Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Transnationalists' Don't Take Immigration Reform Seriously
Real Clear Politics ^ | April 02, 2006 | John Leo

Posted on 04/02/2006 6:47:06 AM PDT by kellynla

In his 1995 book "The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy," the late Christopher Lasch argued that America's political and cultural elites had opened up a gap between themselves and ordinary Americans. "Many of them have ceased to think of themselves as Americans in any important sense, implicated in America's destiny for better or worse," he wrote. They are increasingly detached from their fellow citizens and drawn to an international culture, Lasch said, or what we would today call a transnational culture.

Consider the current immigration debate in this light. In the transnational view, patriotism, assimilation and cultural cohesion are obsolete concerns. Borders and the nation-state are on the way out. Transnational flows of populations are inevitable. Workers will move in response to markets, not old-fashioned national policies on immigration. Norms set by internationalists will gradually replace national laws and standards. The world is becoming a single place. Trying to impede this unifying process is folly.

The term "transnationals" specifically refers to those working in and around international organizations and multinational corporations. More broadly, it indicates a cosmopolitan elite with a declining allegiance to the place where they live and work, and a feeling that nationalism and patriotism are part of the past.

To some extent, their worldview cuts across Democratic-Republican and liberal-conservative lines, and reinforces the other concerns that prevent immigration control: the desire for cheap labor and Hispanic votes. Old-line one-worlders and enthusiastic supporters of the United Nations hear the siren call. So do many academics, judges and journalists who attend international conferences and tend to adopt a common consciousness and world outlook.

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: freetraitors; illegalimmigration; illegals; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-222 next last
"Lopsided majorities, which normally stay the hand of Congress, want the federal government to take charge and get tougher on illegal immigration. In last month's Quinnipiac University poll, 88 percent of all respondents said illegal immigration is a serious problem (57 percent "very serious," 31 percent "somewhat serious"). Among immigrants or their children and grandchildren, the figure was 83 percent. "Red state, blue state and purple state. Illegal immigration is a serious problem," said Maurice Carroll, the director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. If the majority really wants to win on this, all it has to do is raise the heat on Congress and defeat the amnesty-light non-reforms."


1 posted on 04/02/2006 6:47:07 AM PDT by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kellynla
The astonishing aspect of the immigration debate is that the elites think they can override the clear and huge resistance of the American people. As columnist Tony Blankley wrote last week, the Senate was prepared to "legislate into the teeth of the will of the American public."

It's the stuff revolutions are made of.

2 posted on 04/02/2006 7:02:15 AM PDT by John Filson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Filson
"legislate into the teeth of the will of the American public."

The two wings of the Perpetual Incumbency Party now believe that the system has been sufficiently rigged for their career security that they may so legislate without fear.

3 posted on 04/02/2006 7:07:33 AM PDT by Uncle Fud (I'm a to hell with them hawk too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
... is to some people an inevitable and welcome stage in the decline of the nation-state. Besides, large-scale immigration helps to deconstruct the traditional historical narrative of the target nation, a traditional item on the multicultural agenda.

They are "ideological tools, championed by activist elites."

The large-scale movement of populations is often seen as an indicator of the coming world society. To transnationalists, it is a positive development that reveals the weakness of the nation-state and adds to that weakness. Loyalties and commitments are diffused. One transnational scholar writes, "Traditional notions like citizenship, political activity, entrepreneurship and culture are de-linked from specific places and spaces."


4 posted on 04/02/2006 7:09:36 AM PDT by nathanbedford (hon y sois qui mal y pense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Fud

How does it work? They promise pork -- and deliver. Americans sell their votes for federal handouts, and Congress sells their votes to transnational interests. America is for sale. It can be taken back, though. It was a small minority who believed in taking it back in 1775.


5 posted on 04/02/2006 7:12:06 AM PDT by John Filson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

"Many of them have ceased to think of themselves as Americans..."

Yeah, I don't think of them as Americans either. Easier to fight an enemy when he/she is not part of your country.


6 posted on 04/02/2006 7:13:17 AM PDT by brushcop (Mission Accomplished B-Co, 2/69 3d ID! God bless you and WELCOME HOME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Jorge is not listening!


7 posted on 04/02/2006 7:14:53 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
The article is right on. One can survey the letters to the editor out here in God's country, San Diego, and see letters from non-Hispanics that say someday soon we will be citizens of the world instead of the USA. Then you can listen to leftists like Hillary and Kennedy and root out the same thoughts.

Traditional patriotic Americans ARE under attack. Rest assured. And now might be the critical time. We need to keep our heads on straight and not falter.

