After reading the rest of this thread (at least through #733), I have concluded that I ought to do some further research and reading on the extent to which our government has bought into the grand experiment called an "Integrated North America" or the "North American Union", and to what extent that plan would erode the traditional loyal American conservative values you and I share. I have also decided that I do not know nearly enough about the details of the NAU. Despite having to do some additional homework, I remain very suspicious of the CFR, its membership and it's influence within and among our highest elected representatives. If this sounds like I no longer trust the federal government, that's because I don't.
One last point. In catching up on this thread, I noticed someone asked you if you are related to a certain Gneral Rokke who is a member of the CFR. You responded:
" Yes. And just one more reason why I know what I'm talking about when I describe the motives and loyalties of many of the members of the CFR. I've worked for or have known several of them. Every single one of them men who have dedicated (and in many cases risked) their lives to preserving American sovereignty. 715 posted on 05/22/2006 3:47:29 PM PDT by Rokke"
This would appear to render you somewhat, if not entirely, conflicted on the CFR issues under discussion. That need not have been the case had you openly disclosed this important fact. But you did not, instead waiting until you were asked a direct question by hedgetrimmer. We're not talking about a third cousin here, Rokke, but a parent whom you would of course protect and defend no matter what. Others on this thread with an anti-CFR/NAU position deserved to know about this well before post #715.
Being obviously conflicted in this manner, why did you not disclose it early on so as to avoid even the appearance of familial bias? You have a horse in this race and you should have disclosed it from the beginning.
As I previously stated, I have an innate mistrust with what is not transparent. Disclosure and openness are moves in the direction of transparency. Coincidentally, it is that same transparency which is also missing from the proponents of the trilateral, the NAU, and statements from the CFR.
Well, I've got to hand it to you. That quality of logic is at least as consistent as the rest of the CFR bashers on this thread who can't support their arguments. So let me get this straight. The only people who can effectively debate the objectives, mindsets and goals of the CFR and its members are people who neither belong to the CFR or even know anyone in the CFR. Obviously, I should also avoid discussing issues related to being a male, Christianity, and monogamy. The reason I didn't post I have a family member in the CFR is because that fact is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the discussion, which was SUPPOSED to be a point by point discussion of a single CFR document. As it has become OBVIOUSLY apparent that no CFR basher on this thread is capable of debating anything, nevermind a single CFR document, I could be the President and founder of CFR and it wouldn't matter to this thread.