— What you won’t be reading in the Defeatist, Elitist Media (DEM):

— Signs are pointing in directions I find most disturbing

Spoiler and warning: many of my standard readers are going to find this post highly disquieting and bordering on heresy; I have myself written many times, however, that I am a Conservative first and a Republican second — and also that I am no apologist for President Bush. The facts are the facts and disputatious as one might be to the issues I present, that still does not change what is in evidence.

You won’t find this on Hugh Hewitt. Or Instapundit. Or PowerLine. Or any of the other blogs. Only here.

Read and draw your own conclusions.

BZ

_________________________

What Was the Motivation?

I freely admit: most of my recent posts seem to have consumed themselves with the issue of illegal immigration. At the risk of being repetitive I made post after post about the dangers and threats posed by illegal immigration. It’s my blog. I get to do that.

All along, I was asking myself: President Bush seems to be such an anomaly; in many ways he pans out to be conservative: he believes in the military, in (what I thought was) sovereignty, in defending America. His war on terror took guts and balls. He walked that tightrope seemingly all alone in the international community. He made two SCOTUS appointments.

On the other hand he contradicts himself by throwing massive amounts money at problems (witness his billions for AIDS thrown to countries whose governments are known for their corruption, disastrous governments and leaders whose penchant is to divert American dollars to numbered Swiss and Jamaican accounts; his promise to rebuild New Orleans — a city that is, again, rife with corruption and essentially unrebuildable in its present location; his tendency to pitch cash in every direction and to veto nothing budgetary; the US government has bloated during his tenure). This is not in keeping with minimal government and what many perceive to be basic Republican and, moreover, Conservative tenets.

Harriet Miers. The Dubai Ports deal. His failure to take a continuing hard and firm stand with regard to the looming social security crisis and, now, the most disconcerting tendency of all: President Bush’s hesitation to slam the door shut on illegal immigration.

So I had to ask myself: with regard to the immigration issue, what could President Bush be seeing that I myself am not? What other higher planes are there? What would be the overarching issues that I might not have yet considered?

The contradiction was huge as far as I was concerned: how could you be fighting a so-called War On Terrorism and fail to see the open northern and, more importantly, southern back doors? And how could one seemingly be in bed with the oily Vicente Fox? Mexican nationals admit Fox has done nothing to move the country forward in terms of creating jobs and moving the economy.

I posited in earlier posts: I was confused — as was most everyone else with Bush’s stance on the issue. I tried to break it down:

— Was Bush concerned about keeping and holding the Mexican/Hispanic vote? Why? — when a great percentage of Mexican voters side with the Democratic party?

— Why also not consider and address the issue of illegal immigrants not only finding fraudulent documentation but documentation that allows illegal voting as well?

— Was it a matter of oil? Mexico supplies a good portion of our imported oil; was there an “under the table” deal cut with Fox to keep the crude flowing?

What was the issue with President Bush and his failure to simply say: “Enough. Seal the borders. Build a fence. Address the employer issue. Use the Minutemen.”

And Bush’s labeling of our Minutemen as “vigilantes?” Totally reprehensible! At that point I wondered if our president was in fact a Dem in GOP clothing. Why is it that Jimmy Carter has praised Bush’s immigration stance?

The Reason May Be Hiding In Plain Sight

It was there all along; I just had to find it, read it and hear it. And you likely won’t care for the answer; I myself do not:

It would appear that President Bush is in the process of building a cabal with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexico’s Vicente Fox to create one large borderless American business enterprise — possibly in an attempt to compete with the European Union and other political and economic powerhouses.

And you wondered why NAFTA and, moreover, CAFTA?

Like the EU with its Euro, this new multi-national union (including, initially, the US, Canada and Mexico) would have its own monetary unit called the Amero.

The proof is here:

http://www.spp.gov/

There you will find the home page for the “Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America.” I quote directly from the homepage itself:

President George Bush, President Vicente Fox of Mexico, and Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada unveiled a blueprint for a safer and more prosperous North America when they announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) on March 23 in Waco, TX. They agreed on ambitious security and prosperity agendas to keep our borders closed to terrorism and open to trade. The SPP is based on the premise that security and our economic prosperity are mutually reinforcing, and recognizes that our three great nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions.

As the ads say: “But wait, there’s more!”

Guided by a Leaders Statement and Action Plans on Security and Prosperity, Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers convened trilateral working groups to develop concrete work plans and specific timetables for securing North America and ensuring legitimate travelers and cargo efficiently cross our shared borders; enhancing the competitive position of North American industries in the global marketplace; and, providing greater economic opportunities for all of our societies while maintaining high standards of health and safety.

“Ensuring legitmate travelers” pans out to be essentially anyone who wishes to cross the northern and southern borders of the United States unimpeded for the purposes of enriching any of the involved country’s GDP. The proposal is that the northern and southern US borders would for all intents and purposes disappear.