8 posted on 04/02/2006 7:17:52 AM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tom h

Indeed.


9 posted on 04/02/2006 7:20:01 AM PDT by John Filson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: John Filson

The sad part is, if the economy tanks like it did in the '30's, people will hand over even more control to the progressive establishment and their brain trust. Many people think the government can create jobs and commerce.

And if the economy keeps on keeping on, then what incentive is there to change this system?


10 posted on 04/02/2006 7:20:18 AM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Immigration is the kind of issue that could create a new political party--since the existing parties clearly intend to try to bluff their way through this one.

All it would take is five key figures to bolt from both parties and create a new one. That would be risking their political futures, of course, but it could make one of them President some day with neither an R nor a D in front of their name.
11 posted on 04/02/2006 7:22:54 AM PDT by cgbg (When you hear the words "gender" or "stakeholder" run for your life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
Many people think the government can create jobs and commerce.

Its policies can certainly harm them, though. This isn't all about economics, though. It's about America choosing to remain an English-speaking culture of liberty-loving, law-abiding citizens -- or not.

I think there is a strong, nationalist backbone of English-speaking Americans who are enraged by the current influx of Latinos and Muslims, and others who refuse to assimilate. Just because they aren't out of work, don't burn flags, or march in protest does not mean that they aren't considering the true implications of of the transnational elitims in our government today.

The economy need not fail for the country's nationalist backbone to lose its patience.

12 posted on 04/02/2006 7:25:47 AM PDT by John Filson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: John Filson

At the very least, it paves the way for a legitimate third party canditate. If both parties are against reform which has broad national support (75%+), and which can attract voters from both traditional parties, the backlash opens up the door.

If by some mistake McPain gets the GOP nom for '08, I think it's reasonable that a conservative Republican renegade candidate can win the election.


13 posted on 04/02/2006 7:25:49 AM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

A renegade, or someone who looks like one.


14 posted on 04/02/2006 7:26:57 AM PDT by John Filson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cgbg

It is happenning in Europe as Right-Populist parties challenge the multiculturalist elite consensus.

There is already a model for transnationalist elites. The old hereditary aristocracy of Europe. Nobles from one end of Europe to the other had their own culture distinct from the peoples they ruled. They had a common outlook and a shared class interest.


15 posted on 04/02/2006 7:30:23 AM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
The sad part is, if the economy tanks like it did in the '30's, people will hand over even more control to the progressive establishment and their brain trust. Many people think the government can create jobs and commerce.

This is not the 1930's when the urban elites held all the power.

Also if the economy collapse, the welfare system would collapse and the groups (include a large percentage of illegal immigrants) that would get welfare would riot and loot in the large urban cities that they are the majority population in.

While the major urban cities burned, the smaller towns and cities would be fine because the armed citizens would shoot any people who try to riot and loot their property.

16 posted on 04/02/2006 7:30:31 AM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
"Building a North American Community," the official Council on Foreign Relations ten year project to erase America's borders.

If you want to know why many of our most powerful politicos and media moguls are dead set against building a fence, check the CFR membership roster. A fence is like Holy Water to the devil, to CFR members. A border fence is 180* counter to their goal of melting the USA into the NAC, with one common outer border around the USA, Canada and Mexico, with no "interior" controls at all on people or goods.

This is damned serious stuff folks. If you don't know who is in the CFR (both 'rats and "Davos Republicans) then you don't even know how the power game is really played.

17 posted on 04/02/2006 7:59:08 AM PDT by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tom h

I keep thinking of this phrase in the Declaration of Independence --

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such for, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

The government exists to guarantee our rights. It is therefore our servant.

The whole snotty-nosed bunch in the Senate need to go, if they do not work for us.


18 posted on 04/02/2006 8:02:03 AM PDT by bboop (Stealth Tutor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

"At the very least, it paves the way for a legitimate third party canditate."

Actually, there is a historical parallel here for this issue. The Whig Party started to slowly disintegrate in the 1850's because of its internal divisions on slavery. By 1856 enough morally motivated Americans were so disgusted that a new party was formed, the Republicans. Although doomed to failure as a third party in that election (remember President Fremont?) by 1860 people had enough and elected Abraham Lincoln.

Like the Whigs, the Republicans are abandoning the common sense wishes of the vast majority to please their special interests, the ones who write the big checks and invite them to the toney cocktail receptions. If they continue on their current vector (and the immigration debate focusing on granting amnesty and open borders) people will desert them and look for alternatives.

