It’s Time To Revise The Strategy To Secure A Sovereign United States

Radiofree West Hartford ^ | October 02, 2006 | Doug Wrenn

[CTposterBoy]

Some members of Congress have stated that we must first secure our borders before we can even discuss immigration reform. I part company with some of these folks, because despite their tough talk, their view of immigration reform, even post-border security, still translates into a diluted version of amnesty, and the allowing of “day-workers” to transverse our border, and potentially abuse their privileges. While I disagree with the latter part of that plan, the first part is correct, or at least, it was until recently.

One of the biggest obstacles to real border security and immigration reform has been our forked-tongued president. Now, the motivation for his agenda is exposed, and to regain and preserve any semblance of security and sovereignty, the citizenry of the US, and our elected representatives of government must now revise the now obsolete formula. Border security must no longer be our first priority. Now, we must stop the SPP, or “Security and Prosperity Partnership,” dead in its tracks, and right now, while, or even, if, we still can.

The SPP plan, agreed upon in 2005 by the US, Canada and Mexico removes the borders from the three nations in 2010. Article 2, section 2 of our now endangered US Constitution says that the President may only make a treaty with the advice and consent of the Senate, with 2/3 of that body present concurring. For those who do not call SPP a “treaty,” but an “agreement,” I refer those naysayers to the 2nd College Edition of the American Heritage dictionary, which in part, defines a “treaty” as “A formal agreement between two or more states.”

Call SPP what you will, but it is a treaty, and it has not been officially condoned by the US Senate. The President has usurped the Constitution in violation of his inaugural oath and exceeded his Presidential authority, no precedent for him by any means. Meanwhile, several members of Congress such as Representatives Katherine Harris (R-FL) and Dan Burton (R-IN) are proposing legislation and traveling abroad to help along the President’s SPP agenda. The original SPP idea and meeting was held in secret and now we know why. Kudos to The New American magazine, which dedicated almost an entire issue (October 2nd) to comprehensively exposing the SPP, otherwise known as the North American Union, or NAU.

The New American traces the origins of this idea to Europe in the 1950’s, when several countries consolidated their energy resources. It expanded more with so-called free trade treats such as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and now regional globalism has been ratcheted up to the North American Union, modeled after the current European Union, with a similar plan in the works for the Middle East. As mentioned in TNA, NAFTA was intended to facilitate the movement of goods. The North American Union, or NAU is designed to move people.

Continued at Radiofree West Hartford

[Dog Gone]

Oh good. More kooky articles about this. We've had a real shortage in the last 20 minutes or so.

[AZLiberty]

SPP Myths and Facts.

[hedgetrimmer]

Our national apathy must end now.

[raybbr]

Improve Productivity

• Regulatory Cooperation to Generate Growth
  
  
  • Lower costs for North American businesses, producers, and consumers and maximize trade in goods and services across our borders by striving to ensure compatibility of regulations and standards and eliminating redundant testing and certification requirements.
    
    
  • Strengthen regulatory cooperation, including at the onset of the regulatory process, to minimize barriers.
    
    

How do you expedite trade if the borders remain intact? By creating regulations common to all three isn't that in effect erasing the border?

All the talk about increasing efficiency between the countries can't be done without relaxing border control.

Read Bush's speech about a "new America". He says "By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America."

When, during his campaign did he mention this outside of a captive audience of Cubans? He clearly has envisioned a "new America" for some time.

He also clearly empbraces multi-culturalism. Only if the multi-cultural society is made up of Americans and hispanics. Have you ever heard him extoll the virtues of Italians in New York, the Poles in Chicago, the Irish in Boston, the Danes and Swedes of Minnesota, the Germans in Wisconsin, the French in the south, the Asians in San Fransisco, etc?

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico.

George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.

You can read the speech here.

Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:

In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster

The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

Click the Pic!!!!

How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.

This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

[William Terrell]

If we move against it, and it is and was not what it seems, we have lost only time and effort. If we don't move against it, and it is and was what it seems, we have lost our nation.

I'd rather be wrong my way than yours.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

[Dog Gone]

I'd rather be rational and respond to actual threats.

Maybe that's just me.

[Smartass]

PING!

Good find...
Thanks for posting the link to:
"Path to National Suicide.

