Friday, May 18, 2007

[u.s.a.] twilight's last gleaming

I clearly remember reading in the papers about the Watergate break-in pre-1972 election and even then the jounos were speculating on White House tricks. There is no mistake here - it came out pre-election.

America ignored it and re-elected Nixon in a landslide and I remember being dumbfounded at the time that such an explosive admission could count for so little with the American electorate.

Now we have a similar situation.

First step in understanding the NAU thing is to read the document itself [pdf], plus this one on the genesis of the organization, to get the "feel" of it. All other discussion is pointless without that and I can see, sorry if it offends, from certain comments left on this site that the commenter has not yet done that.

Another American e-mailed me:

...Furthermore, most of the SPP has been pushed on by Bush. So, when the new President is inaugurated on January 20th, 2009, it might already be too late to stop most of the effects. The only end result would be who is going to a) have a realistic chance of winning and b) stop the SPP.

I think as it grows closer to next November (2008), more people will begin to learn about the SPP and hold the candidates (Congressional as well as Presidential) liable for not implementing it. This isn't Europe. We will be heard, if our elected representatives want to be re-elected...

In an episode of our own series Yes Prime Minister, an old international expert asked the PM something along the lines of:

If Russia moved troops and equipment to the Polish border, do you press the [nuclear] button? Of course not, replied the PM.

If they went into Poland just for military exercises, do you press the button? Of course not.

And so on. The expert concluded by calling the strategy "salami tactics" - slice by slice.

It's as well to remember that the CFR quite rightly claim:

1] The NAU paper was only a study paper by academics;

2] We have no official status with the U.S. or any other governments and no member of the executive is a CFR member;

3] The March 13th, 2005 meeting was for elucidation only. No document was signed;

4] It's pure speculation that the CFR would be involved, as an organization, in the NAAC. If individual members were to be on that body, that would be on the strength of their resume and talent alone;

...and so on. The CFR can quite rightly claim that they are, just as any other lobby group or interested party in the public sphere are, an interest group merely putting forth working documents for discussion.

Except for three problems.

1] It's rubbish. By publishing that document, they were "flying kites", testing the public awareness and resolve. That Mr. Bush became involved and took aboard their recommendations speaks of the influence they have over ALL executives and have done for decades. Truman is a prime example.

2] They have no intention of "dismantling" the U.S. in any official manner. All they will do is vest the power of defence, education, taxation and social security in the SPP, overseen by the NAAC, including Canadians and Mexicans. SPP means "partnership", not new sovereignty.

Thus they avoid the problem with the American people which Lord Nazh alludes to and other correspondents allude to. Salami tactics. Though nothing has technically altered and the U.S. will still have its president and Congress, the actual power will have shifted to the NAAC.

3] There are actual plusses in this. The NAAC will be a highly august body of talent, devoid of party political carping. In other words, NA will be run by a meritocracy. Surely that's good?

Just one pesky little matter - the U.S. won't have control over its destiny. It will have to submit policy to the NAAC for approval first. The U.S. will further argue that as the most powerful partner in the alliance, their opinion will prevail.

Actually, it is the NGO - the NAAC - whose opinion will prevail.

Cynics will point out that it would not be greatly different to the existing situation where current policy is already determined by CFR/TLC/BB [e.g. Kissinger and Rumsfeld]. If anything, the power behind the throne is simply being more transparent. Surely that' a good thing?

And the average college educated American? What does he think?

I can't fathom the idea of a NGO having more sway over my nation than the elected leaders of my nation or the laws of my nation. Yes, it's true the Supremacy Clause states that the US Constitution and all treaties are the supreme law of the land. However, when those treaties would threaten our laws, I believe the Supreme Court would rule in our favor. I hope, at least.

And here's another one, from yesterday, in case you were in any doubt about it happening:

...a "deal"* has been struck between members of Congress on the "immigration reform" issue which really means they can begin tearing down the border. Granted the specifics look good on paper (making illegal aliens go home once every two years, a new type of visa, etc.), so did the idea of enforcing our immigration laws to begin with look good on paper as well...

Or this, from an eastern American:

Most Americans are too busy to have the time or care about these serious issues. They will vote for whichever candidate [I think Clinton's already got the Democratic ticket captured] will protect their interests. There will be third party candidates, like always, but aggregately Americans are too afraid of "wasting their vote" on a third party candidate that they will stick to the two primary parties. The difference will be if the third parties make a big stink of the SPP. If they do, that could change both candidates of the Republicans and Democrats to change their views on the SPP. This has been proven before in other elections from past years.

So the 3rd party candidates appear to be the only chance America's got now to have this issue brought into the open, pre-election, and even then, as mentioned in the quote at the start of this post, it might then be too late.

By the way, CFR, when one of your low-level media-monitors tracks this post, you might consider employing me. I feel I could put together a good defence for the SPP which might just get it past the U.S. people. Anyway, you know my e-mail, should you be interested.

* Lord Nazh assures us that this deal fell through.

4 comments:

lady macleod said...

Alright, I'm just going to mull this over.

Lord Nazh said...

James: you post that 'this' is going to happen, the you point out that they say that isnt what they meant, then you 'prove' it all by saying you don't believe them.

I like you, just don't agree with your proofs on things (this and climate porn)

james higham said...

LMC, LN - it's a bit hard to follow, my logic at times.

Lord Nazh said...

btw, the immigration 'deal' fell through, move that point out :)