Do what I call the “logical extension.” Pushed further, this business protectorate would likely encompass, in time, not just Mexico to the south but most if not all of the Southern American states right down to Cape Horn.

At this point I should expect most of you are thinking: “BZ has surely lost his marbles on this one, seeing Groom Lake/Area 51 aliens in the closet, likely to be claiming his own abduction soon — and any other conspiracy theory that comes to mind.”

Oh no, dear reader; not just me. From Human Events Online regarding the plan to replace the US dollar, the Canadian dollar and the peso with the Amero:

Following the March 2005 meeting in Waco, Tex., the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published in May 2005 a task force report titled “Building a North American Community.” We have already documented that this CFR task force report calls for a plan to create by 2010 a redefinition of boundaries such that the primary immigration control will be around the three countries of the North American Union, not between the three countries. We have argued that a likely reason President Bush has not secured our border with Mexico is that the administration is pushing for the establishment of the North American Union.

This is clearly in plain sight. To continue from this article:

Pastor’s 2001 book “Toward a North American Community” called for the creation of a North American Union that would perfect the defects Pastor believes limit the progress of the European Union. Much of Pastor’s thinking appears aimed at limiting the power and sovereignty of the United States as we enter this new super-regional entity. Pastor has also called for the creation of a new currency which he has coined the “Amero,” a currency that is proposed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso.

Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation wrote a recent piece in the New York Post which provides some additional explanation:

May 19, 2006 — THINK the immigration debate boils down to whether the 10 million illegal immigrants already here deserve amnesty? Think again. The leading reform proposal in the Senate is Sens. Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA). If it becomes law, more than six times that figure will pour in – legally – over the next two decades. The original CIRA would’ve allowed as many as 100 million people to legally immigrate to the United States over the next 20 years. We’re talking about a seismic shift of unprecedented proportions.

Doing The Logical Extension

It would seem to me, all things considered, that President Bush is something of the covert Globalist. Should you think me the bit paranoid, I reprint a paragraph back in the Human Events article for reference:

If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero,” we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election. Pursuing any plan that would legalize the conservatively estimated 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States could well spell election disaster for the Republican Party in 2006, especially for the House of Representative where every seat is up for grabs.

This begs a wonderful question: knowing now about the nature of President Bush and his workings, would you have voted for his second term? Or even his first?

Or would you take the Standard Fallback of “he’s better than Gore”?

And knowing this now, how does it affect your view of the overall immigration issue?

If we as a nation want the South American/Mexican Model of government for our own, we are certainly well on our way.

Here is one example:

The Mob Takes On The State:

RIO DE JANEIRO is more beautiful, but residents of São Paulo boast that their city is safer. At least they did until May 12th, when a wave of violence orchestrated from within the prison system struck Brazil’s biggest city and several neighbouring towns. In five days of mayhem and retribution some 150 people, a quarter of them policemen, were killed; 82 buses were torched and 17 bank branches attacked. Rebellions erupted at 74 of the 140 prisons in São Paulo state. Schools, shopping centres and offices shut down; transport froze. For several days, Paulo-istanos could not even claim that their city was safer than Baghdad.

It was a show of force by the leaders of the state’s main criminal gang, the Primeiro Comando da Capital. Directing the violence by mobile phone from their prison cells, they cast sudden doubt on whether São Paulo, the engine of Brazil’s economy, is ruled by laws or by the mob. This is sure to be an issue in October’s presidential election, which pits the incumbent, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, against Geraldo Alckmin. As governor of São Paulo until March, it is Mr Alckmin who has carried the chief political responsibility for its security.

I submit this here and now: immigration and its linked agendas shall become a self-fulfilling prophecy; sort of a Pygmalion Effect.

There is a REASON that thousands want to immigrate to our nation.

Conversely, if we turn this nation into a carbon copy of what Mexicans and Southern Americans left — well then, dispirited, those that we embraced will leave us in droves for another model. Witness Mexico. Who stayed to fight? Who left? Do the math.

We are well on our way — at least in Fornicalia. Whilst in San Diego, Los Angeles and Long Beach I primarily heard the Spanish language being spoken around me. I knew that those who spoke it could understand English — they somehow managed to pay their bills and such — but other than the times absolutely necessary they reverted to Spanish.

I repeat at the risk of redundancy: I am most disturbed for the rest of us.

BZ

I will be in class in San Diego this week; next week I will be handling some personal issues and then, the following week, I’ll be taking a much-needed actual vacation.

My posting will be infrequent until the first week of June; I have not gone away. I just need some space, time off and time out.

Take care everyone; value your friends, your spouses, and those you love.

