Daily Wisdom

May 24, 2006

Nagging Questions

I recently encountered one of those rare confluences of circumstances that leads one to a suggested answer about a nagging question. The nagging question? ...Why is George W. Bush so strong on offense, but so weak on defense? There is no doubt that GWB took the War On Terror to the enemy. He went into Afghanistan. He went into Iraq. He developed an alliance with Pakistan. He uncovered terrorist front organizations and froze their assets. He authorized various intelligence programs, such as the two NSA programs which are now the subject of so much debate. But he has been lackluster, to say the least, on protecting our borders. Why?

A few days ago, I received a phone call from an old friend. In fact, he was the 'best man' at my wedding. I haven't spoken to him for a long time, but during our conversation, he reminded me of his interest in the John Birch Society (JBS). He repeated to me several times to be wary of the "Council on Foreign Relations" (CFR).

I didn't think much of it at the time, but then on May 16th, I received an E-mail from K.G. (better known to some of us as "Online Analyst"), concerning "quite disturbing information". The disturbing information was posted by "a reliable commenter at CaptainsQuartersBlog"...

Here's what was in the E-mail...
President Bush does not want to hinder immigration in any way, shape, or form, legal or illegal. Despite the proclamations of security concerns in a post 9/11 America, of following the law of the land, and of enforcing it too, he has resolved not to do any of it on immigration.

I urge you to read a policy paper (ISBN 0-87609-348-9) from the Council on Foreign Relations as it seems to be something of a blueprint for Bush's endorsement of greatly expanded immigration whether by hook or by crook:

Building a North American Community (English PDF version of the report - it's also published in French and Spanish)
Chair: John P. Manley, Pedro Aspe, William F. Weld
Vice Chair: Thomas P. D'Aquino, Andres Rozental, Robert A. Pastor
and Task Force Members
May 2005

Sponsored by:
Council on Foreign Relations (US)
Canadian Council of Chief Executives (Canada)
Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales (Mexico)

The guts of the report really begin on page 23 with:

"At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts."


"In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized."

"To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America."

You really must read the report to see how improving the ease of flow of capital, labor, and information is a major goal of this group and that internal borders are frowned upon as opposed to a common, shared, North American one. The vision is more like an international superstate of North America to effect extra-North American trade and commerce.

Bush has made an agreement with Mexico's Fox to facilitate Mexican development, which explains Fox's concern about these new administration border initiatives, as uninspired as they are. It probably isn't a stretch to say that Fox views the American public's reticence to open borders with disdain probably because he thought Bush, back in '05, could deliver the American constituency. As per the task force, look at this teaser:


  • Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments' physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.

  • Obviously, Bush's possible temporary assignment of Federal military assets does not violate this tenet since it will be withdrawn by the 2010 goal. No doubt Bush's conversation with Fox was to assuage Fox's fears that the SPP was being abandoned due to American citizen dissatisfaction. But why should he be worried with this monstrosity coming out of the Senate (Senate Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants Over Next 20 Years)?

    Bush seems to be a one-worlder where NAFTA and CAFTA were just the beginning. 9/11 interrupted his globalist views and now he needs to implement his worldview within the restrictions of an American citizenry increasingly concerned with its sovereignty and security.

    Don't be fooled. This task report fits Bush policy like a glove and explains his bullheaded stubborness. The questions now are 1) "how many Senators are in on the grand plan", and 2) "does the electorate have the will to stop it?" Or even "does the public want a unified North America and has any federal representative asked it?"

    Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 16, 2006 01:14 PM

    Do yourself a favor and check out the first link in the above post and read the Task Force Report published by the CFR. It's somewhat long, but I found it to be a fast read. Before you get half way through, I think you'll be convinced that the CFR is espousing some ideas that would have to be considered "dangerously irresponsible" in a Post 9/11 America.

    Having never before heard of the "Council on Foreign Relations", and then hearing about it from two different sources within a short period of time, I decided to do some more research. I went to the JBS website and found an interesting article about the CFR HERE. The article is clearly dated (1994), but it talks about the CFR over its entire history from its founding in 1919. I don't know if all of this stuff is true, but if only a portion of it is true, then the CFR is a scary organization. According to this article, the CFR is an organization that is pushing for a one-world government at the expense of any nation's sovereignity, including that of the United States.

    Another article that attracted my attention at the JBS website was about George W. Bush. Also somewhat dated (July 2000), you can read the article HERE. According to the article, the JBS apparently had no confidence that George W. Bush, if elected, would be any different from his predecessor Bill Clinton. The article predicted that Bush would be a big-government, big-spending, pro-NAFTA, pro-GATT President who would push an expensive health-care reform package, and an expensive education reform bill that would require the imposition of measurement standards on the students.

    The Council on Foreign Relations is an organization that tries to remain invisible. It is a relatively small organization boasting a membership of only 3500 +/-. Nevertheless, approximately 500 of its members are high-ranking officials in the United States government. For its relatively diminutive size, the CFR exerts exceptional influence on the formulation of foreign policy in this country.

    If the CFR is pushing a one-world government through small, incremental steps as the JBS suggests, then open borders throughout North America would be a logical policy for the CFR to promote... and it does. If GWB has been unduly influenced by an organization like the CFR, then that would explain why he seems so reluctant to defend our borders and limit cross-border traffic. The big question is... Why? Why is GWB so willing to ignore border security in a Post-9/11 world? If it is because he has been influenced by the CFR, then... Why has GWB been so influenced by an organization like the CFR? And finally, why is the CFR such an influential force in our government?


    At 5/25/2006 7:54 AM , Blogger boberin said...

    Good stuff Hawkeye.
    Does make me wonder what folks would think if a democrat (troll/other "undesirable") had brought this up. Guessing he would be called a conspiracy nutcase and dismissed.
    George is like anyone else in that or other high ranking government job. He had freinds his whole life. Most of them, and even George himself, did not think he would one day be president, they were just freinds. Then one day he is powerful, has the same freinds. The things they chatted about, dreamed about in their youth still seem reasonable, now might be possible. So the freinds "pitch" these ideas to George again. Now he can do something, always wanted to. So he does, it's just human nature.
    Rambling here and knowing it....my point is, there is very likely nothing all that sinister in the intent, to the folks involved it all seems reasonable.
    And, who knows, maybe it's a good idea, maybe not. Much like the war, history will need to do the judging, we can only guess.

    At 5/25/2006 8:17 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    Supposedly there are a lot of people around Bush who are CFR members: his father (Bush 41), Cheney, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, etc. Makes you wonder if all these people believe in a one-world government, or if they're just members to be part of a club.


    At 5/25/2006 9:00 AM , Blogger boberin said...

    That's what I mean, you sit with your buddies, have a brew or 2, get these great ideas (and they might really be great, who knows?) and the next thing you know, stuff is happening...

    At 5/25/2006 10:59 AM , Blogger Maggie said...

    I used to laugh off the "one world theory"....but now,after reading your post I am reconsidering.Great food for thought.

    At 5/25/2006 12:44 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    So... you think Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. were sitting around having a beer in February of 2005 and said, "Hey, wouldn't it be a great idea if we met with Vicente Fox and Paul Martin next month and signed a "Security and Prosperity Partnership" Agreement for North America! That way we could open up our borders to one another and allow more trafficking of illegal aliens and illegal drugs into our countries"...?

    I don't think so. Considering the events of 9/11, GWB would have to have a VERY good reason for promoting open borders. But I guess it's a secret reason, because he won't tell anybody what it is.

    At 5/25/2006 12:47 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    I don't know how much of this stuff is true. Some of it may be way out in left field somewhere, but it does make you scratch your head and think.

    At 5/25/2006 1:09 PM , Blogger camojack said...

    Sometimes I advocate taking over the rest of the Western Hemisphere, but only half seriously.

    One world government sounds ominous, though...

    At 5/25/2006 1:22 PM , Blogger boberin said...

    Well, given the near impossibility of closing the borders, free access would be an alternative.
    In a related tidbit

    • A renegade militia in Montana has guarded 2.3 miles of the US-Canada border since 1969.

    At 5/25/2006 3:47 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    Indeed it does.

    C'mon. Where's that CAN DO attitude? All we need is a few hundred more renegade militias and we'll be all set.

    At 5/25/2006 4:26 PM , Blogger boberin said...

    Maybe we should hire Mexican militias, at least the price would be right

    At 5/25/2006 5:44 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    I don't think so... they're too easy to bribe.

    At 5/27/2006 10:04 AM , Blogger Beerme said...

    Facts are interesting. It is the interpretation of those facts that can lead us to trouble. Think in terms of the conspiracy theorists (JBS would be one of them, I think). They see every fact as another brick in the wall they want to build. Only those bricks that fit the template will be considered, though.

    Leftists (and some in the far right) believe that this CFR pact is a part of the corporate takeover of our government and our world. Of course globalization is good for us in many ways. We can buy our products cheaper when they are produced with cheaper labor. In turn those that are producing those products are further enriching their lives and the lives of their countrymen by raising the standards of living in their countries. A rising tide lifts all boats, so to speak.

    We Americans (yes, I still use that offensive term to refer to the citizens of the USA, not all of the citizens of the Western hemisphere!) are unique in our stubborn self-identity, as well we should be. We have no interest in a one world government and we bridle at the thought of it-liberals and John Birches, alike.

    Economic globalization and the free market in which it should thrive are one thing. Opening our borders to allcomers and sharing our government with our less than homogeneous neighbors is quite another.

    CFR, the Trilateral Commision, Skull and Bones and the Illuminati aside, these are intersting facts to ponder. I wonder when the nagging questions will be answered, and if we will be aware of them when they are...

    At 5/27/2006 12:43 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    Thanks for your comments. I hope you're right and that there's really nothing to these concerns of mine. I guess the saying is true... "The price of freedom is vigilance".

    At 5/28/2006 5:12 PM , Blogger Kajun said...

    Some other people thought "One World Government' was a good idea.

    Napoleon and Hitler; to name a few.


    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

    << Home