It may take several election cycles (and disgust with the ruling Democrats during that period) but eventually the majority which includes core Republicans and a lot of conservative Democrats who could never ever pull a Republican lever, would find a voice in this new entity.

Let's hope it happens before the other new party, the renamed Democrats in the Partido de Reconquista, take over and rewrite the laws for guaranteeing permanent power like they did in Mexico.


19 posted on 04/02/2006 8:02:37 AM PDT by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

The last twenty years our elites were trying to disassemble nationalism. Look at our colleges, left or right politically all discourage nationalism, patriotism and grooming future leaders/CEO's and society for globalism. A funny thing happen along the road, 9/11. That is why within one week videos of the planes crashing into the towers were pulled from our TV sets. The corporate controlled MSM claim it was done to stop traumatizing the US public, but it was pulled because the images were generating American nationalism, something our elites could not afford.


20 posted on 04/02/2006 8:09:34 AM PDT by Fee (`+Great powers never let minor allies dictate who, where and when they must fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
"John Fonte, of the Hudson Institute, notes that "transnationalism," like "global governance" and "multiculturalism," are presented by advocates as irresistible forces of history. Not so, he says. They are "ideological tools, championed by activist elites."
21 posted on 04/02/2006 8:11:56 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
While the major urban cities burned, the smaller towns and cities would be fine because the armed citizens would shoot any people who try to riot and loot their property.

Before that the Army will be in charge and civilian disarmament will be ordered "for the good of everyone". Zones will be pacified and "weapons caches" found by the army in house to house cleansing operations. Ala Iraq.

22 posted on 04/02/2006 8:52:15 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
"More broadly, it indicates a cosmopolitan elite with a declining allegiance to the place where they live and work, and a feeling that nationalism and patriotism are part of the past."

How quickly that tune will change if many countries became copies of a Zimbabwe or North Korea. Then, suddenly, Old Glry gets waved--" Um, yeah! We've always been patriotic!"

23 posted on 04/02/2006 8:57:17 AM PDT by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Statement: "'Transnationalists' Don't Take Immigration Reform Seriously"

Response: The attitude of the "Transnationalists"(Internationalist, Cosmopolitanism same thing) started circa WWI. Even earlier in Europe.

24 posted on 04/02/2006 8:57:17 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bboop

"I keep thinking of this phrase in the Declaration of Independence --

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such for, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

The government exists to guarantee our rights. It is therefore our servant.

The whole snotty-nosed bunch in the Senate need to go, if they do not work for us."


I nominate this for the best post of the day!!!


25 posted on 04/02/2006 8:59:44 AM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
"At the very least, it paves the way for a legitimate third party canditate."

Can you say President Hillary? The Democrats are praying for a 3rd party candidate so that Hillary can be elected with 40% (or less) of the vote. A new party isn't going to make any difference at this late date. We slept through the years when we could have done something about what "our betters" have planned for us short of a revolution. Who will the military side with? That's the only remaining question and my guess is the military was taken care of long ago except for some who will be "deserters." Anybody remember all those tests they were administering to the military 15 yrs. ago about would you fire on your fellow citizens?

26 posted on 04/02/2006 9:01:33 AM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: antisocial

I thank you.


27 posted on 04/02/2006 9:33:16 AM PDT by bboop (Stealth Tutor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Fud
The two wings of the Perpetual Incumbency Party now believe that the system has been sufficiently rigged for their career security that they may so legislate without fear.

What makes it worse is that for the Congressmen who have been in there a while, getting kicked out of office isn't even a threat anymore. Most of them can make more money after they leave office as a lobbyist for foreign interests.

28 posted on 04/02/2006 9:34:10 AM PDT by jpl ("We don't negotiate with terrorists, we put them out of business." - Scott McClellan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Before that the Army will be in charge and civilian disarmament will be ordered "for the good of everyone".

The military does not have the athority to disarm the citizens, and they know it.

By federal law, the military cannot be used as a police force inside the U.S.

Note in New Orleans last fall, the military only fired in self defense, at people who fired guns at them first.

29 posted on 04/02/2006 9:40:10 AM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
The military does not have the athority to disarm the citizens, and they know it.

By federal law, the military cannot be used as a police force inside the U.S.

Federal laws can be repealed, voided by judges, ignored with impunity in times of emergency, have loophools cut into them, and be secretly broken.

As I recall the military was used as a police force at Waco, was it not? Given this example I see no reason to put much faith in the ability of federal laws to keep the military from operating in the USA.

IT DID HAPPEN HERE ALREADY!! NO ONE WAS EVER CALLED TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS ARMY OPERATION AGAINST US CITIZENS!!