BZ

Rebecca of Revka’s Take had a great question in the comment section of my post, “Not What I Wanted, Not What We Need.” She asked:

Blo, I have a question no one has asked. Why now? Why hasn’t this been discussed and dealt with 20 years ago? Why is it now BUSH’S deal? Because of the upcoming election, and the ‘no-plan’ libs are using it to try and regain power. Be careful, because the libs have set the trap and we are getting caught up in it.

I responded in the comment section of that post, and would now care to expand on that response in the further light of day:

Rebecca:

Excellent question! The issue, at least in Fornicalia, has been brewing for many years. And yes, other presidents have had the chance to address the issue. But like most other humans, if people (particularly politicians) don’t HAVE to deal with an issue, they WON’T deal with an issue.

In Fornicalia it began under a man named S.I. Hayakawa, who was a large advocate for “English only” in the schools. He felt that English was the language of success not only nationally but internationally as well — as do I.

He became a Republican US Senator from Fornicalia, 1977 until 1983. He was an English professor at San Francisco State and then president of that college from 1968 to 1973. He also founded “US English,” which is a lobbying organization (to which I contribute) advocating, simply, English as the only language of the US.

Taking that stand, at that tumultuous time in a, shall we say, “left wing” college in a “left wing” area was, ahem, turbulent — and a stand taken by a Japanese man. But the issue was now on the table in Fornicalia, publically.

Fornicalia also passed Proposition 187 in 1995, by a 59% margin. 187 was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to deny illegal immigrants social services, health care, and public education. It was introduced by assemblyman Dick Mountjoy (Monrovia Republican) as the “Save Our State” initiative.

A number of other organizations were involved in bringing it to the voters. It passed with 59% of the vote, but was overturned by a federal court.

Proposition 187 included several additions to the law, falling into two categories:

— All law enforcement agents who suspect that a person who has been arrested is in violation of immigration laws must investigate the detainee’s immigration status, and if they find evidence of illegality they must report it to the attorney general of California, and to the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Local governments are prohibited from doing anything to impair the fulfillment of this requirement. The attorney general must keep records on all such cases and make them available to any other government entity that wishes to inspect them.

— No one may receive public benefits until they have proven their legal right to reside in the country. If anyone applies for benefits and is suspected by government agents of being illegal, those agents must report in writing to the enforcement authorities. Emergency medical care is exempted as required by federal law but all other medical benefits have the same test as above. Primary and secondary education is explicitly included.

This started a secondary push and there was, of course, massive resistance from the Left — despite the clear stance of the People.

Then-Governor Pete Wilson supported 187; State Senator Art Torres referred to Prop. 187 as “the last gasp of white America in California.” Battle lines were being drawn already.

In southern border states the issue has been on the table for a number of years. It simply took the national fire time to make the pot begin to boil over.

Fast forward to now: let us not forget those who are constantly pushing for more and free entitlements. The “demonstrations” and a “Day Without Immigrants” won over only those already so driven in the Mexican community; the rest of the nation motored on its way. In my opinion the demonstrations and The Day resulted in the issue being further pushed to the forefront where President Bush was finally thrust into a political corner and knew he must appear to act in some fashion.

It’s only Bush’s Baby because of timing. He had a massive opportunity to make one of his famous stands early on and, instead, has chosen to not recognize the true nature of national feelings and wishes on the issue. We need a fence and we need it now.

I will give President Bush this — and I can think of this stance as being the only reason to be such a obfuscator on the immigration issue: he may be fearful that a hard-line stance on immigrants from Mexico will cause that nation to turn Hard Left — not unlike Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Or: the devil he knows vs. the devil he doesn’t. That or an “under the table” oil deal.

BZ

P.S. to Rebecca:

I see, now that Mexico has threatened to sue the US for its intent to place NG troops on the border, your gloves appear to be coming off. Good!

Some pundits are predicting $4 for a gallon of gas by mid-summer. Others are indicating $5 per gallon by summers’ end. Britain, at this point, pays roughly $6.50 per gallon. Some are indicating we will exceed that price by 2007.

However, just yesterday the price for a barrel of oil fell below $70 — over a slightly weaker demand and rising inflation. Some business analysts thought the selloff was triggered by profit-taking.

The Associated Press said:

Saudi Arabia said Monday that the market is well supplied, in part because high prices have trimmed consumption levels.

“There is no lack of capacity right now,” Saudi oil minister Ali Naimi told reporters on the sidelines of an energy conference in Amman, Jordan. Asked about the impact of high prices, Naimi said: “In general, when prices are high, people check their pockets and when they are lower, they open them.”

Light, sweet crude for June delivery fell $2.63 to settle at $69.41 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. That followed a drop of $1.42 on Friday.

