Audacity and Diversion
By: Erik Rush
Bear with me whilst I discharge the vitriol before moving on to the underlying significance of events that followâ€¦
On Sunday, September 2, 2007 the Associated Press reported certain spiteful and arrogant remarks made by Mexican President FelÃpe Calderon upon the United Statesâ€™ immigration policies, our Congress and Americansâ€™ attitude toward illegal immigrants from Mexico in general.
“We strongly protest the unilateral measures taken by the U.S. Congress and government that have only persecuted and exacerbated the mistreatment of Mexican undocumented workers,” he said. “The insensitivity toward those who support the U.S. economy and society has only served as an impetus to reinforce the battle … for their rights.”
He also reached out to the millions of Mexicans living in the United States, many illegally, saying: “Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.” – Associated Press, Sunday, September 2, 2007
The â€œNew Rise of the Aztec Empireâ€ intimations (i.e., “Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico”) proffered by the opportunistic, tinhorn Third World potentate are mainly for the consumption of the uneducated masses and deluded power-seekers of his own nation. The danger lies in the fact that it gets picked up by U.S. news organizations and emboldens Latino activist organizations and the political Left in America.
With people employing rhetoric like this running around, whether they be heads of state, politicians, activists or just misguided folks, I find it a wonder that widespread anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican and even militant sympathies in this area have not begun to appear in America. To those who would argue that they have, bear this in mind: Individuals attempting to gain illegal access to most other countries on this planet are either arrested, shot, or both.
But you see: Calderon can get away with this â€“ and do you know why?
Because the Bush administration has no problem with it, and perhaps even endorses such speech for reasons evident to only the tiniest percentage of Americans. Why would the Bush administration assume such a position? Because it is engaged in such things as the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the surrealistically clandestine â€œcooperative effortâ€ between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. Because it is engaged in this draculoid effort to ram amnesty for illegals, pathetic immigration â€œreformsâ€ and stealth trade measures down Americansâ€™ throats.
â€œDrop your silly Atlantic solidarity and support us, Putin tells Westâ€
The Times of London, September 15, 2007
â€œPresident Putin called on the West yesterday to drop its â€˜silly Atlantic solidarityâ€™ if it wanted improved relations with Russia.
â€œHe accused America and some of the countries of the EU of harbouring outdated Cold War attitudes that led to distrust, particularly on issues such as energy security and trade.
â€œâ€¦He also warned the West to stop giving Russia blanket lectures on democracy. â€œWe will participate in any debate with our partners, but, if they want us to do something, they must be specific. If they want us to resolve Kosovo, letâ€™s talk Kosovo. If they are worried about nuclear programmes in Iran, letâ€™s talk about Iran, rather than talking about democracy in Russia.â€
Seems like the U.S. is receiving a lot of public chastisement from nations with which weâ€™ve exhibited unprecedented levels of cooperation lately. Now, why might that be?
â€œAlan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oilâ€
The Times of London, Sunday Edition, September 16, 2007
â€œAmericaâ€™s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
â€œIn his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bushâ€™s economic policies.
â€œHowever, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. â€˜I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,â€™ he says.
â€œGreenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.â€
You think? Granted, thereâ€™s no doubt the late Iraqi dictator posed just such a problem. Couching his analysis in the â€œwar was for oilâ€ conspiracy theory however, was irresponsible if not sexy. His competence as Fed Chairman notwithstanding, I would hasten to mention that Mr. Greenspan was a founding member of the Trilateral Commission (www.trilateral.org), the even more surrealistically clandestine, sinister (some have contended criminal) â€œcooperative effortâ€ involving statesmen, politicians and corporate power brokers from around the globe.
â€œFrom around the globeâ€: Read globalist â€“ meaning that primary allegiance to the United States of America among the Trilateral Commissionâ€™s American membership should automatically be highly suspect. The gravity of this fact cannot be overstated; I urge everyone who reads this to peruse their roster of members past and present.
Is it possible that all of the wrangling with our allies, former enemies and neighbors, as well as the monumental missteps of the last three administrations have been theatrics, part and parcel of a design to bring the U.S. first into an EU-style North American union, and finally one which combines the two and integrates with the former Soviet-bloc and certain developed Pacific Rim countries â€“ perhaps even China? After all, most of those are nations from which the Trilateral Commissionâ€™s membership originates.
Itâ€™s likely that these interests came to the salacious intellectual conclusion back in the early â€˜Seventies (when the â€˜Commission was founded) that they could stand together with more strength economically, socially and militarily than through such things as â€œsilly Atlantic solidarityâ€ (that did, nevertheless manage to keep Americans from having to learn Russian and adjust to bread lines for 40 years). All this under the leadership of individuals who are worldlier and wiser than the average American, Canadian, Mexican, European, Russian, Japaneseâ€¦ you fill in the blank.
Obviously Iâ€™m not keen on America being unequally yoked to various shades of socialist entities, Third World toilets and governments with questionable human rights records, but perhaps the oligarchs of these nations have agreed to disagree on less important issues and concentrate on ones of greater concern to their common survival.
I still havenâ€™t figured out how these well-entrenched, well-funded and well-organized self-appointed messiahs plan to handle such challenges as the worldwide Wahabbist Islamic terrorist movement, which seeks nothing less than global domination â€“ even if they have to lay waste to half the planet to do so.
A global police force, perhaps? How efficient it could be! Think of the combined resources availableâ€¦