Friday, August 3, 2007, 01:46 AM - Elections
, Foreign Policy
Posted by Administrator
It's official. Barack Obama has declared his globalist candidacy.
Obama has offered his views on foreign policy to the journal Foreign Affairs
, published by none other than the Council on Foreign Relations
. In doing so, he has pledged his allegiance not to the United States of America, but to the New World Order.The August Review
Prior to the founding of the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was the most significant body of global-minded elitists in the United States. As far back as 1959, the CFR was explicit about a need for world government.
This is the organization that published "Building a North American Community
", the document notorious for announcing the establishment of a North American Union. The CFR's agenda is the elimination of America's borders, sovereignty and democracy. If they have their way, there will be one world government. No more U.S. Constitution. Global fascism.
To be President of the United States, one must be a member or at least have the approval of the CFR and/or it's "twin" or extension the Trilateral Commission
. Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and Vice Presidents George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney were all members of the Trilateral Commission. President George W. Bush carried out the CFR's "North American Community" plan through the Security and Prosperity Partnership
. Senator Obama intends to advance their agenda as well if he is elected to the Presidency.
"After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent [by the Bush administration]," Obama writes
, "many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America."
He puts it more clearly, "the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders." This is the very idea that led us into Iraq, fighting the "War on Terror" over there, so that we don't have to fight it here. How has that policy worked out? We have created more terrorism and killed hundreds of thousands by invading Iraq. We have killed more civilians than terrorists
in our operations in Afghanistan (Obama wants
"to remove the limitations placed by some NATO allies on their forces").
For "America to lead the effort to build the road to a lasting peace [in the Middle East]," Obama writes
, "Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy." Obama wants to continue arming Israel, as a means of reaching peace in the Middle East. His plan for peace is to arm the country in the region which has the most aggressive foreign policy.
Of course, Obama intends for America to have an aggressive foreign policy as well. "88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas," he complains, clarifying that our defense, our "national guard" will operate through operations abroad. Our National Guard working abroad under the Bush administration has certainly not been good for America. Catastrophe's on the homeland which equal and perhaps surpass those caused by terrorism, such as Hurricane Katrina and the recent bridge collapse in Minnesota, could certainly have been handled better with more National Guard present. 88 percent of our National Guard do not need to be "ready to deploy overseas," they need to be here, protecting our borders and responding to emergencies.
On the issue of nuclear non-proliferation, Obama calls on
, William Perry
, Henry Kissinger
, and Sam Nunn
," globalist neoconservatives who were the leading foreign policy influences on the Bush administration.
"Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners," he says. He aims to "show Iran -- and especially the Iranian people -- what could be gained from fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations." Sanctions certainly did nothing to engage the economy or assure security and diplomatic relations in Iraq. Certainly they will not do the same for Iran.
His concern that "It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy," neglects the fact that Imam Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, condemned weapons of mass destruction and specifically nuclear weapons:
If they continue to make huge atomic weapons and so forth, the world may be pushed into destruction and the major loss will afflict the nations. Everybody, where he is, the writers, intellectuals and scholars and scientists throughout the world should enlighten the people of this danger, so that the masses of people will standup vis-à-vis these two powers themselves and prevent the proliferation of these arms.
Nuclear weapons are considered prohibited and against the Islamic Law. As this blog has previously demonstrated
, Iran is in compliance with the NPT, while the U.S. and Obama's good friend Israel violate it in many ways.Obama's intention
"to rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security" sounds right out of the CFR's own documents encouraging globalization. These are the alleged goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership
, which we could expect Obama to uphold in his administration.
Obama certainly intends to invest great resources into foreign "nation-building." he hopes to "build accountable institutions
that deliver services and opportunity: strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, honest police forces, free presses, vibrant civil societies."
Senator Obama, how do we "spur development
in poor countries" when employment and wages are in decline in our our country? How is your policy of using the military, National Guard, and other resources abroad any different than President Bush's?
Barack Obama's foreign policy is in tune with President Bush's. He will build up trade agreements, international authorities, the U.S. military, and foreign aid in a manner costly to American taxpayers and neglecting the core of America's foreign policy problem, the fact that other nations disrespect our imperialism.
Obama demonstrated his allegiance to the globalists by writing his piece for the CFR's Foreign Affairs
. He declared in the essay his commitment to maintain the neoconservative foreign policy of the Bush administration. A candidate such as Obama is not sufficient to restore America's internation reputation, security, and domestic welfare. Few candidates are. The next President of the United States must strictly reverse the policies of the Bush administration, the neoconservatives and the Council on Foreign Relations. Barack Obama will not be that president.Submitted by Douglass.