That’s but one small blip on the petroleum screen. What are, for example, the Saudis and oil producing countries saying about the long-term future of oil? From NewsMax.com:

AMMAN, Jordan – Saudi Arabia’s oil minister warned Arab producers Sunday not to expect continued growth in prices and demand for oil.

Ali al-Naimi said prices could plummet if an economic crisis drives industrialized nations to find other sources of energy, citing the 1980s – when oil prices dropped by 80 percent after such nations reduced their dependency on oil and turned to alternative energy sources.

”Global economic growth may not continue at the same good momentum for years to come,” al-Naimi said at the opening of a four-day conference of Arab energy ministers in Amman. ”We should be careful and not take expectations as indisputable, especially the continuation of big demand for oil and its prices remaining at the same level or increasing,” he said.

Al-Naimi also cited the Asian economic crisis of 1997-1998, when oil prices fell by 50 percent, slowing Arab oil production.

”Some are even concerned about a looming economic problem because of the increased policies of economic protectionism, or what is known as economic nationalism,” al-Naimi said, referring to Western countries’ determination to become less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

Still, oil prices are about 48 percent higher than a year ago, a reflection of the market’s fear about real and possible output disruptions at a time when the world’s supply cushion is perilously thin. Only Saudi Arabia has any spare production capacity, but it is less than 2 percent of the daily global demand of almost 85 million barrels and not the high quality crude that refiners prefer, analysts said.

This does not have to be an all-or-nothing equation. We can attack the petroleum issue on a number of levels at once should we choose to do so. We can drill in ANWR. We can drill off our own shores. We can begin personal conservation. We can move to ethanol.

We can do all this and more should we choose to do so. And doing so would be the way to go — particularly considering the countries from which we import oil are generally regimes of great instability — the Middle East, Venezuela, Ethiopia, even Mexico. The sooner we can divest ourselves of our economic need to deal, on bended knee, with these countries, the better off we will be politically, militarily and economically.

The writing is on the wall. Already some factions are worried about their future and their hold on us.

BZ

President Bush delivered his prime time speech tonight. It was not what I wanted and not what I believe we need at this time. It was a step — but altogether too tentative and made, in my opinion, only because Bush knows the crosshairs of the National Scope are focused on the bridge of his nose by everyone trying to dethrone not only Bush but all the GOP as well.

With this speech, he further allows the ELECTION crosshairs to be focused BY the Democrats, the DEM (Defeatist, Elitist Media), dissatisfied Republicans and Conservatives on not only himself but the GOP in future elections this year. And that, friends, is not good.

WHY is this such a difficult issue for people to get their minds around?

If we’re not serious about OUR security, about securing our OWN borders, then why, I ask, are we even in Iraq? Why is there more security WITHOUT this nation than WITHIN?

Or is President Bush “misunderestimated” once again? He does admit in the speech:

Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I’m calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we’ll increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we’ll have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency.

President Bush also wants the National Guard on the border. I’ve thought about this for some time since his recent announcement.

And I’ve decided that, unless we’re going to shoot coyotes and drug runners (and I am convinced we do NOT have the national resolve to do this) then NG deployment is a smokescreen designed to jerk the electorate off under the table. We would be better served to keep NG troops available for foreign deployments, and instead FURTHER increase the number of USBP officers. THEY are the ones who 1) do the work, 2) know the terrain and 3) that’s their job!

Will we use the National Guard when elders want to cross streets?

This speech may only please those illiterates who have not been paying attention to the entire issue at all — to be blunt.

Both parties don’t seem to want to do anything about the issue — and that appears to be the bottom line at this point. A bottom line like this will only hurt the GOP and certainly not the Democrats. And the DEM will, of course, pile on.

Harriet Miers, the Dubai Ports issue, the massive budget and now immigration. These are the issues causing consternation with GOP internals. And splitting us horribly whilst the Dems and the DEM rub their hands with glee.

But on the other hand I can understand why Conservatives draw a line and say: “No more. Here, once again, is where the GOP and me part ways.”

It is because Conservatives have an actual position and are loathe to eject that position. Above and beyond Republicans. And Bush Apologists. It is why I read A Jacksonian.

Here is a paragraph in Bush’s speech that speaks, as I am wont to say, volumes about his thoughts regarding Mexico:

The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime, and to reduce illegal immigration.

Is Mexico truly our friend? Is Fox our friend? Are people providing maps to cross the border our friend? Are drug runners our friend? Is La Mordida our friend? Are armed border incursions conducted by our friends?

I was indifferent regarding a fence. Until today. Now I am a supporter of a fence. And TAX ME for it — I will GLADLY pay some additional buckage for same. It appears to be working for the Israelis.

I would also ask: if it is such a wondrous thing, why is there NOT a “virtual fence” surrounding the White House? Any answer for that, Mr. President?

This speech reminds me of someone’s impacted prostate: dribbling at best.

BZ