30 posted on 04/02/2006 10:12:00 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

I seem to remember the ATF were driving those tanks.


31 posted on 04/02/2006 10:15:08 AM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
The AFT and the Justice Department had control over those tanks.

If the Pentagon was in control, they would not have done that.

You seem to forget the most U.S. military soldiers are conservative. Also, a soldier by law does not have to follow an illegal order, like ordering them to illegally disarm their families and friends.

32 posted on 04/02/2006 10:21:40 AM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
While the major urban cities burned, the smaller towns and cities would be fine because the armed citizens would shoot any people who try to riot and loot their property.

God I hope you are right!!!!

I hear all the talk about standing up for what we believe, but I have my doubts.

In most cases today our Politicians are always the first to sell us out. To survive they only cover their own bottoms. There are a few US citizens percentage wise who would fight for what they believe, but aside from sharp tongues, and wits, most citizens of the US would lay down and roll over.

We have become a country who wants others to fights our fights for us, and we sit back and judge them. By in large we are fast to wave a flag and faster to judge our defenders.

I take my hat off to to the young men and women in law enforcement and the military. They have great strength to continue to defend the mealy mouths.

I would love to see all who march in defense of liberal ideas in America defends their homes and country. I want to see Ted Kennedy and Hillary lead the charge. We can't count on Bill he ran the first time.

33 posted on 04/02/2006 10:36:21 AM PDT by Jarhead1957 (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Fud
The two wings of the Perpetual Incumbency Party now believe that the system has been sufficiently rigged for their career security that they may so legislate without fear.

They, the internationalists, call their security, Homeland Security. The problem is that too many American soldiers, now veterans, were always told of a different vision of America, a vision of a place worth protecting by fighting and dying. The internationalists may be underestimating the strength of the ordinary American.

The Republican-Democrat elites advertise Homeland Security as protecting us from an external threat. What horse$hit. That’s the job of our armed forces. They tell us that we need it to weed out the Islamic terrorists within. Really! Just march the illegal’s back to the border when the local police catch them. Just fire the State Department. They are all bought off by the oil rich Arabs. We would be better off without a state Department. I would rather have a General or an Admiral explain foreign policy to sheiks. Commodore Perry did just fine by me with Japan. So did MacArhur. Homeland Security is really being formed to provide a huge federally controlled security apparatus. Don’t give me that crap that about not one person has yet been abused by it. When it starts it won’t be one abuse, it will be many.

The big question is when will the elites think they have the strength to use it? I don’t think the Republicans would try, yet. The Democrats would. They blew away Waco without any concern. They sent Elian back to Fidel without any resistance. Dead bodies littered Clinton’s path. He knows how to misuse police.

Who will be on the ordinary Americans side? Veterans? Local police? It could get messy. For those who pay little attention to history, keep in mind that American History is replete with forgotten insurrections and brutal suppression by the Federal and state governments.

Homeland Security is not what you are told it is. It is the beginning of an American Gestapo.

34 posted on 04/02/2006 10:47:07 AM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (From behind enemy lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cgbg
All it would take is five key figures to bolt from both parties and create a new one.
---
Name them.
35 posted on 04/02/2006 11:00:14 AM PDT by Cheburashka (World's only Spatula City certified spatula repair and maintenance specialist!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jarhead1957
I would love to see all who march in defense of liberal ideas in America defends their homes and country. I want to see Ted Kennedy and Hillary lead the charge. We can't count on Bill he ran the first time.

What the hell are you smoking? The Clintons would the charge to commit genocide against U.S. citizens.

36 posted on 04/02/2006 11:01:20 AM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cgbg
All it would take is five key figures to bolt from both parties and create a new one.
---
Name them.
37 posted on 04/02/2006 11:10:06 AM PDT by Cheburashka (World's only Spatula City certified spatula repair and maintenance specialist!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

Ooops forgot to put sarc at the end.


38 posted on 04/02/2006 11:16:00 AM PDT by Jarhead1957 (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Bump for later.


39 posted on 04/02/2006 11:21:56 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

"The military does not have the athority to disarm the citizens, and they know it"

I thought the same about detainees of war and a day in court with a lawyer at one time.


40 posted on 04/02/2006 11:23:00 AM PDT by MaineVoter2002 (http://jednet207.tripod.com/PoliticalLinks.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
If you had read the whole post, I was in fact agreeing with you, except I'm not sure a very large percentage of our population would fight for our country.

Sorry I left out the Sacr after my statement about Kennedy and Clinton.

