I DO call it Conspiracy

Last Tuesday, during the EU-US summit with President Bush, EU President José Barroso innocently asked for visa-free travel to the US for all European citizens.

Barroso, of all people, ought to know the risk this would pose for the American people. Because the president of his home country, socialist José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, is behind an open border policy (see Part 2 of this report at Laigles Forum) that has even ranking EU officials feeling uneasy, and they’re saying so on the record.

The strange thing is that, although this situation—the first test findings, one could call it—is hard evidence that supranational governments (like the North American Union dreamed of by our political elite) are impotent to defend their common border against terror when only one member country won’t comply, and this issue is central to the safety and security of every family in the US, our press doesn’t seem interested in having us know about Zapatero’s gross neglect and the European reaction to it.

In fact, the European press itself has been rather silent on the issue, which has surfaced mostly on grassroots blogs there. This has everything to do with the fact that the far-left Zapatero has been busy sweeping the residues of his negligence under the carpet, even absurdly suggesting that the runaway illegal immigration into Spain is a EU problem rather than a Spanish one, despite the fact that the most lax immigration policy in Europe is being pursued in Spain, where illegals need only hide out for 2 years, then show up at the migra with a work contract, in order to become legal residents and enter the fast track to citizenship. And you thought our government was crazy.

There are a lot of dots to connect here, and I am challenged not only to present the highlights but also to connect some of them for the reader.

The clues originated in three documents that recently came to my attention: 1—An article in the May 2006 issue of Whistleblower (a hardcopy publication of World Net Daily) entitled “The CFR Solution,” describing the Council on Foreign Relations’ May 2005 report “Building a North American Community,” which proposes melding the USA, Canada and Mexico into a supranational EU-style entity with one common border instead of the present three, presumably making this common border easier to defend, but without much explanation of how or why. 2—A report on the Spanish grassroots blog HazteOir.org of May 2006 entitled Inmigración, Effecto llamada en España: problema para Europa, translated: Immigration, Call Effect in Spain: Problem for Europe, which, if you read it (our English translation, authorized by that group, will appear for the first time ever on Laigles Forum early next week and will then also become available in Europe on their site), will show you why the idea of a common border under the Schengen Agreement in Europe will not, and cannot work. And should show even diehard globalists why the Barroso visa-free travel idea is suicidal folly. 3—A report by renowned Brazilian academician Olavo de Carvalho, editor of the site Mídia Sem Máscara, who I believe in terms of his courage and the earnestness of his sense of historic mission, can justifiably be called the Solzhenitsyn of Brazil, if not of Latin America. This report, entitled Por trás da subversão (Behind the Subversion), provides further details supporting the Whistleblower report mentioned above, but goes further, establishing a link between the CFR and the American Left and a hard-to-ignore conspiratorial pattern of at least part of that agency. Our translation, authorized by the author, will appear early next week on Laigle's Forum.

The problem with these reports is, or has been: 1—Whistleblower is not available on most newsstands (though I firmly believe that any American who is not a subscriber is seriously under-informed). 2—The HazteOir.0rg report has been available only in Spanish heretofore (we’re changing that, see above). Thus, even in Europe, this report has targeted a limited audience. 3—Likewise, Mr. de Carvalho’s report has been available only in Portuguese (we’re changing that too. Stand by).

Thus, far from being able to connect the dots, the average American reader has not even been privy to the dots themselves.

The Spanish report does not consciously attempt to establish any thesis of the flawed nature of a supranational government. It doesn’t have to. It teaches by example.

The above-referenced May 2006 issue of Whistleblower does, but without mentioning the Spanish example, which is mostly known to Spanish-speaking blog readers and precious few Americans.

Mr. de Carvalho’s article best establishes the link between the CFR and the Latin American Left, but not from the standpoint of illegal immigration.

But may I now suggest that not only is the CFR the prime mover in the de facto open-border policy pursued by America’s elite, but that the group is also behind this administration’s push for a North American Union and that the open-border policy is part of that push.

May I suggest that not only is there an international push on the part of the Left and their—in part unwitting—allies in the CFR that tends to keep our borders open and permeable but that there is a European link as well. And, wittingly or unwittingly, ranking EU members, notably EU President Barroso, are an important part of ultimately making America more vulnerable to unwanted trespass, almost certainly including terrorists. Is this a conspiracy?

