Bill Clinton's last-ditch scheme to leave a "legacy" as a world
peacemaker seems to be collapsing on all fronts, and it's a good thing.
Mr. Clinton's peace plan for Israel and Syria is a transparent attempt to
bribe both countries to "be good," committing nearly as many taxpayer
billions as we've been using to similarly pay off Israel and Egypt for 30
years -- even as Arab leaders continue to promise (for domestic
consumption) to "push Israel into the sea."
Additionally, the Clinton plan would require Israel to give up the
strategic Golan Heights, based on twin promises from Syria's Hafez Assad
that he won't again shell Israel from the heights, and from Bill Clinton
that U.S./U.N. "peacekeeping" forces will man the heights as a buffer zone,
Problem is, Assad may not rule another year, while we
know Bill Clinton will be gone in 11 months ... as if anyone
could trust the man's word that long, anyway.
Israel appears fortunate to have in Ehud Barak a leader with enough spine
to "just say no."
Meantime, the Washington Post editorialized Feb. 3 that "The president
should publicly insist that the IRA begin disarmament" to preserve a North
Irish "settlement that was once a fine testament to America's peace-making
Apparently the Clinton administration -- which brokered this deal for a
"coalition government" on condition Northern Ireland's Catholics turn in
their arms -- hasn't yet gone far enough for the Post in violating
America's most sacred and sensible founding principles.
Would the newspaper have called for the victorious George Washington to
turn in all the arms of the Continental Army in 1782, sitting down to form
a "coalition government" with generals Cornwallis and Howe under haughty
British threats to otherwise "suspend the Philadelphia assembly and
reimposing direct rule"?
"Peace" sounds great. But if "peace" can be achieved through unilateral
disarmament, then Hitler can be said to have reached a state of "peace"
with his Jewish and Gypsy minorities by 1944, can't he? Should he have been
awarded the appropriate Nobel Prize?
Wasn't it English immigrant Thomas Paine who wrote for all Americans in
1775: "The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would
be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike;
but since some will not, others dare
not lay them aside. ... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half
of the world deprived of the use of them; ... the weak would become a prey
to the strong"?
Did I miss something? Has Britain offered to scuttle the Home Fleet? Have
members of the Unionist Ulster Resistance turned in all those tons of
RPG-7s and AK-47s they brought in across the Belfast docks from South
Africa back in '87?
Wasn't it federalist Noah Webster who explained in 1787 "Before a
standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost
every kingdom in Europe," but that in a free country "The Supreme power
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the
people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular
troops, that can be, on any pretence, raised ..."?
Nor does our founding doctrine -- that only an armed populace can long
remain free -- apply only on these shores. Mr. Jefferson did not write in
his declaration that "All Americans are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights. ..." He wrote "All men."
Simpering pedants and cringing bed-wetters who would wish away this
lesson, learned through such bitter experience, insist that a free people
only has a "right to bear arms" by joining the National Guard, taking their
arms, their orders, and their uniforms from the central state. But the
founding fathers warned against relying on any such "special militia." It
was Richard Henry Lee, author of the Bill of Rights, who in 1788 advised
"The constitution ought to secure a genuine [militia] and guard against a
select militia. ... To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole
body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially
when young, how to use them."
Wasn't it Washington's friend George Mason who rose to warn us 220 years
ago that pro-British strategists were resolved "to disarm the people; that
it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
Yes, the Irish Republican Army has perpetrated terrorist acts which we
cannot condone. But have the black-and-tans and the English red berets been
playing by the Marquess of Queensberry rules? And wouldn't the British have
hanged Washington and his militia snipers as "terrorists" if they could
have caught them?
Why wasn't it "terrorism" for military tanks and helicopters to launch
repeated machine-gun assaults on a Texas church full of innocent women and
children in 1993? Is that the kind of "peacekeeping" Mr. Clinton has in
mind for a disarmed religious minority in Northern Ireland?
When "terrorism" is applied only to the acts of freedom-fighters, but
never to state agents no matter how they behave, then the word ceases to
have any objective meaning, and becomes nothing but a statist epithet.
According to "the rules," Iran can challenge U.S. meddling in her internal
affairs without being dubbed "terrorist" only by building a fleet of
battleships and bombarding Hampton Roads, and Ireland can legitimately
resist English meddling in her affairs only by sailing to Scapa Flow and
engaging the Royal Navy in battle royal.
Need we ask who dreams up such "rules"?
No government can be trusted, that does not trust its own people with
military-style arms of greater weight and power than those possessed by the
central government itself. If the English threaten to disband this fake
"coalition government" rather than grant true self-determination to an
armed and sovereign people, better for an armed IRA to call their bluff now
Next week: amidst the 101 new or expanded
bureaucratic ant farms proposed by Mr. Clinton in his 89-minute Snore of
the Union, those who nodded off can be forgiven if they missed his promise
to wade us deeper into the Colombian civil war against the dreaded
"narco-traffickers" by "going after their money."
Surprise -- it turns out this campaign is well underway, with the result
that the Colombian economy already nears collapse.
Will the Clintons' good deeds never cease?