Skip to comments.McCain, Soros and the New “Global Order”
Posted on 03/15/2008 7:21:45 AM PDT by BGHater
Its not the kind of endorsement that a Republican presidential candidate should welcome. But former Clinton State Department official and alleged Russian dupe Strobe Talbott says that Senator John McCain and Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are all moderate pragmatists in foreign policy with the demonstrated ability to reach across party lines.
This is good news, says Talbott, who is an advocate of world government.
Can our media stop talking about race, sex and gender long enough to examine whether the American people will be given a choice or an echo on foreign policy issues this November?
The praise of McCain and the Democratic candidates is included in a Washington Examiner power profile of Talbott by Patty Reinert, who was apparently unaware that Talbotts improper dealings with Russian officials while he was in the Clinton Administration are detailed in the explosive new book, Comrade J. Based on the revelations of a top Russian spy, Sergei Tretyakov, the book charges that Talbott was a trusted contact of the Russian intelligence service and that his close relationship with a Russian official alarmed the FBI.
The major medias failure to report on Tretyakovs blockbuster charges against Talbott is why the Reinert puff piece could be published in the first place. This disgraceful piece of journalism quotes a close Talbott friend, New York Times reporter Steven Weisman, as saying, Theres just a sweetness about him. Strobe is sweet.
This is what passes for scrutiny into someone who is at the center of one of the biggest State Department scandals in history and continues to have a major influence on the development of U.S. foreign policy.
Another of Talbotts close friends, named in the article, is Walter Isaacson of the Aspen Institute and formerly of Time magazine. It was at Time that Talbott penned a column promoting world government as the solution to mankinds problems. Talbott and his parents were members of the World Federalist Movement. They believe U.S. sovereignty should be submerged into a world federation. It is shocking that someone with these views could become a top State Department official. But Talbott and Bill Clinton were close friends and Rhodes Scholars together. Talbotts main booster in the U.S. Senate was Republican Senator Richard Lugar, another Rhodes Scholar.
Talbott, now head of the liberal Brookings Institution, expects Brookings scholars to play a significant role in shaping Americas next move on the world stage, whether the next president is Republican or Democrat, the Examiner article reveals.
If John McCain wants to reassure conservatives about his candidacy, he should issue a statement saying he will have nothing to do with Talbott if or when he becomes president. To his credit, McCain voted against Talbott when he was up for high-level positions in the Clinton State Department and called his views on the old Soviet Union naïve and foolish. But Talbott has apparently forgotten about all of this and now wants and expects to have major influence on a McCain presidency.
Talbott has written his own book, The Great Experiment, outlining his vision of a New World Order in which the authority of global institutions like the United Nations is greatly enhanced and expanded. For his part, McCain has proposed a new Global Order of Peace, enforced by a global League of Democracies. Both visions should be examined in detail.
Law of the Sea
Talbott, a foreign policy adviser to Hillary Clinton who has praised Barack Obamas views on global issues, has an obvious disagreement with McCain about how long to stay in Iraq. But their views on other international matters seem to converge.
Talbotts Brookings Institution has sponsored appearances by Talbotts good friend, Senator Lugar, in order to promote Senate ratification of the U.N.s Law of the Sea Treaty. McCain had supported the treaty before he told conservative bloggers last year, when he was running for president and trying to garner conservative support, that he was against it. Since then, his Senate office has told constituents that he supports the pact but will approach ratification with an open mind.
The Washington Times reports that, during recent remarks to the conservative Council for National Policy (CNP), McCain was again ambiguous. According to the Times, in its account of his CNP remarks, On the proposed Law of the Seas [sic] Treaty that President Bush supports and that conservatives generally oppose, Mr. McCain split the difference, saying the treaty as proposed surrenders way too much of Americas sovereignty, but it needs to be renegotiated because international law needs coherence in this area.
You can listen to McCains remarks here. The transcript shows that McCain was asked for his clear and unequivocal position and that he replied: I think it has to be renegotiated. I think theres some vulnerabilities associated with it. I think all of us would like to see coherence as some countries claim three miles [as a territorial limit], some 200 miles, some etc. Clearly, there has to be some coherence. But Im afraid that this treaty gives up too much of Americas sovereignty
Interrupted by applause at this point, McCain said, Im glad to hear your response but I think you would agree that some coherence concerning the use of the oceans, the seas, etc. is a good thing. Its just that this isnt the right solution to it.
