saw Americans revolt in Washington, DC with a march and rally against the current administrationís pre-emptive war policies. The following day, nine Democrat presidential contenders gathered in Detroit for a debate. By far, the greatest applause came when the Bush theory of pre-emption was condemned. And now, Americans are planning to gather in Miami during the week of November 17th
for another revolt, this time against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its big brother, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
In the eyes of many, the Bush administration is doing a lot right. It has kept us out of the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court. It unilaterally stopped adhering to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which left America with no defense plan against ballistic missiles. It has exposed the United Nations for the ineffectual sovereignty-strangling money pit that it truly is, and it even signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act on November 5th
For all its good points, however, room for improvement exists. This administration seems to have wide-eyed myopia on its major initiatives. It cannot seem to discern the long-term consequences of its big initiatives like the theory of pre-emption which says that we should attack our perceived enemies before
they attack us and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which expands NAFTA to the entire Western hemisphere. The continuing problems with pre-emption and fair trade point to a definite need for change in the administrationís policies.
Instead of pursuing our sworn enemy Osama bin Laden President Bush decided to attack Sadaam Hussein on false pretenses, and now he has neither in custody. If Americans remain in Iraq, the killing will continue, and the probability is good that President Bush will not see his second term. He faces two unenviable choices at this point, but he has only himself to blame. First, he can continue to ignore everyoneís advice and keep advocating the theory of pre-emption as the magic elixir which America and only America will use to address all future perceived threats. This prideful decision will keep our boys and girls in Iraq during the coming year and will escalate ďpost-warĒ casualties to 3x or 4x the wartime number by election day. Americans will vote George W. out of office for this.
Alternatively, Bush the Younger can humble himself, disavow the theory of pre-emption for future military campaigns, and pledge to wage all-out war on Osama bin Laden and only those like Osama bin Laden who directly attack America or Americans. In this case, the probability is good that bin Laden will be in custody by election day and George W. will see a second term. But as I mentioned, this will require humility, not bluster. Our president seems to have an overabundance of the latter and a dearth of the former.
When we as a country wish to make an effort to overthrow a terrible regime like Sadaam Husseinís for humanitarian reasons, we can fund, arm and support the indigenous population that wishes to fight back. After all, this is the type of support we received during our own Revolutionary War, and we wouldnít have had it any other way. When properly waged, the resulting guerrilla type of warfare will thwart all foes, as we discovered to our chagrin in Vietnam. We were on the side of the guerrillas, however, when we funded the Afghan Freedom Fighters during the Reagan years and pushed the Russians back to Moscow. This is a proven technique, and one which could reduce the required troop strength in Iraq by 80% within a few short months.
Likewise, we should strive to give the Muslim world some options in their radio and TV programming. We cannot hope to change hearts and minds if a brainwashed population doesnít know it has any options. Letís get serious about satellite TV and radio in the Muslim world so we can expose these people to democracy and, yes, even Christianity. From the looks of things, the Muslim world could benefit greatly from adherence to the Ten Commandments. If their own Islamic faith is so morally bankrupt that it cannot provide any incentive to stop the terrorist killings, perhaps they should upgrade to a better, stronger religion. We need to let them know there is one. Al-Jazeera certainly isnít going to tell them.
The U.S. currently spends $25 million per year attempting to influence 1.5 billion people in the Muslim world 
. Thatís only 0.3% of the presidentís $87 billion Iraqi budget for the coming year and represents an investment of less than two pennies per person. This number needs to be at least $1.5 billion per year, and it may need to increase by a factor of 20 or 30 if we need to put satellite TVs and radios in the hands of Muslims, but it will be money well spent. Weíll know weíre making an impact when we hear complaints from those in the Muslim world who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo
The only alternative to date has been offered by the Democrats, and it amounts to precious little. All of the Democrats want to hand the Iraqi problem off to the U.N., but on October 30th
, the U.N. pulled out of Iraq, proving once again that the U.N. is all talk and no action. If Democrats donít understand this by now, they need a refresher course in Political Science 101. Moreover, we do not need to empower the U.N. or any other globalists in any way.
