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:


WHAT WE SHOULD DO BY 2010

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?