His latest position seems to be that he wants the treaty changed. It leaves him some wiggle room to vote for the pact if it is amended in some way. This wont be enough to satisfy security-minded conservatives, who want it rejected outright. The pact turns oil, gas and mineral resources over to a U.N. body known as the International Seabed Authority and would subject the actions of the U.S. Navy to second-guessing by nations filing claims before an International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
The NAFTA Controversy
On another critical issue, McCain has emerged as a vocal proponent of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), despite the fact that one of its major supporters, Robert A. Pastor, admits that, in one key respect, it has been a colossal failure.
Pastor, a Democrat who runs the Center for North American Studies at American University, says that NAFTA has resulted in economic integration and increased trade but has fueled immigration by encouraging foreign investment near the U.S.-Mexican border, which in turn serves as a magnet for workers in central and southern Mexico. He says that many of the Mexicans who dont find jobs in northern Mexico are coming into the U.S. Hence, he admits, our illegal immigration problem is being exacerbated by NAFTA.
Pastor, who has advised every Democratic presidential candidate since 1976, proposes to fix NAFTA through a $200-billion North American Investment Fund to close the income gap between Mexico and its northern neighbors, because that is the only way to stop immigration and establish a community. In other words, we pay them to stay home. Pastor opposes a border fence to keep them out.
Pastors community is the North American Community, in which the three countries have a common security perimeter, a common external tariff, and North American institutions to work on such issues as transportation, infrastructure and education. Critics think that, with good reason, this amounts to a proposed North American Union. The Bush Administrations secretive Security & Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is facilitating this process and Mexican trucks are now traveling over U.S. highways, supposedly in compliance with NAFTA, despite a Congressional vote against such a program.
McCain has not spoken out against any of this. Whats more, the use of Dr. Juan Hernandez as his Hispanic outreach director speaks volumes. Hernandez ran the Office for Mexicans Abroad in the Mexican government of Vicente Fox. His book, The New American Pioneers: Why Are We Afraid of Mexican Immigrants?, praises Pastors financial bailout plan for Mexico.
The Democrats threat to withdraw from the pact is designed to force changes in the agreement so that it covers matters involving environmental protection and worker rights. This would, of course, lead to the specter of Pastors North American institutions interfering in even more of the domestic and social affairs of the three NAFTA nations.
For his part, McCains blanket support of NAFTA is consistent with his previous advocacy of accommodating the demands of illegal aliens through what is called comprehensive immigration reform. His foreign policy spokesman, Randy Scheunemann, has even been quoted as saying that Democratic calls to renegotiate NAFTA are protectionist and unilateralist and that its cowboy diplomacy to talk about reopening an agreement that was passed over a decade ago with strong bipartisan support...
But that is the point it was an agreement, not a treaty, because President Clinton didnt have the two-thirds necessary to get it passed in the Senate. He circumvented the constitutional process. As such, Congress can repeal it with simple majorities. Thats the issue the media should be covering.
The Democrats are correct that the U.S. can withdraw from it. Article 2205 of the agreement, Withdrawal, declares, A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.
A Bribe for Canada
But McCain is now insisting that NAFTA cannot be rejected because it is necessary to win the global war on terror. At a campaign event at the headquarters of the Dell computer company in Round Rock, Texas, McCain said that we need the agreement so Canada will keep its troops in Afghanistan.
McCain said, We need our Canadian friends and we need their continued support in Afghanistan. So what do we do? The two Democratic candidates for president say that theyre going to unilaterally abrogate the North America Free Trade Agreement. Our biggest trading partner, they made a solemn agreement with, theyre going to unilaterally abrogate that. Now how do you think the Canadian people are going to react to that?
But the notion of this agreement, which was passed in 1993, being in any way solemn or connected to the war in Afghanistan is quite a stretch.
McCain makes the valid point that national security and trade issues are interconnected with each other. But the obvious connection between trade and security, in regard to NAFTA, lies in the fact that illegal aliens, including possible terrorists, are crossing the border from Mexico into the U.S.
NATO and the New World Order
Another Clinton initiative that McCain embraces is NATO expansion. Clinton transformed NATO from a defensive alliance against the Soviet empire into an offensive military force without submitting a new NATO treaty for ratification to the Senate. Nevertheless, McCain voted for Clintons war through NATO in the former Yugoslavia and now favors independence for Kosovo, a Serbian province, as an outcome of this illegal war. The war became illegal when the House refused to authorize it under the War Powers Act.
