Replies

I fought your idea since the elections of 1992, when I saw some people voting for crazy Perot, saying that they were both alike. I was wrong, and you are right (even if Perot wasn't the answer).

Since 2001, my only conclusion is that we have a bi-factional ruling party and that the only result of electing either is increased state power and loss of sovereignty. The only difference is which group of supporters gets the spoils.

You stated : "Since 2001, my only conclusion is that we have a bi-factional ruling party and that the only result of electing either is increased state power and loss of sovereignty. The only difference is which group of supporters gets the spoils"

BINGO!!! The Pubocrats are hooked together at the hip!!

See this (the CFR goal is clear: "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely." The CFR's "integrated" strategy calls for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people." ).

The best known Americans who participated in the CFR Task Force that wrote this document are former Massachusetts Governor William Weld and Bill Clinton's immigration chief Doris Meissner. Another participant, American University Professor Robert Pastor, presented the CFR plan at a friendly hearing of Senator Richard Lugar's Foreign Relations Committee on June 9(05).

...(even if Perot wasn't the answer).

Perot was part of the problem.

"How can we fool 'em today?"

Are you there, Rush?