On Sept. 2, 1945, Gen. Douglas MacArthur stood on the deck of the
battleship
Missouri in Tokyo Bay as the Empire of Japan, in the person of
Foreign Minister
Shigemitsu, signed its surrender.
On Dec. 7, 1997, Al Gore rose in Kyoto to tell the world America
was ending its
resistance and would submit to a draconian regime on global
warming.
Undersecretary of State Stuart E. Eizenstat, playing the role of
Shigemitsu, signed the
instruments of surrender. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Americans must
cut fossil fuel
consumption by 2012 -- to 7 percent below what we were consuming
seven years
ago.
Kyoto is a formula for a national brownout. Given present
projections of U.S.
growth, every family would have to cut its use of gasoline, heating
oil, natural gas and
coal by a third -- as would the utility companies that provide the
electricity to light our
homes.
What the Clintonites negotiated at Kyoto amounts to economic
treason against the
United States. Said Sen. Larry Craig: If Clinton signs on to what
Eizenstat brings
home, "it will be the first time in history that an American
president has allowed
foreign interests to control and limit the growth of the U.S.
economy."
If the Kyoto Protocol were to be approved, America's standard of
living would go
into permanent arrest, and the end of the United States as
industrial powerhouse of
the world would be at hand.
Why did Clinton and Gore capitulate? Because both have been
bamboozled by
scientific hustlers into believing the world is on the verge of
catastrophe and inveigled
into believing they can go down in history as the progressive pair
that saved the
planet.
At the close of the last century, a comparable conclave of soft
heads gathered at the
Hague for a world disarmament conference -- and committed a
commensurate act of
lunacy. Though many knew that the U.S. and British fleets, and
Western armies, were
the real guarantors of peace, they signed on to silly resolutions.
As Kaiser Wilhelm wrote: "I consented to all this nonsense only in
order that the czar
(the kaiser's cousin, who called the conference) would not lose
face before Europe.
... In practice, however, I shall rely on God and my sharp sword!
And I (defecate) on
all their decisions." An excellent summary of what should be our
attitude toward
Kyoto.
Apparently, Clinton, scorched for not signing the treaty banning
land mines
championed by Princess Di, has no desire for another caning and
desperately wishes
to avoid the dread charge that he "isolated" America from the
"international
community."
For a globalist, that is excommunication from the Holy Mother
Church. So Clinton
accepted at Kyoto what he rejected weeks ago: a treaty that cuts
U.S. fossil fuel
consumption below 1990 levels and carries no commitment from the
big polluters of
the future like China, whose factories produce three times the
greenhouse gases of
U.S. factories.
Clinton and Gore are going to pay a political price, however, for
giving their globalist
impulses a jolly run in the yard. Unlike paying dues to the United
Nations, or dishing
dollars to Mexico City, this Kyoto Protocol entails real pain.
The United States cannot achieve what Kyoto promised without taxes
or cutbacks in
fuel consumption comparable in impact to the energy crisis of the
1970s. If the Senate
ever went along with this madness, Clinton and Gore would be ruined
with farmers,
workers, businessmen and manufacturers, whom they have been
courting and whom
Al Gore needs to win in 2000.
The best of all worlds for Clinton would be to conduct a skirmish
in the Senate -- to
show environmentalists his heart is with them -- while going down
to noble defeat and
averting the economic consequences of the miserable treaty
Eizenstat brought home.
As one observes China and India rejecting Western demands at Kyoto,
South
Koreans rising in rage at the sellout of sovereignty to the
International Monetary
Fund, and Americans denouncing any global warming treaty, it is
clear that
internationalism is colliding with nationalism all over the world.
And it would seem that
this clash will be the great struggle that succeeds the
half-century conflict between
communism and freedom.
On a recent visit to London, I spoke with Margaret Thatcher. When I
brought up
Britain's decision on whether to give up the pound for a European
currency, and used
the term "sovereignty," she corrected me. The issue, she said, is
"independence."
Exactly. And Americans, whose heritage is independence, will have
to fight to hold
what we have and to regain what we have lost.