 

[raybbr]

Auster's essay, a long one, predates Buchanan's attempt to make Americans aware of the impending disaster. I wonder if Buchanan read it picked up the idea from Auster.

[William Terrell]

Reason tells me that I'd rather be wrong my way then yours.

Maybe that's just me.

I doubt it. There always has been a percentage of ostrich in human beings.

[Dog Gone]

doubt it. There always has been a percentage of ostrich in human beings.

As well as at least an equal number of Chicken Littles.

Feel free to believe what you'd like. If we were all in agreement, this forum would be boring.

[Smartass]

Good point...
I'm not personal fan of Pat Buchanan, but I think he hit a home run with his new book. I believe he picked up many ideas from a vast source of Internet Bloggers, writings, essay's posted on World Net Daily, Human Events, and of course Jerome Corsi.

 

[hedgetrimmer]

Good link by Auster.

[texastoo]

To me this article has it about right.

The first I had ever heard the word "stakeholder" was in a government SPP article. Today on TV Bush was in California making a speech regarding the shootings in our schools. He is pushing his agenda using the NWO wording.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061003-4.html

"Yesterday, I instructed Attorney General Gonzales and Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings to convene a meeting next Tuesday, a meeting of leading experts and stakeholders to determine how best the federal government can help states and local governments improve school safety."

The new "PC" word?

[hedgetrimmer]

Chicken littles?

There will always be avarice. 1rudeboy, this quote is for you.

"An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state for his own acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents."

--Alexander Hamilton

America's being robbed blind. ...thanks to free trade and avaricious men

[hedgetrimmer]

Check out the various UN agencies. They have been using the 'stakeholder' concept since they created the property stealing, freedom stealing,anti-American catastrophe called Agenda 21. It is the basis of the WTO's grab for power, and the force behind the usurpation of individual rights in our country and the intended destruction of constitutional government.

[1rudeboy]

And here's a quote for you:

We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefitting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development.
Ronald Reagan, September 29, 1981.

[hedgetrimmer]

Reagan was a "free traitor"? Have fun!

[texastoo]

Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development. Ronald Reagan, September 29, 1981.

Since George H.W.Bush was the father of NAFTA, I doubt that Reagan would have had thousands of pages written for NAFTA. Thousands of pages of government control for NAFTA or any free trade agreement was not Reagan's style.

[texastoo]

I am aware of the UN agencies using the term "stakeholder". However, it did surprise me to see Bush using this word with the sad occasion of children dying. It looks like his agenda comes first.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I read it with interest until I reached all that bogus stuff about the "NAFTA Superhighways."

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I was never quite sure what "stakeholders" meant. Does that mean the various interest groups associated with a given issue (w.r.t school shootings, that would presumably be teachers unions, student governments, PTA, and so forth)?

[wolfcreek]

respond to actual threats.



Hmmm? The Bush doctrine would oppose that approach.

[wolfcreek]

Here's some irony. The DCCC weblog=the Stakeholder

[Paul Ross]

LOL! You really blew it Rudy, quoting Ronald Reagan...because he describes something DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to the SPP's Stakeholders euphemisms. I.e.,

...only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefitting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people.

That is PRECISELY what W is not doing. That is PRECISELY who is EXCLUDED as being a stake-holder in the SPP!

You have destroyed your own thesis with your own quote! LOL! You come here for the laughs! The Laugh is on YOU!!!!!!

[texastoo]

Like you, I couldn't figure out why he posted this from Reagan. LOL!

Regarding the word "stakeholder" which at one time meant the person holding the stake in a dueling match. We also had words such at "boot hill, graveyard, cemetary and now memorial garderns." So now this PC word could mean anyone who preceives to have an interest in a meeting. An extreme example be a homeless man who wants the school back porch enlarged. So far as I could tell the homeless man fits Bush's definition. IMO, Bush should have mentioned local PTA groups, ect to be at these meeting instead of "experts and stakeholders". This was cold and calculating.

[Paul Ross]

Ping.

......only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefitting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people.
---Ronald Reagan, 1981.

[Paul Ross]

FYI Ping:

...only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefitting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people.
---Ronald Reagan, 1981

Bears repeating!

