I would say that is my main concern, not only one. I believe he continues to remain a member of that group. I've not heard or seen him say it's because he wants to 'keep tabs' on the enemies. He's never come out and said anything against their agenda. Additionally, when questioned about the North American Union, he feigns ignorance. I find that unbelievable. First of all, it is the CFR which is pushing for it. Secondly, there has long been discussions on this politically, in various forms. Thirdly, there is currently a House bill, sponsored by Virgil Goode, (H.C.R. 487):
"designed to express 'the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico and Canada.'"I also saw Thompson questioned on this very matter by a woman, who was shortly thereafter, removed from his presence during a press conference (it was outside, I believe). I find it odd that his feigned ignorance while his feathers seemed more than ruffled at the question being asked and then the woman being forcefully removed. This strikes me as Thompson knowing much more than he is admitting. And this leaves me to believe that his CFR days are not a thing of the past (especially seeing as how he is still a member), or that his membership had anything to do with a pro-American concern.
I find the CFR to be antithetical to all things American and, if I were a candidate, I would never join anything that resembled such an organization to begin with.
Based on these things, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusions. I am, however, glad we agree on the other matters, and look forward to further input you may have concerning those things. I believe your heart is in the right place, though we disagree on a particular issue, it appears.
I just realized you’re talking about something else. I was referring to Campaign Finance Reform, but you were talking about the Council on Foreign Relations, that’s what was throwing me off in your response.
I think where Fred stands is that he’s not an isolationist with respect to foreign policy (business or otherwise), so that may be also where you object. I myself would consider me to be a “globalist” (but this is not in the sense of selling out America, but recognizing we’re part of a vast market. I want the rest of the world to look like and become like us — not the other way around), and I think Fred is the same.
I would say that Fred believes in having foreign investment, but not an abject sell-out to foreign interests. This subject is often rife with demogoguery and perhaps the questions asked of him were loaded ones, or ones he simply couldn’t answer in a timely fashion (after all, most complicated questions can’t be answered in 10-second soundbytes). I sometimes see the Paulbots going after the candidates on this issue, and it is a rank appeal to unworkable isolationism, something absolutely ludicrous to pursue in the 21st century.
As a side issue you brought up, I do think anything related to business with Mexico (for example, say the Trans-Texas Corridor project) should be up for review, and we should apply sanctions if they themselves continue to refuse to stem the tide of illegals across the border.
I would personally hope that Fred would use these organizations (hell, even the UN) to our advantage rather than against it. We could remove ourselves from the UN or have our people disengage from CFR, but it won’t remove any of the underlying issues, which we still have to deal with.