Council on Foreign Relations - Whose Side Are They On?

I was asked today to expand on recent on recent comments the the Concil on froeign Realtions gets unfair criticism on the issues of borders, national security and American svoereignty.

Oddly enough, the CFR has been pushing plan to greatly increase border security and Homeland Security and yet the urban legend is that they favor open borders and combining The United States with Canada and Mexico - they get a bad rap sometimes when they don't deserve it.

Sure. I have some disagreements with the Council on Foreign Relations on immigration - specifically I don't think they take the problem of the existing illegal population seriously enough - their position on existing illegals is similar to the President's whereas I favor a harder line.

But, if you read message boards and blogs you could get the impression that the CFR is for abandoning U.S. sovereignty and supports open borders when that is completely false.

The CFR has long been on record as wanting increased border protection - they have a position paper calling for a high tech security screen all around the united State with no-one going in or out with a government issued electronic I.D.

This will require cooperation with the Mexican and Canadian governments which allows some pundits to mischaracterize the CFR position. The CFR also uses the word "community" to describe the three nation cooperation and that terms is often claimed to somehow mean they want open borders.

This is document in question. Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010

The title sounds scary but people who criticize this document seldom quote from it because a through read makes it clear that the CFR endorses strong border security and and is completely respectful of U.S. sovereignty.

Here are the key points

>>Develop a border pass for North Americans. The chairs propose a border pass, with biometric indicators, which would allow expedited passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout North America. "The governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically reducing the need for physical scrutiny of traffic, travel, and trade within North America."<<

>>Adopt a unified Border Action Plan. The three governments should "strive toward a situation in which a terrorist trying to penetrate our borders will have an equally hard time doing so no matter which country he elects to enter first. "First steps should include: harmonized visa and asylum regulations; joint inspection of container traffic entering North American ports; and synchronized screening and tracking of people, goods, and vessels, including integrated "watch" lists. Security cooperation should extend to counterterrorism and law enforcement, and could include the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence center and joint training for law enforcement officials.<<

The Homeland Security Department has now adopted a very similar proposal

>>National Border Patrol Strategy

Published March 28, 2005

Created by the Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection, this Strategy seeks "operational control of (the US') border, and particularly...borders with Mexico and Canada" by means of personnel, technology, increased checkpoints,enforcement, and intelligence, and changes in command structure.<<

Homeland Security Depatment National Border Patrol Strategy

It's totally fair to criticize the CFR (or anybody else) if they suggest something foolish or short sighted but it is troubling to see them criticized on borders when they are a strong voice for secure borders and protecting sovereignty.

My Islamic Plumber

We have a home warranty and today they assigned a plumber to fix a couple of toilets. There were some complications so we had a long while to talk - it was very eye opening.

The plumber is a polite guy, born and raised in Atlanta as a Baptist about 5 miles from where I grew up. He is a convert to Islam and says he attends the largest mosque in Atlanta.

Some of the things he said just blew me away and I wanted to share. This isn't somebody from a foreign country - he is a native Georgian.

He said (and he was very matter of fact about all this as if none of it would possibly be disputed)

1. There was no way 9/11 was done by Muslims. Bin Laudin always claims responsibility when he does something and he said right away he didn't do it. Everybody at the mosque knows the tapes where he supposedly said he did it were unintelligible and the translation was fake. Nobody at the mosque thinks Muslims could do 9/11. You have to look at who benefitted - we didn't benefit. The people who want war and wire tapping benefitted.

2. The suicide bombers aren't Muslims. Muslims can't kill women. You can kill a child before you can kill a woman. Jihad has to be fought with your chest - out front, not with your side or your back. I don't know who is doing the bombings but everybody at the mosque is sure it isn't Muslims.

3. The President of Iran is saying those things about Israel and the bomb to get President Bush to attack Iran. He (the Iranian president) doesn't care about his life or the lives of Iranians - he cares about the after-life. A world war is coming and the war with Iran will be part of what sets it up - Syria and Pakistan will join the war on Iran's side.

4.There are millions of people ready to die for Islam. They are all peaceful. Islam means peace. But when it clicks that the final war has started they will die for Islam.

5. Ayatollah Khomeni captured the Shah of Iran and castrated him and paraded his head through the streets. (Historical note - the Shah died in Egypt after President Carter's decision to allow him into the United States for treatment triggering the embassy takeover, hostage crisis and the most screwed up rescue operation in U.S. history.)

6. Muslims are peaceful people who just want to live a simple life. But when people stop them from living that life, when people won't leave them alone, they have to fight. They have to jihad.

7. "I just wish we could have one generation of peace for my children to live for a while before it starts."

It boggles my mind how two guys who grew up so close together could wind up so far apart. I didn't even try to change his mind about anything - that train has left the station.

Well, actually I did tell him that I was certain that Al Quaida was behind 9/11 and that we had identified all the hijackers but it had no effect.

This experience left me feeling quite pessimistic. I just don't understand how this set of beliefs are possible.

25 Years ago today President Reagan was shot

There are many sad things about that day, but one hopeful memory stands out for me.