[Paul Ross]

Check out the various UN agencies. They have been using the 'stakeholder' concept since they created the property stealing, freedom stealing,anti-American catastrophe called Agenda 21. It is the basis of the WTO's grab for power, and the force behind the usurpation of individual rights in our country and the intended destruction of constitutional government.

Bump. Agreed. Euphemisms to mask the very serious disregard for the individual...and rule of law.

[Paul Ross]

Bump.

Great post!

[1rudeboy]

texastoo wrote: “Thousands of pages of government control for NAFTA or any free trade agreement was not Reagan's style”.

NAFTA is not thousands of pages long. Ergo, you are not qualified to judge whether it is “Reagan’s style,” or not.

Paul Ross wrote: “. . . Ronald Reagan . . . describes something DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to the SPP's Stakeholders euphemisms.”

I’m not frightened by the term “stakeholder.” Maybe because I see it as describing “someone who has a stake.” Makes one wonder, in the context of that quote, are the terms “stakeholders” and “individuals” interchangeable? And your feigned indignation entirely is based on a definition of the term you created in your imagination?

Also, my choice of that particular Reagan quote is a direct response to texastoo’s above. It is sophism to suggest that I was addressing the SPP when I was addressing NAFTA. Wait, I’m being generous . . . not sophism, but merely a knee-jerk reaction.

In any case, it is amusing that a Reagan quote provokes such a flurry on Free Republic, even on a thread inspired by some guy’s blog. So here’s another one, have at it:

We live on a continent whose three countries possess the assets to make it the strongest, most prosperous and self-sufficient area on Earth. Within the borders of this North American continent are the food, resources, technology and undeveloped territory which, properly managed, could dramatically improve the quality of life of all its inhabitants.

It is no accident that this unmatched potential for progress and prosperity exists in three countries with such long-standing heritages of free government. A developing closeness among Canada, Mexico and the United States -- a North American accord -- would permit achievement of that potential in each country beyond that which I believe any of them -- strong as they are -- could accomplish in the absence of such cooperation. In fact, the key to our own future security may lie in both Mexico and Canada becoming much stronger countries than they are today. [emphasis added]
Ronald Reagan, November 13, 1979.

[Paul Ross]

You did it again, Rudy, LOL!! You better quit while your only 50 points down! I.e.,

In fact, the key to our own future security may lie in both Mexico and Canada becoming much stronger countries than they are today.
---- Ronald Reagan, November 13, 1979.

By encouraging Mexico and Canada to become "stronger countries" The operative word was countries, not region or provinces. Reagan did not urge their...or our...destruction as countries. But PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE. Rather he is indeed affirming sovereignty, unlike Robert Pastor, the CFR and the SPP.

I have another Reagan quote for you:

[1rudeboy]

"Without borders?" Reagan said, that?

[Simply using your technique]

[Paul Ross]

Interesting, Rudy, that you of all people should attempt to reject a critical evaluation of your argumentative position as a sophism. That is your M.O.

BTW, you should not be running around pretending it is some great mystery that there is a serious Marxist agenda afoot in Academia, foreign policy, and leftist pop culture establisments, to get us to abdicate and so self-destroy our borders. It is well understood that the Left and the Hollyweird crowd do not respect our borders. Did you see this which passes for "compassion" in their crowd?

“I am the kind of person who doesn't recognize borders. I don't understand why we think it is okay to keep someone within one border when they are unable to feed their family when they could be getting help somewhere else. I don't see people as different so I don't understand the idea of borders in this world.”
---- Angelina Jolie

[1rudeboy]

More specifically, you are engaged in deconstructionism (which is its own peculiar brand of sophism). Funny that you also speak of "leftist pop culture." But again, I amuse easily.

[1rudeboy]

Here, let me illustrate.

Government is the people's business and every man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid.
Ronald Reagan, January 14, 1982.

shareholder = stakeholder? Run for the hills!

[texastoo]

In any case, it is amusing that a Reagan quote provokes such a flurry on Free Republic, even on a thread inspired by some guy’s blog. So here’s another one, have at it:

No one is upset here regarding the Reagan quote. Grow up!

