The Obama administration is pushing to leave more troops in the Persian Gulf and to create a regional equivalent of NATO in the Arabic Middle East, according to the New York Times.
"After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative," the New York Times reported October 30. Part of that plan may be to leave additional troops in Kuwait, for years a staging area for the Iraq war, or simply to float a larger naval fleet in the Persian Gulf.
But the Obama administration has another alternative they are floating to create "security" in the Islamic world, the New York Times reported: "The administration and the military are trying to foster a new 'security architecture' for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense."
That "security architecture" may include boosting existing security alliances in the Arab world, especially the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a 30-year-old group of six Persian Gulf dictatorships led by Saudi Arabia. The GCC is both a NATO and European Common Market-style organization with a customs union agreement that was inked in 2003. The GCC's six nations on the Arabian peninsula together have one trillion dollars in GDP, and the GCC is considering membership requests from Jordan and Morocco. "Another part of the administration’s post-Iraq planning involves the Gulf Cooperation Council, dominated by Saudi Arabia," the New York Times reported. "It has increasingly sought to exert its diplomatic and military influence in the region and beyond. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, for example, sent combat aircraft to the Mediterranean as part of the NATO-led intervention in Libya, while Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates each have forces in Afghanistan."
In his new book, Sovereignty or Submission, John Fonte identifies globalism as the latest evolutionary iteration of the “multiculturalism-diversity” that once infatuated the American elites.
Just as they once promoted ethnic-racial-gender group consciousness as the antidote for all the ills associated with following the path of freedom and individual rights as set out by our Founding Fathers, the elites now proffer transnationalism and “global citizenship” as the newest cure-all.
Fonte rightly recognizes both movements as antithetical to the core American concepts of republicanism and individual liberty.
By 2009, Fonte writes, the world’s leading political actors were pounding a constant drumbeat of “global problems require global solutions.” Today, there are forces within and without the government of the United States that willingly dance to the globalist tune and genuinely believe that there is greater good in the enforcement of global laws and the establishment of a single world government than in the fostering of the timeless principles of freedom incorporated in the U.S. Constitution.
John Fonte is a senior fellow and director of the Center for American Common Culture at Hudson Institute.
According to the United Nations, the Earth’s population will reach 7 billion by October 31. For the world body, however, that is not something to celebrate. In fact, the United Nations Population Fund is focused on ways to decrease the world’s population, and has selected October 31, “7 Billion Day,” as a day to raise awareness about “sustainable development.”
The United Nations has openly exclaimed that the world’s increasing population is a cause for concern. Likewise, the UN has advocated for its Agenda 21 program that seeks to bring about “sustainable development.”
On February 10, The New American’s William Jasper wrote of Agenda 21:
The UN’s Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global — breathtakingly so. Agenda 21 proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and “protecting” the atmosphere. It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption — in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21.
The Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are continuing their march toward globalism as they have now endorsed a global tax system, to be instituted and monitored by a new global government. With the G20 summit set to take place November 3 in France, the directors of the Wall Street protests are now setting their sights on the implementation of the “Robin Hood tax” on all transactions involving shares, bonds, and derivatives, and possibly other items as well.
A “global political authority” and a “central world bank”: These are the solutions that the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace recommends for the worldwide financial crisis. “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority,” the document outlining the council’s recommendations, is, in the words of author and Roman Catholic Thomas E. Woods, Jr., “deeply confused,” at once recognizing that central bank-driven inflation and easy credit are at the root of the world’s financial woes and prescribing even bigger government and more highly centralized banking as the cure.
There is some debate over whether the document presents the church’s official position on the matter. While press accounts have often referred to it as if it were a papal pronouncement, National Review’s George Weigel insists that such attribution is “rubbish, rubbish, rubbish.” “The document is a ‘Note’ from a rather small office in the Roman Curia,” Weigel maintains, adding that it “doesn’t speak for the Pope, it doesn’t speak for ‘the Vatican,’ and it doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church.”
Woods, responding to similar criticism from a reader of his blog, argued: “I’m supposed to distinguish between the Pontifical Council and the Pope, you say. Fair enough. But did those people appoint themselves? Is Rome consistently surprised by how liberal its appointees turn out to be? Fewer and fewer people believe this anymore.” Indeed, the council’s recommendations mirror those of Pope Benedict XVI, who in a 2009 encyclical called for “a true world political authority” to, among other things, “manage the global economy.”
Why is Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, determined to prevent Jews from living in the new independent Palestinian state? After all, it would solve the settlement problem if Jews were permitted to become citizens of Palestine. But that would require the new state to be democratic. It would have to honor human rights and would have to permit the Jews to vote. It would have to become as secular and democratic as Turkey, where Jews have lived for centuries.
So, instead of integrating these highly productive Jewish settlements in the West Bank into a new Palestinian state, Abbas wants them all to be dismantled. But because there are over 250,000 Jews living in those settlements, Israel is not willing to dismantle them as they did the Jewish towns in Gaza.
Indeed, the Gaza experience has created intense opposition to any such further removal of Jews from anywhere in the Holy Land. The West Bank is the heartland of the biblical Jewish commonwealth, and Zionist Jews believe that they have every right to settle and live there as they did during the days of the British Mandate.
But this is the kind of impasse that Abbas probably welcomes, because it makes it impossible for him to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel, which is what Hamas and other Islamic extremists want. They want perpetual war against Israel. That is why Abbas is seeking UN sanctioned statehood before signing a peace treaty with Israel, so that the Palestinians can continue waging war against Israel while enjoying the benefits of statehood. Should the UN approve statehood for the Palestinians before there is peace with Israel, they would be making a mockery of everything the UN is supposed to stand for. They would be taking sides in a war against a member state.
Over the course of the last few weeks, the Occupy Wall Street protests have increased in size and volume, and have been given generous attention by a sympathetic mainstream media. A number of media outlets have attempted to present the demonstrators as merely disgruntled Americans who are unhappy with the current plight of the American economy, despite evidence that the protests have been staged by Marxists, socialists, unions, and other left-wing organizations with intents greater than merely bringing light to the struggle of the average American. For those behind the demonstrations, though not necessarily the demonstrators, the goal is in fact to bring about global government.
Prior to the start of the Occupy Wall Streets, which began on October 15, the UNPA Campaign — the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly — reports that a group of leftists “issued a manifesto that includes a strong call for global democracy and, in particular, democratic rule over the international financial system.”
UNPA is a group that describes itself as “a global network of parliamentarians and non-governmental organizations advocating citizen’s representation at the United Nations.” It might be worth noting that the group receives much of its funds from the Ford Foundation, whose mission indicates that its finances will be used “to strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation, and advance human achievement.” As noted by former board member Henry Ford II at the time of his resignation from the board, however, those endeavors amount to nothing more than anti-capitalist leftism. In his resignation letter, Ford wrote, "In effect, the Foundation is a creature of capitalism, a statement that, I'm sure, would be shocking to many professional staff people in the field of philanthropy.
Republicans in the House of Representatives have advanced a significant bill that would defund a department in the United Nations that is antithetical to liberty: the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The UNFPA has been accused of being far too complacent regarding China’s population-control practices.
Introduced by Representative Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), the legislation to defund the UNFPA passed in the House Foreign Relations Committee on a party-line vote of 23-17. The bill would save $400 million over the next 10 years in funding to the agency.
In 2002, President George W. Bush defunded UNFPA, pointing to the 1985 “Kemp-Kasten amendment” that prohibits federal funding for any agency that “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion of involuntary sterilization.” Then Secretary of State Colin Powell declared, “Regardless of the modest size of UNFPA’s budget in China or any benefits its programs provide, UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.”