I was in American history class when we found out. The history teacher was extremely liberal. When we heard President Reagan had been shot some of the students began to cheer.

The teacher became furiously angry with them demanding that they shut up and show respect for our President and our country. When she calmed down she explained that when we face hostility it is key that all Americans band together if we want our country to survive.

It was an important lesson.

Pub has to pay a fine for murder from 1664 - and how it relates to smoking

The Times Online reports A PUB must pay a fine for a murder on its premises more than 300 years ago.

Auditors discovered the long-forgotten penalty for The Swan in Ipswich, Suffolk, while balancing the books for the town’s St Mary Le Tower Church Charities.

The annual bill of 40 shillings, equivalent to £2, seems to be a punishment for a killing in 1664 when Charles II was king.
---------
It was a huge amount of money in 1664 — a labourer would have to work for six months to earn 40 shillings.
------------------------------------------------
Whenever we discuss smoker's rights the topic of bans on smoking in restaurants always comes up.

One side argues that private property rights should permit the restaurant owner to allow smoking if he chooses.

The other side usually focuses on the risk posed by second hand smoke.

I thought the case above was interesting because it showed a tavern owner being legally responsible for the safety of the patrons of a pub open to the public -what we would call today a place of public accommodation. That's basically like modern laws - They made the pub responsible for the safety of their customers.

Although as a person who favors small government, I can't say I'm happy about looking for old claims through history and making descendants pay up - we already have too many lawsuits.

Double helix found in space - Intelligent design?

">Is there any significance to a nebula in the shape of DNA?

Rules for security clearances for gays modified

The Backcountry Conservative blog has an article about the rules for security clearances for homosexuals being modified. The new changes mean clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual.

On the surface, the Bush administration seems to be compromising when they say that homosexual relationships "strictly private, consensual and discreet" could "mitigate security concerns." This seems in line with Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

But there is an additional factor with regard to security clearances vulnerability to blackmail. It is often a condition of a security clearance that anything (like homosexuality or cross dressing or prior drug use) be disclosed to those around the applicant so he will not be vulnerable to blackmail.

It appears that the Bush administration has recipe to keep homosexuals out of all military positions that require security a clearance. If the "tell" they are out of the military. If they "don't tell" they are vulnerable to blackmail and not eligible to get the security clearance needed for key assignments.

Latino suffering from Katrina

An article in the Santa Maria Times begins: "We didn't need another report to tell us that there was negligence and mismanagement in the federal government's handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but we got it anyway.

We didn't need a video showing us that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and President Bush had been briefed ahead of time about the eminent threat Katrina posed to New Orleans - it was obvious from the start.

What we had not seen until now is to what extent Latinos were unfairly treated before and after the devastating hurricane hit the Gulf Coast."

I am very sorry that our Latino citizens and legal residents suffered from the worst natural disaster to hit the U.S. As a Christian, I am also sorry that the illegals got hurt.

And I sympathize with concerns about the efficiency of aid delivery. Even in those areas where there was competent local government we are still talking about a gigantic Federal bureaucracy and we all know those have inefficiencies.

But I reject claims that we are not spending enough, we are spending billions upon billions.

And I reject efforts to use the disaster as an excuse to attach liberal social policy whether it's seizing legal guns in New Orleans or demanding affirmative action for the boards of charities. I reject the premise that illegal aliens should be guarenteed extra labor rights - they are in the country illegally and they need to leave.

But I'm really sorry that any part of the American family got hurt and I hope they recover as much as possible. The Latino community shares the traditional American work ethic so there is every reason to be hopeful.

The politics of (hurricane) destruction

It was pointed out to me today that Mayor Nagin of New Orleans is sticking very close to President Bush after previously being unreasonably critical of the President, denying any personal responsibility and claiming the CIA might kill him for criticizing the President.

Maybe Nagin thinks that the CIA can't get to him if he is inside the Secret Service ring... :)

President Bush on the other hand has avoided personal attacks and focused on correcting problems and getting results... now if he could only find offsets for the new spending.

In-state rates for illegal immigrants challenged

WASHINGTON – Nearly 4,000 Texas students would face a major tuition hike or loss of state financial aid if a conservative legal group successfully challenges a state law that has made college affordable for many illegal immigrants.

Well, that would be one way to put it. Another way would be that 4000 illegal immigrants are taking subsidized slots that are supposed to be reserved for in-state citizens.

Yet another way would be to say that 4,000 people have been caught stealing from the tax payers.

"Let's just call it what it really is," said Adrian Rodriguez, Texas LULAC's chief of staff. "This isn't about human rights for all of the citizens of the United States. This is about bigotry and racism."

Well, it is biased in that it favors people who are legitimately in the country but it has nothing to do with bigotry or race - many Texas citizens and legal residents are also of Mexican decent (about half, in fact)- every illegal who takes a slot could just as easily be taking it from someone else of the same race but who isn't breaking the law.

Another reason it's not about race is that the suit is directed at all illegals, not just illegals from Mexico... they could be British or Canadian but if they are not citizens then we should not be subsidizing their education.