While the CFR and its loyal followers in the Senate and White House advocate a supranational entity that would ultimately subjugate the US to the will of countries whose values we absolutely do not share, and should not share (Canada and Mexico), the EU, which has already bought into the globalist lie that sharing borders with one’s “continent mates” would inevitably lead to more safety and security for its members, wants us to share in its lofty ideal, an ideal whose embodiment is failing in Europe. So unsuspecting Americans face not only the threat of a supranational government foisted upon them by the CFR and its allies, but also the additional, possibly more formidable, threat of another supranational entity, the EU, invading our shores with hordes of Europeans in name only (EINOs)!

What almost no one will admit, on either side of the Atlantic, is that a rogue state like Spain, with borders open to terror-exporting countries like Morocco, for example, already endanger the rest of the EU members by encouraging illegal immigration through the so-called “call effect” (as explained in the soon-to-appear translation of the HazteOir.org report). (An extremely small number of European sites are carrying any news of this, although a search of the term “call effect” and its equivalents in French (effet appel), German (Ruf-Effekt) and Italian (effetto chiamata), for example, will bring up a handful of sites for each, mostly reports on the phenomenon as it relates to Spain.)

And thanks to the Schengen Agreement, which effectively eliminates borders around each member state, any terrorist who leaks through the wide-open border of Spain will no doubt eventually head for another member state. This is because, for the moment, Zapatero has made Spain quasi terror-proof by siding with terror, pulling out of the US-led coalition in Iraq, and also precisely through the terror-friendly immigration policy we are discussing here.

So not only has the concept of shared borders in the EU in fact endangered the memers, who signed on partly because they naively believed there was strength in numbers, but the EU, led by a Spaniard close to Zapatero, now wants to export its failed “openness” policy to the US with its idea of visa-free travel for Europeans.

Let’s be clear: under Zapatero’s new “Reglamento de Extranjería” in Spain, an analog of the US Senate’s “immigration reform” lunacy, a European is no longer a European but rather anyone whom leftist rogue nation Spain deems a European. The newly certified “Europeans” –mostly from Muslim countries, would then be eligible for travel to our shores where we would be powerless to stop them. And remember the mantra of the open-border elite during the last immigration debate: we can’t send that many people back.

Of course, I could just be making this up. I mean, I did a search on the sites of the New York Times and the Washington Post archives and did not bring up a mention of the “call effect” that is now a buzz word all over Europe (despite media attempts to spike the story).

De Carvalho mentions a similar chilling blackout perpetrated by prominent CFR members commenting on the far-left São Paulo Forum where leftwing politicians met (and meet) with drug kingpins (and find they have a lot in common). When queried about the Forum, the president of that forum, historian Kenneth Maxwell, denied that it even ever existed!

If you care about the future of our country, and/or your curiosity is piqued, stop by Laigle's Forum in a day or two (Monday at the latest) and read the translations of these remarkable articles, whose content you are not supposed to know anything about.

Unlike these authors, however, I make no bones about this: there is an international conspiracy to endanger the US by opening our borders, by eliminating visa requirements for “Europeans,” and eventually by creating a supranational government, the North American Union. In the broadest terms, the conspirators are the usual suspects: powerful activists of the Left, and that includes, in this country, operatives on both sides of the aisle whose lofty idealism completely clouds their minds. American politicians, concerned only about votes and job security, are more than willing to sign on to the potentially lethal agenda.

The good news: Once we can identify the activists, maybe we have a fighting chance of defeating their dangerous agenda. Stay tuned.

WARNING!!!
The term “conspiracy” is one someone in my position must – thanks to an unrelenting campaign by the so-called mainstream media (SCMSM) – use with great caution. (The participation of the SCMSM in all of this is the subject of another column.)

What is a “conspiracy?” While many terms have been altered over time, this one remains as:

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

If you agree that the denial of God-given freedoms is a wrongful or subversive act, read on.

If you do not agree, you will quickly dismiss what follows as a simplistic regurgitation of falsehoods your college professors debunked in those early history classes and go back to that New York Time crossword puzzle.