Also looked at your about page, it was blank.

41 posted on 04/02/2006 11:31:57 AM PDT by Jarhead1957 (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
They are "ideological tools, championed by activist elites."

And financed for the most part by the American taxpayer, who has no clue, in general about how his money is being spent to harm him.
42 posted on 04/02/2006 11:43:52 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: John Filson

"It's the stuff revolutions are made of."

... also the stuff electoral landslide defeats are made of. I'm not surprised that Frist is livid with Specter for letting a pro-amensty Democrat bill get passed.

If only the Republicans could tag the Democrats as the pro-amnesty party (which they are) and get away from falling into the same trap.

Im my view, Kyl-Cornyn is the kind of middle-ground solution. A zero-amnesty solution that allows some measure of guest worker provisions to fill the gaps that would occur if we clamped down on illegal immigration without addressing need for workers.


43 posted on 04/02/2006 11:56:10 AM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: kellynla

This is what the EUrocrats are pushing.

They are trying (desperatly) to erase national identities like German, French, Italian, Spanish, Greek, Polish and even English.

They want the euro-sheeple to only see the EU.


45 posted on 04/02/2006 11:57:43 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Along these lines are the Global Civil Society. Some of what happens in headlines is incomprehensible without knowledge of the Global Civil Society, not to be confused with civil society.


46 posted on 04/02/2006 11:58:23 AM PDT by RightWhale (Nothing can evolve which has not been involved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

But how can Earth ever join the United Federation of Planets if we don’t have a One World Government? < /sarcasm>

47 posted on 04/02/2006 12:00:21 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Did you hear any more about Memphis changing the name of Bedford Forest Park??? Next time I talk to the relatvies in MEM I'll have to ask...


48 posted on 04/02/2006 12:02:10 PM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
Oops! Now With Paragraphs!

First off, my contention was that the Posse Comitatus act and similar laws designed to prevent US military intervention against citizens can be effectively bypassed via a number of means, including "having loophools cut into them". That's what you say happened, basically.

I stand by my claim. The fact that Federal Agents, not military troops, were driving the tanks proves my point. How did the FBI or BATF or who ever you claim was driving those military vehicles (owned by the military, not civilian equivelents) get possession of them? How did they gain the skills to drive them?

If some non-military organization in the executive branch can whistle up tanks from the nearest armoury, get them, stick their own ex-military driver and gunners in them and proceed to use the against civilians we have posse comitatus in-name-only.

Further, I am not nearly as certain as you are that there were no military troops involved in Waco, though it has been a long time since I researched it. My recollection is that much evidence was destroyed almost immediately, the site was not treated as any other crime scene would have been, the survivors were railroaded into jail, where most remain and no serious inquiry took place into the events. Thus I really don't believe you can make this blanket statement with certainty or assurance.

As for most military people being "conservative", yes, I believe many or most are. They are also conditioned to obey orders and tend to be people who appreciate both order and heirarchy. Thus I am must less sure than you are that they would not run civilian disarmament or rural pacification operations in the USA. Certainly the vast majority are public school graduates, where they have not been taught what the basis of Republic and the Constitution really are. Thus, intellectually, they may not be equipped to make judgements like this.

Also, who knows what pretext could be used? I believe in the Waco case, after the Feds saw that the "child molesting" charge (probably true) was not enough to get them the tanks they wanted they escalated to "meth lab". (A patently bogus charge without even a pretext of a source, again no repurcussions ever happened). This, apparently allowed a posse comitatus bypass.

As needed more of these "escape clauses" will be created. A "anti terrorism" bypass, then you will just classify people as "domestic terrorists" and it will all be legal.

I appreciate you sticking up for the military. The US Military is one of the very finest large organizations in the world, as well as the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen. However it is still, by design, ultimately subject to the decisions of politicians. And our politicians (both parties) have shown little reluctance to violate the law, ignore the Constitution and misuse their power.

Thus, at a minimum I suspect the Army will have to make some very tough decisions in the future. Whether these decisions are all confined to, and made at the top, or whether they filter down to lower levels, and ultimately individual troops, we can't yet know.

Probably not all will decide the same thing. Which may result in army on army confrontations. Not a big surprise there. Our first Civil War featured West Point trained generals on both sides.

49 posted on 04/02/2006 12:03:15 PM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: oldbill

Yep, people don't know the Republican party was a third party in 1852 and 1856. But, the Republican/Democrat Party has rigged the system since then making it harder for the people to throw off the yoke of the political class.


50 posted on 04/02/2006 12:05:21 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-222 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson