sold to Congress with the draconian controls it now possesses over this essential commodity? Does no one recall that the income tax was never to exceed five percent? The list of toothless half-measures that got "reformed" into oppressive bureaucratic monstrosities would fill many pages. Supporters of the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act include many generally reliable congressmen. But they — and the public at large — are being conditioned to believe that Americans will be subjected to ICC jurisdiction and that the best they can hope for is to exempt American servicemen. Yet, as in the case of the examples cited above, conservative acquiescence to a supposedly defanged ICC would be a giant step in the direction of world government and would provide the structure for further "reforms," just as the internationalists intended from the beginning. Instead of accepting a watered-down ICC, we must withdraw from the United Nations. Stop nibbling around the edges! |
