Thread: George Bush Bites the Golden Apple of Globalism

http://www.azconservative.org/turoff.htm

George Bush Bites the Golden Apple of Globalism

By Carol Turoff
June 2, 2005

French President Jacques Chirac felt the sting of rejection earlier in the week. Now, the Netherlands follows suit with a strong vote in opposition to the proposed European Union constitution. The stunning loss, reflecting a 62-38 percent margin, emphasized Dutch repudiation of the resolution even more fervently than their French cousins' 55.5-percent negative vote. French voter turn-out on election day was a commanding 70 percent.

A solemn Chirac, who had urged support of the resolution, told his countrymen, “It is your decision, and I take note.� Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende expressed his disappointment, saying, “The Dutch people have spoken. It is a clear result.�

There are numerous issues surrounding the rebuff of what had gained prominence as an economic bloc rivaling the United States. The loss of national currency has already taken place in 12 countries, with the deutsche mark, franc and lira replaced by the euro in 2002. Within months of the pact, these currencies were no longer accepted as legal tender. Imposition of an EU anthem, president and flag along with fears of Muslim Turkey, located largely in Asia Minor, becoming the largest member of the coalition, further raised concerns. Continuing ethnic clashes and high Muslim immigration rates fueled anxieties over loss of the Dutch national identity. Additionally, permissive attitudes toward prostitution, drugs and euthanasia could face hurdles within a European community less inclined to the Netherlands’ liberal perspective. French citizens fear loss of sovereignty, social benefits and impediments within their labor force, as anticipated cheap, outside workers could flood their marketplace. Currently, French unemployment is at a problematic 10 percent. In the weeks preceding the election, Chirac’s poll numbers plummeted. Reaction to the rebukes resulted in a downward spiral of the euro on world markets

The constitution must be approved by all 25 member nations. Although Luxembourg and Denmark still plan to proceed with their referendums, the serious blows this past week signal a marked dissatisfaction within the European community. Interestingly, the votes to ratify can be either through the popular or parliamentary process; some binding, others non-binding. Ratification has sailed through in the countries employing parliamentary procedures to reach consensus, encountering snags where popular votes were tabulated. The nine countries in which parliamentary accords have been reached are Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.

Great Britain, expected to vote by June 2006, appears evenly divided on the issue. The Conservative Party, which opposes the constitution, desires a reworked treaty granting more autonomy to the nation states. The Labor Party supports ratification, envisioning a resistant and consequently ineffectual United Kingdom on the periphery of EU activities.

What are the consequences for America?

The Bush Administration had been a steadfast but silent observer of the European internal struggle to establish a super-state. Recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demurely hinted her support: “I don't have a vote, so it (my view) doesn't matter.� Newly emboldened, she continued, “We want to see the European project succeed, because a strong Europe will be good for the forces of democracy. We would hope that a strong Europe would be outward looking, that it would continue to bring, as it has, new members."

What that means in plain English is anybody’s guess. And, where does this place the volatile and enormously populated Asian countries?
Despite this warm embrace of the EU by Bush and his representatives, there remains suspicion among prominent EU supporters that the United States prefers a “vulnerable� Europe, one lacking the unity and strength proponents of the treaty envision. Chirac went as far as declaring in a nationally televised speech prior to the election, "What is the interest of the Anglo-Saxon countries, especially the United States? It is naturally to stop European construction, which risks creating a Europe that will be stronger to defend itself tomorrow." With this blatant anti-American antagonism serving as the adhesive to rally votes for ratification, what is the justification for our endorsement of such a plan?

Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of tiny Luxembourg and the current EU president, similarly stated the United States, “does not like the idea of a constitution, this strengthening of Europe."

The Bush Administration, despite denials to the contrary, seems to prefer to have a united Europe to partner with on issues of trade and security. Yet evidence suggests the vote in many sectors across the Atlantic clearly incorporate underpinnings opposed to American dominance on the world stage.

We are left to wonder whether President Bush’s support of the EU ignores a comprehensive picture of stated European supremacy or simply employs his short term desire to gain support of what the Europeans disparage as his ruthless war in Iraq.

Former President George Herbert Walker Bush was a globalist, serving as Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office in the People’s Republic of China and America’s Ambassador to the United Nations. The apple, it has long been said, doesn't fall far from the tree.

Carol Turoff is a former two-term member of the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. During her eight years on the commission, she has participated in the selection of all five of the current Arizona Supreme Court justices as well as 17 judges on both Division I and II of the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Carol Turoff's Archives

Bush BIT MORE THAN THE GOLDEN APPLE

The Bush Administration had been a steadfast but silent observer of the European internal struggle to establish a super-state. Recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demurely hinted her support: “I don't have a vote, so it (my view) doesn't matter.� Newly emboldened, she continued, “We want to see the European project succeed, because a strong Europe will be good for the forces of democracy. We would hope that a strong Europe would be outward looking, that it would continue to bring, as it has, new members."

Condi is almost as slick a politician as Jorge is. What a crock.

Chirac went as far as declaring in a nationally televised speech prior to the election, "What is the interest of the Anglo-Saxon countries, especially the United States? It is naturally to stop European construction, which risks creating a Europe that will be stronger to defend itself tomorrow." With this blatant anti-American antagonism serving as the adhesive to rally votes for ratification, what is the justification for our endorsement of such a plan?

Chirac is definitely in line for the Cretan of the Year award. Anything he wants, I am against it.

However, at least maybe a united Europe would not be sucking at the American trough as they have for the past 60 years. Maybe they could defend themselves for a change. We have covered their butts, paid their defense bills, and kept the big bad Soviet bear off their kiesters. I say the ride is over and lets bring those troops stationed in Europe home for good and put them on the freakin' border.

AMEN to that scarecrow...

RR

FYI

Maybe they could defend themselves for a change

I could be wrong but I don't think so. We'd STILL be involved through NATO......they'd have X # of troops put into NATO under our charge. THAT MEANS OUR TROOPS WOULD BE A PART OF THEIR EU MILITARY.

{provision in the massive eu constitution}

SCARECROW........the worse thing that could happen would be an EU. Have you been in Europe lately? It's a mess and getting messier! They'd fall and we'd have the clean up. HELL, they go through with this and CAFTA would be forced down our throats worse than it already is.

I could be wrong but I don't think so. We'd STILL be involved through NATO......they'd have X # of troops put into NATO under our charge. THAT MEANS OUR TROOPS WOULD BE A PART OF THEIR EU MILITARY.

If enough of us demand the troops come out and demand that our government quit doling out dough to keep the European corpse alive, it will happen. We've got to be done with this thinking that we have to take care of the rest of the world. The rest of the world has been screwed up forever and it ain' gonna change. Europe less than most of it. Look at Africa. We have spent billions there and it is as much a basket case as it ever was. What is the point? Why do we persist in tossing good money down into a sewer?

No, there is no need for U.S. Troops in Europe, at least not in the numbers we have there. Having a base to operate from in a crisis is one thing, two hundred thousand troops and all the attendant costs is another. Anyway, if there were a crisis in Europe, whose crisis would it be? Theirs! Combined they equal the GNP of the U.S. but they pay a piddling amount for their own defense. If we had real statesmen, they would insist that Europe build its own defenses and get off our backs. Same goes for Korea, Japan, Africa and every damn where else. Let's start turning things over to the Iraqis and the Afhanis and bring those guys home too. Put these troops on the border. Spend the money on this country. If the rest of the world wants something from us they can damn well pay for it.

Hoorah!