Do you in all of your infinite wisdom think that Reagan would have approved $20 billion a year for Mexico in the year 2000 forward when he made the above quote in 1979? Do you think Reagan would have approved press1" for English and press 2" for Spanish in 1979? Do you think Reagan in 1979 would have approved the vast illegal immigration since the signing of NAFTA? I wonder what Reagan would have said in 1979 resgarding the counterfeilting, smuggling, prisons being filled with hispanics . Send uls the links, Rudeboy.

Reagan should have left his laws regarding punishing employers for hiring illegal aliens of the amnesty bill. No President has followed the law since then.

I wonder when Jimmy Carter, Bill, and Hillary will start using the word "stakeholder" to discribe parents?

I wonder why Reagan didn't implement any of this in the 1980's if he really believed what you free traders believe.

[1rudeboy]

I cannot channel Ronald Reagan. I'll leave it to you.

[texastoo]

shareholder = stakeholder? Run for the hills!

I quess it is good that we have Mr Webster on our website. I wonder why Reagan didn't use the word "stakeholder' when describing parents in the 1980's?

I cannot channel Ronald Reagan. I'll leave it to you.

LOL

[1rudeboy]

I quess it is good that we have Mr Webster on our website.

Maybe good, but definitely sad. I mean, who has trouble with the words "individual," "strong," and "country" in real life?

[Paul Ross]

You do it again!!!!!

Government is the people's business and every man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid.
--- Ronald Reagan, January 14, 1982.

Hence, your argument is insupportable when you attempt to construe this as equating "shareholder = stakeholder?"

And the SPP clearly does not accord those taxpayers and "every man, woman and child" as any kind of stake-holder or shareholder. They are decisively excluded. Instead, special interests to countervail against the general public interest are expressly recruited, "invited".

Run for the hills!

Looks like you should! LOL!! Keep quoting Reagan. I love it.

[Paul Ross]

I mean, who has trouble with the words "individual," "strong," and "country" in real life?

Reagan didn't...but you apparently do! And in spades! LOL!

[texastoo]

Maybe good, but definitely sad. I mean, who has trouble with the words "individual," "strong," and "country" in real life?

Now, there you go again!

[1rudeboy]

That's where postmodern arguments such as yours break down under scrutiny . . . Ronald Reagan did not envision Paul Ross of Minnesota actively taking a hand in the creating of his "North American accord," START I (or its variations), the Strategic Defense Initiative, or anything else. He assumed that you delegated the authority to him as a function of our representative government.

Think about it . . . somewhere, and operating without your input, was a "working-group" [dramatic sound effect] dealing with the Soviet Union. In other words, your very notion that the SPP is illegitimate because Joe Six-Pack hasn't been consulted is simple populist BS, and frankly, betrays a fundamental misconception of our form of government.

[Paul Ross]

Now, there you go again!

LOL! Wonderful Zinger!

[Paul Ross]

That's where postmodern arguments such as yours break down under scrutiny...Ronald Reagan did not envision ....

LOL! There you go again!

You keep having a problem with that "vision thing". You also misconstrue the elements of our Republic when you misstate Reagan's conception of Government when you claim this:

He assumed that you delegated the authority to him as a function of our representative government.

Certain general authority of course. But Reagan also knew his mandate was circumscribed by the President's role within the Constitutional framework...and not unlimited, but explicitly one for Limited Government. Under God. Under and within the Constitution. Of the People, By and For the People. A number of the promoters of the SPP apparently don't ascribe to any of these limits.

Hence it is you who "bretrays a fundamental misconception of our form of government."

And your argument is therefore really with Ronald Reagan:

Government is the people's business and every man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid.
--- Ronald Reagan, January 14, 1982.

[potlatch]

[george76]

[potlatch]

Thank you george. Might be a good one to animate!

[texastoo]

I believe Rudeboy just out and out lied to us when he said:

I cannot channel Ronald Reagan. I'll leave it to you.

If this is his vision, then suggest bi- focals or tri-focals.

...Ronald Reagan did not envision ....

In other words, your very notion that the SPP is illegitimate because Joe Six-Pack hasn't been consulted is simple populist BS, and frankly, betrays a fundamental misconception of our form of government.

Then I guess you like the secret tribunals, ministers, free trade agreement transparency clauses. Wink, wink, nod, nod, it is on the website so it if legit? Joe Six-Pack had better check the web every night before he doses off. LOLOLOL The words congressional oversight have conveniently been omitted from these discussions.