The future of NATO lies not only in expanding its membership, transforming its mission, and deepening its commitments. It lies also in cooperating with states far from our shores, says McCain. In a recent statement urging a new Global Order of Peace, McCain has called for a new global League of Democracies one that would have NATO members at its core dedicated to the defense and advancement of global democratic principles. McCain made his first pitch for such a new international organization in 2007 before the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in Stanford, California.
It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur, McCain says. This League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international organizations. It would complement them, he explains.
The George Soros Connection
While it may sound good in theory, a Democracy Coalition Project was actually started in June of 2002 and it has been run by the political left, most of them former Clinton officials. Seed money and original sponsorship were provided by the George Soros-funded Open Society Institute. Key officials include Morton Halperin, the director of Soross Open Society Institute Washington office, and former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who served as Strobe Talbotts boss. Halperin also worked under Albright at State.
If McCain is promoting a Soros-funded project or idea, it would not be the first time. World Net Daily and others have noted evidence that McCains Reform Institute also received funds from Soros. Hernandez is a senior fellow there.
Could Soros, the billionaire financial manipulator, be in a position to call the shots no matter who is elected in the fall?
It is certainly relevant and significant that Talbotts book The Great Experiment identifies Soros, one of the visitors to my office when he was in the Clinton State Department, as one of his advisers on issues like NATO. Talbott also thanks Soros in the acknowledgements section of his book.
Soros wrote Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO, back in 1993. He figured that NATO could take on the military responsibilities of the New World Order until the U.N. was ready to do the job.
It sounds a lot like the McCain plan.
No wonder Talbott is pleased with our choices this fall.
Main street McQueeg.
It just gets scarier and scarier.
The danger of McCain is evident in the head bobbing of the party lapdogs so mesmerized by the (R) that they don’t even recognize that it increasingly represents everything the (D) stands for.
He’s almost.... messianic. In a RINO sort of way.
If voting could actually change anything it would be a capital crime.
Strobe is the Clinton advisor who advocates the elimination of national borders. Is there a special name for this particular advocacy?
We lose 3 ways. Wonderful!
If Hillary Clinton switched parties today there would be a lot of laughter at her attempt but I garantee that within a week, threads promoting her as better than any democrat would start to appear.
I agree. (well, not with the (sarc) “wonderful”) The left loves a crisis!
McCain’s bought into the global warming scam, he’s ready and willing to sign away American sovereignty using that as a rationale.
I am sick and tired of "New World Order", "Global Older", McCains, Clintons and Bushes.
Since the Ronald Reagan Presidency our country is going down the drain.
If you disagree just compare America of 1988 to Amerika of 2008.
Yep, the frog is simmering comfortably...
you got that right! I will no longer support a government of these two parties.
Donald Trump, therefore, will be the deciding factor of whom will be selected the next president.
Yep, this is the worst part of being the RHINO.
The only significant difference between McCain and Hildebeast agenda is that he plans to be in Iraq 100 years, Hildebeast unspecified amount of time less.
That's why McCain is going to lose election ('It's the economy stupid' mantra again)
I completely agree with you!
You are right on.
After this November election, all conservatives and moderates (REAL moderates, not cryptolibs like McCain or Bush) need to unite a form a new political party from the ground up - starting with local elections.
If anyone wants to start the ball rolling, I’m ready.
At this point in time, you could put a hot, steaming plate of excrement in front of most members of the GOP, tell them that's their candidate for President and they'd dutifully vote for it, all the while insisting that he was the very best man for the job.
The Republicans will claim valuable Democratic talking points this week while McCain is in Europe pushing his positions in global warming and carbon credit trading schemes. The presumed Republican presidential candidate is the almost perfect Trojan Horse the Republican Party has sought to further a globalist agenda with slightly differing stances of the Democrats globalist candidates. Either way, the USA is pushed further into past memory.
Suprise, suprise. Repeal the 17th Amendment. Senators suck eggs.
bump for me to find tomorrow.
I’ve wondered if anyone else is thinking along these lines. There’s an interesting article at techcentralstation.com called Splinter States. I think you can see it at http://tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=022508B
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.