That said, I must warn you that it is impossible to discuss the United Nations WITHOUT, in the same breath, also discussing conspiracy.

Since the first caveman strolled from his den, spied his neighbor gnawing on a juicy T-Rex drumstick and smacked him on the head and took his lunch, men have been – off and on – making war with one another. Mostly on.

I don’t think anyone knows precisely when some men, in an effort to unite the nations into some sort of man-made “Heaven on Earth,” began cobbling together various associations with that goal.

The Old Testament may contain the first recorded account. It was called the Tower of Babel. It also tells us that God dealt with one of man’s earliest challenges to His order and authority by scattering the people and giving them different tongues to make it difficult or impossible for them to communicate and hatch plots for future challenges.

History from that time to this is filled with stories of various national alliances and associations formed for defensive and other purposes – some good, some evil. For those who love their freedoms, most have been of the evil variety.

With the exception of this now 24 decades long experiment in human liberty called “America” (the IDEA, not the PLACE), the vast majority of those who have walked the planet have lived as vassals, serfs or outright slaves of some king, emperor, potentate or despot or others who, by birth or some other arbitrary measure, considered themselves superior to their “lowlier” fellows.

In such works as Taylor Caldwell’s “The Captains and The Kings,” we get a glimpse of how some of those aforementioned evil associations came into existence. These are associations of what the powerful and wealthy – for want of a better term – “elites” have formed to do the ONE thing they feel compelled to do at all costs: Preserve and extend their power and wealth. While they may squabble among themselves over relatively trivial matters, even make national wars where other men fight and die over such trifles, they frequently come together when they sense a common threat to their vaunted positions.

The term “noblesse oblige” is defined as “the obligation of those of high rank to be honorable and generous (often used ironically) - the social force that binds you to your obligations and the courses of action demanded by that force; "we must instill a sense of duty in our children"; "every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty"- John D. Rockefeller Jr.

I confess that the urge to help those in need is a perfectly legitimate and – dare I use the term? – Christian thing to do. Indeed, Scripture commands it. But the use of force of law and/or arms in so doing is NOT God ordained behavior.

In a perverse variant of noblesse oblige, the OTHER thing many of these elites – at least those of the “utopian” mindset --feel irresistibly compelled to do is to “improve, even “perfect” mankind – by FORCE, if necessary. They are most frequently those of the “old money” variety with more time on their hands than those who are still grasping for that next rung on the economic and social ladder. While some of them are motivated by genuine altruistic impulses, many malignantly wish only to fashion a world in which THEIR position, power and wealth will never be threatened by those of “lower birth.”

Caldwell wrote – in far better terms than I – of one of the mid-19th century manifestations of this effort, to wit:

“Through the "League of Just Men", elitist conspirators
sought a fanatic to cloak the point of their purposes in
slogans and cant. The man they hired was Karl Marx.
Certainly Marx was no worker; he had never soiled his hands
with labor. He hated the middle class, which he
contemptuously called the bourgeoisie, for he considered
himself superior in mentality and breeding to what he called
‘the gross merchants of commerce and exploitation.’ He did
not attack the waiting despots, no indeed. They were of one
mind with him. Rather he proposed in his books and
pamphlets the return to government of the total power to
exact tribute from the people in order that government might
better direct every phase of the peoples' lives, as he
asserted, ‘for their own welfare.’ The elite, in turn,
would control the governments.” Taylor Caldwell
“The Middle Class Must Not Fail or All is Lost”

During a discussion of totalitarian socialism, I once had a fellow ask me “Why would these folks desire a system where the state owns and controls everything?” My answer was that if YOU’RE the state, it’s a pretty good deal.

The most recent precursor of the United Nations – Wilson’s so-called League of Nations -- was launched after the carnage of WWI, ostensibly as a way to prevent such wars in the future. There is compelling evidence that it was simply yet another golden opportunity for the utopian elites to fashion a world less threatening to their perpetuation in power.

It would, however, be necessary to try to sell it to the masses of “common men” whose sons had been gassed, maimed and killed in Europe in Wilson’s “war to make the world safe for democracy.”

As we all know, that attempt was unsuccessful and it took the carnage of WWII to bring what we know today as the United Nations into being.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.