by Don Hank
Having a blog often provides information and views from readers that can lead to new hypotheses through inductive reasoning.
You may remember the Muslim who contacted me the other day and, alluding to the much publicized Koran burning at a Florida church, practically demanded that I support the creation of a US law prohibiting offending the Prophet Mohammed. I went toe to toe with Mahmoud and eventually backed him down, but the entire exchange led me to predict that at some point there would be a major push in our government to prohibit speech “offensive to Muslims.” Here was my evidence:
1—I knew that Europe had already made and was enforcing such dhimmi laws and a lot of ordinary people were being hurt by them. Some were being jailed, others were paying draconian fines and in at least one case, a Christian couple who ran a bed and breakfast in Britain almost lost their business thanks to the intervention of the thought police in a very personal matter involving politically incorrect witnessing for Jesus.
2—I sensed that Mahmoud was not acting alone. He was a fairly well educated Muslim, and was no doubt a leader in spearheading pro-Muslim change in the world. He didn’t just debate me on line for the sport of it. His responses were too detailed and elaborate for that.
There was definitely something – and someone, most likely a large group or groups — behind the idea, even if they didn’t necessarily put him up to writing me. Sure enough, the ink was scarcely dry on my article when the internet started buzzing with the news that GOP Senator Lindsay Graham and his Democrat colleagues were considering proposing a new bill that would ban offenses to the Prophet.
Another example of a trend in American opinion that I suspect is in the offing but that I had not heard of before is reflected in an email I received today. I expect it too to go ballistic, not on the grassroots level but thanks to the services of church leaders and other influential members of the Ruling Class.
The email friend in question hypothesized that GW Bush knew a supranational world government was inevitable and knew he could not head it off altogether, so he decided to join the Security and Prosperity Partnership and other supranational schemes so that we could have a choice spot at the table. This friend referred me to the writings of a Malachi Martin, who had written a book showing that the Catholic church is interested in joining the push for a one-world government, for at least 2 reasons:
1—A One-World Government is inevitable anyway, and
2—If the church gets its foot in the door early Christians (read Catholics) can get a choice seat at the negotiating table and look out for their interests.
Aside from the fact that this leaves out all Christians mindful of the biblical ban on being unequally yoked, this is eerily reminiscent of the early arguments in favor of granting communist China most-favored nation status. The buzz was that China would inevitably become a world economic power and we needed to get in on the deal early to profit from this “vast new market” that would soon open up. Implicit in this propaganda point was that here was a seller’s market for the US and we would sell high technology to the Chinese while buying some of their goods and maintaining a healthy balance of trade.
We all know how that turned out, now that China owns a hefty share of US debt and a military arsenal nearly equivalent to ours, and has become a vast new sucking sound in the US economy and trade balance.
But back to my friend’s email. If what he said was true – that is, if Bush believed that the One-World Government was inevitable but in his heart rejected the idea — why didn’t he go before the American people and tell them why he was for this idea that would cost them sovereignty but would also pay big dividends in the end? If he really thought it was a great idea because it would give America a choice spot at the bargaining table, and further, that the scheme would inevitably materialize no matter what anyone did, then why didn’t he convince us of that instead of stealthily planning a meeting in Canada behind closed doors and with some of the tightest security ever?
Or better yet, since he supposedly was not in favor of the scheme, when approached by his homologues in Canada and Mexico, respectively, he could have easily said in the media, eg, on TV or in the press:
“My fellow Americans,
The presidents of Canada and Mexico have invited me to sit down and discuss a plan for rapprochement with their governments in a way that would transfer some of our sovereignty to them — and vice-versa — and give them the opportunity to help in making decisions that traditionally have been made by your national government. It would be modeled along the lines of the EU.”
Since this is a matter of national importance and involves forfeiting some US power and influence, I wanted to bring it before the American people and let you vote on it in a referendum. Please let me know whether you are willing to let Mexico and Canada participate in our national government for the common good of all three of our nations.
Before you tell us your opinion on this, I want a vigorous debate in the media, for example, on radio and TV, so that no one has the idea we are trying to do this behind your backs.
Thank you and God bless America.”
Bush then could have arranged for a referendum or persuaded one of the polling companies to take a poll of Americans and see if they are willing to give up some of their sovereignty in the interest of “security and prosperity” on the strength of only a vague promise, without much explanation of the mechanism by which such a scheme could make any of us more secure and prosperous (particularly since illegal aliens from Mexico – those not occupying our federal prisons or terrorizing the ghettos — were even then taking our jobs and sending vast amounts of cash to Mexico). As I pointed out above, the US government had made a similar assessment of a sovereignty-endangering free trade arrangement with China saying it would “open up a vast new market for US goods and services.” The public already knew how that had panned out and could have acted accordingly. I believe Bush knew the answer would have been a resounding “no.” Since, as my friend postulated, Bush did not really favor the scheme but considered it inevitable, he could have thus gotten off the hook by throwing the decision to the public and saved American sovereignty for a few more years. That would have satisfied the presidents of Canada and Mexico, who would have seen that his hands were tied.
But no, he didn’t do that, did he? He went along with the stealth approach that they all desired, because all three knew the public would never have given up their sovereignty if allowed to opt out of the ill-conceived scheme.
But Bush not only didn’t give the US public the opportunity to opt out of this momentous plan to change the US government forever and hand off significant amounts of decision making power to other countries. In fact, the truth is, Bush had already sold off swaths of our — your — sovereignty to Mexican President Fox, who demanded more rewards for the undocumented who stay indefinitely in our country after entering illegally.
Why didn’t Bush see fit to involve you in these decisions on amnesty and supranational government, touching on the most sensitive and important issues confronting the US public?
That would be a tough question if you assumed that Bush was not deliberately allowing your country’s sovereignty to be eroded, forcing you to pay for benefits lavished on invaders, and plotting to establish a new international union so as to do an even more profound end run around your will.
But if you accept the hypothesis that he was pulling the wool over your eyes for years because he was a true believer in the New World Order that his father had touted, then it all becomes crystal clear. This is the explanation that, in my estimation, best fits in with probability theory, if you subscribe to such quaint notions.
It would explain his fawning before a country that sends millions in contraband drugs and humans to the US every year and contributes more than 50% to our federal prison populations, and why the US has actually built an immigration facility on the grounds of a federal prison housing illegal aliens.
But this is not about Bush. It is about the idea of caving in to potentially harmful ideas alien to the American heart under absurd pretexts.
Even so, I am sorry if I have spoiled the day for anyone who once thought GW Bush was a real patriot who sold out America only because he knew if he didn’t some other great patriot would beat him to it.
Not much of an excuse, is it?