Furthermore, our problems in Iraq, though severe, are nothing compared to the 43 million dead bodies we have accumulated in America from abortion. This is important when determining political priorities, and it is important when discussing the shortcomings of presidential candidates. Dr. Howard Dean has worked for and has served on the Board of Planned Parenthood. He was caught in a lie earlier this year while trying to diminish support for parental notification when minors request abortions by including a story in his stump speech about a girl who needed an abortion because her father was the father of her child 
. The only problem with the story is that it is a complete lie. His response? ďIt didnít make any difference.Ē We donít need another president who thinks that lying doesnít make any difference, and we donít need a president with such disdain for the most defenseless among us.
Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban in the Senate. Senator John Edwards could only summon the courage to abstain. Kerry has also co-sponsored Senate bills supporting the worldwide expansion of abortion. In the House, Dennis Kucinich voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and Dick Gephardt abstained, which isnít much of a surprise, since Gephardt and General Wesley Clark have flip-flopped on so many issues that no one really knows where they stand on anything. Gephardt did go on the record at the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) dinner on January 21, 2003, when he said:
Let me say there are many uncertainties in life, but on this earth, in this country, there is one thing that must be certain and that is the freedom to choose. That's something I've fought to protect these last 17 years and I don't intend to give up now and I know you don't either .
And on September 17th
, General Clark stated during an appearance on CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown
that he is for abortion, including partial-birth abortion 
Carol Moseley-Braun was in the Senate from 1992 to 1998, when the first push to eliminate partial birth abortion was made. She voted against bringing the bill to the floor for a vote every time. When the bill passed anyway and was vetoed by then-president Bill Clinton, she voted against overriding the veto. And that leaves the ďReverendĒ Al Sharpton, who as a minister of God should at least be pro-life without exception, but at the same NARAL dinner that Gephardt attended, Sharpton proclaimed:
We must have the determination to keep fighting. Remember how we got Roe vs. Wade in the first place. Some of us may have to roll up our sleeves, but it does not matter, we cannot let them roll back the clock. 
The Reverend Sharpton is very clearly in favor of destroying the life that God creates. And that leaves us with nothing. No choices on the Democrat slate. This is rather ironic for a party that continuously talks about choice. Even Zel Miller a lifelong Democrat and current Senator from Georgia said in a November 3rd Wall Street Journal
op-ed piece that he would not be voting for any of the ďnaÔve nineĒ in 2004.
With this caveat
firmly in place, it must be noted that the Democrats appear to be much stronger than Bush on the subject of fair trade. This means a lot to union workers, as well it should, but it means as much to every worker who has suffered a job elimination because corporations are allowed to shop the world for peasant labor rates. And now it appears that Americans have had enough. When it was announced that NAFTA would be expanded into a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) encompassing virtually every country in the Western hemisphere 
and that a meeting of the FTAA ministers would be held in Miami during the week of November 17th
, a STOP FTAA website went up on the internet announcing rallies and marches in opposition to the idea 
. Most unions in America are promoting the gathering with their rank-and-file, and it promises to be a huge event.
And why not? The FTAA will eliminate tariffs throughout the Western hemisphere, even though the disparity of wages throughout the region is incredible. With no way to equalize wages, America will surely bleed more jobs. And this is not the only concern. The FTAA will deprive member nations of the ability to implement fair trade law after ratification, completely subordinating the sovereignty of nations to the structure erected under the FTAA agreement 
. In addition, the agreement will, by its very nature, create pressure to depress American wages, which will reduce the real purchasing power of the average worker and prolong the current recession.
The Bush administration can no longer afford to fiddle while America bleeds jobs. It can no longer afford to be the naÔve surrogate of big business and those who have aspirations of enacting huge regional trade agreements for their own financial gain. There is a reason why American trade policy should be set independently by Congress and only by Congress: itís the only way to ensure the fair treatment of Americans. It is also the only way to ensure that we lift up the economies of the countries we sign trade treaties with, rather than exploiting their underpaid indigenous labor. A wage-leveling tariff will ensure fair treatment for all; the elimination of tariffs will not. If the Republicans donít understand this, they need to be reminded that NAFTA has cost our country 766,000 actual and potential jobs due to this disparity of wages 
. Thatís not just me talking, itís the unions talking too, and thatís a whole lot of votes in 2004.
All of this means that the presidentís theory of pre-emption and his continuing disinterest in securing fair trade for Americans will be his undoing in 2004 unless he does something to reverse his present stances on these issues.