Top 10 flaws in the conservative agenda- part 2

5. The "war on drugs" - Nobody rational thinks cocaine and heroine should be legal because widespread use would constitute a clear and present danger to the Republic. But at the same time it isn't rational to fill up the prisons with non-violent users of soft drugs who just wanted to quietly get intoxicated. We might as well have a "war on saturated fat" for all the good that does.

4. Writing off the blue states. Yes, the majority rules in a democracy but in our Republic minorities have rights too. A conservative seeking to live his life without being oppressed in a blue state is just as valuable and just as many rights as if he lived in a solid red state.

3. Attacking dissenters. One important principles is for each person to be true to his beliefs even in the face of a majority who disagrees. You didn't see Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan changing their position because of some new poll. When a conservative breaks with the majority of his party on principle we need to respect that and not attack him personally. Otherwise we wind up with only sheep who don't dare think for themselves and a few leaders who think their job is to maintain purity.

2. Falling for the obvious. A mother blames the president for her son's death in Iraq. Conservative bloggers quickly go after her. Someone suggests the Teletubbies are gay - conservatives quickly want them banned. The Dixie Chicks say they are ashamed to be from the same state as the President - conservatives flood radio station with demands that their songs be banned. These knee jerk reactions to things that "conservatives" don't like just makes the conservative movement look intolerant and foolish. It is so predictable. And here in Atlanta when the bloggers discredited one grieving mother, the newspaper just picked a different grieving mother to focus on and the conservatives look both vicious and ineffective. These people are allowed to speak and if we disagree we should argue our side, not fall for the obvious and go for the censorship knockout.

1. Being mean in general. It is one thing to disagree. It is another to attack those who disagree. President Bush43 gets this - that is why he is President. Conservatism means respecting traditional rights and values not about hurting others. It feels like too many conservative pundits enjoy the battle more than the principles. On the biggest conservative board you can be banned for suggesting looking inward - if we treat those who disagree decently we don't need to be afraid to look inward.

Top 10 flaws in the conservative agenda

10. Privacy - the abortion debate debate has led conservatives to argue that there is not right to privacy - nothing is more conservative that the right to privacy - in our homes, in our cars and in our persons.

9. Equating conservatism with the religious right. Not all conservatives wish to impose morality on others. many conservatives recognize the right individual choices and then taking responsibility for those choices. Even Barry Goldwater was attacked and ostracized for addressing this point.

8. Intelligent Design: I believe in intelligent design - God is intelligent and he designed the universe. But ID has become a means to sneak religion into public schools. This is bad because it is dishonest and it is bad because it requires attacking science and makes conservatives look backwards. If we want religion in public schools we should change the constitution to allow it personal expression of religion anywhere including school.

7. Global warming. The earth is warming - it really is. Conservatives are wasting their time arguing that global warming is a myth when 100+ years of scientific evidence and the U.S government say the climate is getting warmer. Conservatives should refocus on the cause of the warming - if it is not man-made then it may not be in our power to stop it and while the Kyoto accords may be useless the problem is still real.

6.The relationship with minorities: Lincoln, Republican, freed the slaves (at least that what people believe), and most minority communities share many conservative values but they don't vote conservative? Why? I believe it is because conservatives has lost sight of the importance of individual freedom - this is particularly important if you are a minority. Minorities and conservatives are a natural alliance if we re-focus on individual rights and freedoms - classic conservative values.

Next post - the top five flaws in the conservative agenda.

Conservative groups oppose Roberts over pro bono work

Two conservative public-policy groups are refusing to support President Bush's nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court due to his donating time to homosexual activists who subsequently won a key high-court case

Full article from Worldnet Daily

---

Rational Conservative Commentary:
Conservatives have been demanding judges who will follow the constitution and not invent new laws. The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. The Colorado law in question forbid cities from passing laws that required equal protection. It would be hard to think of a more unconstitutional law based on strict interpretation and yet groups claiming to be conservative now oppose supreme court nominee John Roberts because he did pro bono work on the case in support of equal protection.

Being conservative doesn't mean following the constitution except when you wish to hurt people who are different - it means following the constitution all the time. These groups are not acting as conservatives but rather as religious police roaming the land beating up conservatives who try to apply American principles fairly and equally.

---

The trial court's grant of a preliminary injunction was sustained by the Colorado Supreme Court, which held that Amendment 2 was subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it infringed the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to participate in the political process.

Findlaw case summary - Romer vs. Evans

---

"His actions not only cast doubt on his support of the American family, but also raise the possibility that Roberts will join the activist wing of the Supreme Court," said Delgaudio. "In Romer vs.. Evans we saw another example of the radical homosexual lobby loosing democratically and having to use the activist Supreme Court to force their agenda on the American people.

Complete Public Advocate statement on Roberts

---

Rational Conservative Commentary:
There is a tendency in conservative circles to turn against anyone that the fundamentalists decide is not bent on imposing their brand of Christianity on others - it is ugly when it happens and if happened to Barry Goldwater it can happen to any conservative.