CFR members in the oval office
Those who know nothing of the SPPNA might look, first of all, at the pdf put out by the CFR, the insidious organization behind all bar a few presidents of the U.S.A. and extending into all aspects of American public and private life. The roll call of past and present members is like a who’s who of the U.S.A.
You could go to the official site of the Council on Foreign Relations and try to get an idea from there or you can get a completely different picture by delving, for example, into the 50th anniversary issue of “Foreign Affairs,” the official publication of the CFR, in an article by Kingman Brewster, Jr. entitled “Reflections on Our National Purpose.” Our purpose should be, according to him, to do away with our nationality, to “take some risks in order to invite others to pool their sovereignty with ours…”.
This is a fair summation of what members are about and this names but doesn’t give definitive proof of certain members who might interest you.
If you scan that pdf, you’ll see proposals for a North American Advisory Council to “oversee” and “advise” on policy in the U.S.A, Canada and Mexico by 2010, in the areas of:
# single economic zone,
# single area of free movements of people,
# single education system,
# single defense and security system,
# single social benefits system
Big deal, you might say – there are so many thinktanks out there, all of whom produce papers to direct to the government. The difference here is that the CFR is no ordinary organization, which came out in the meeting at Baylo University, Waco, on March 23rd, 2005 where Bush, Martin and Fox, of the three nations, met to discuss the proposals, the result being the SPPNA which has now dropped the NA and added Gov, giving it U.S. govt backing.
The issue blew up in 2006 and even reached mainstream America by 2008, the proposal causing the most anger being the new Amero unit of currency to eventually replace the dollar once society broke down. That breakdown is another issue at another time.
So when BobG writes:
The law should be more clear and specific. That said, I don’t see a problem with the intent of the law; to curb the flood of illegals coming in. Basically the law says the same thing that the federal law says. The only reason it passed is because the federal government refuses to enforce it.
They have the manpower and money to go after harmless gun owners, they have the manpower and money to wage war on marijuana, but they can’t seem to get their shit together when it comes to securing our border. This has been going on for several years, and the people in the state are tired of the federal government sitting around with their thumbs up their asses while they are getting a deluge of smugglers, thieves, and murderers coming in along with the illegals.
For some time now, the federal government has managed to poke its nose into a lot of areas that are not really their business; the Constitution tells what powers the government has, and it has overreached them badly.
But securing our borders against invasion is one of the things that is specifically spelled out as the responsibility of the federal government, and they have been shirking that duty for decades.
… there is more to it than meets the eye.
Yes Bob and something which throws light on why is the material on the SPPNA above. The CFR [and therefore the American] aim has been, for a long time, proposed via contributors to the journal. Now you can argue the case that editorial control is so weak at the CFR that the views expressed by contributors do not reflect those of the editors and yet the same views come through regularly. For example, in the December 15, 1922 edition, Philip Kerr stated:
“Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind as long as the earth remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states, until some kind of international system is created. The real problem today is that of world government.”
On October 28, 1939, John Foster Dulles addressing a YMCA conference, stated that America lead the transition to:
“a new order of less independent, semi-sovereign states bound together by a league or federal union.”
Dulles was to go on to become U.S. Secretary of State and he was a founding member of the CFR, one of their revered fathers. It continues down through the life of the CFR and of the nation, for example, in July 1948, Sir Harold Butler wrote an article that appeared in the CFR’s Foreign Affairs publication entitled, “A New World Takes Shape:
“How far can the life of nations, which for centuries have thought of themselves as distinct and unique, be merged with the life of other nations? How far are they prepared to sacrifice a part of their sovereignty without which there can be no effective economic or political union?”
This was interesting, not only for what it said but for the fact that the CFR obviously crosses the pond and its contributors are everywhere, an example being, say, Minette Marin of the Sunday Times but that’s digressing.
The central point is that this is the world view of the movers and shakers in our society and though the CFR is American and the name changes on this side of the Atlantic, the message is much the same. It can be formalized or left unformalized – in this case, it is formalized: The European Council on Foreign Relations. The names hardly matter.
On and on and on. On Nov. 25, 1959, the Council on Foreign Relations Study Number 7 called for a:
“…new international order which must be responsive to world aspirations for peace, for social and economic change…an international order…including states labeling themselves as ‘socialist’
This is why you hear from Obama, Brown, Cameron, Clegg, the EU commissioners, the treasonous Ashton and so on, all speaking of freedom and fairness for all, fuzzy Labour and Lib Dem supporters lap it up because it sounds … well … so good, doesn’t it but the reality is what they have stated elsewhere. I used the term “treasonous” for Ashton but in the end, it comes down to: “Treasonous to what? Treasonous to whom?”
The answer, in Ashton’s case, is “treasonous to the UK and England, loyal to a fault to a superstate”. That defines the battle lines. In Clegg’s and Brown’s case, they are openly treasonous to the UK and England by virtue of their superstate credentials and in a twisted way, less contemptible.
The real viper though is Cameron who’s clearly hoodwinked the Tory MPs and now, predictably, having disciplined them to get him into power, has turned on the very 1922 committee who swept him into power with his superstate chums.
I don’t know how much more clearly it can be spelled out – he is a snake in the grass, a treasonous despot who will use anyone and any party to gain and use power to stop the most important moves necessary in the broken society which he rabbits on about. He’ll lie in bed with any other politician of any persuasion and even had some of us fooled the other day with his Bill and Ben garden speech.
Cameron, ladies and gentlemen, is far more of a problem than Obama because he is pretending to be someone else. Take the mask off and guess who’s behind it?