But how can Earth ever join the United Federation of Planets if we don’t have a One World Government? < /sarcasm>
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 ...
Sorry I left out the Sacr after my statement about Kennedy and Clinton.
Also looked at your about page, it was blank.
"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.
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.
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.
But how can Earth ever join the United Federation of Planets if we don’t have a One World Government? < /sarcasm>
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...
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.
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.
Okay, just include the "sarcasm" tag next time.
Just remember the soldiers in the military to an oath to the U.S. Constitution, not to an election official.
And the Posse Comitatus act was designed to prevent the U.S. military from getting involved in another civil war, or revolution in the U.S.
to an oath = took an oath
The "desperate" need for workers is over-hyped. A lot of kids are underemployed, and wages are way down already. The labor supply would adjust itself if our elites would let it. One thing that isn't hyped is the overwhelming amount of Hispanic immigration we've had over the past 40 years. Census data shows us the undeniable change it has brought to our demographics. Looking around in a city like LA should be all that it takes to realize that we don't need any more "migrant" labor from Mexicans.
A good point. Businesses can adjust.
The current problem of illegals undercutting wages also keeps the good corporate citizens at a disadvantage to unscrupulous employers, and the push for legalization is seen as the only remedy. What does it tell you? Businesses dont beleive enforcement will happen.
In fact, we need to import less of the low-wage low-skill workers and more of the knowledge-skill workers, who create more jobs via ripple effects on our economy.
You mentioned the largest mistake the one worlders have failed to do or can't. When Clinton was president, they should have taken away guns. It is too late now. They may get some guns but they will never take all of them.
If this really is "damned serious stuff" then why don't you try to accurately explain how the CFR is a "threat" instead of spamming so many threads with your bogus claims of conspiracy. For example, why don't you explain, (or do you even know) that the CFR does not take a policy stance on any issue. In fact, if you actually read the document you keep spamming, you will read on the first page of the report the following statement...(Caps are from the source)
THE COUNCIL TAKES NO INSTITUTIONAL POSITION ON POLICY ISSUES AND HAS NO AFFILIATION WITH THE U.S.GOVERNMENT. ALL STATEMENTS OF FACT AND EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION CONTAINED IN ITS PUBLICATIONS ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR OR AUTHORS."
So why can't you present the facts as they really are Travis? Why do you have to pretend there is something sinister or secret about the CFR? Why are you trying to use an independent council with members as diverse as William F. Buckley to William J. Clinton as a bludgeon against Tony Snow? Why do you think the nearly 4500 members of CFR speak with one voice?
If this really were as "serious" as you want to believe, you would stick to the facts. Instead, you weaken your own cause by trumpeting unsupported hysteria about "power games" and "holy water to the devil". You've fallen off the edge of rationality. Very sad.
"Building a North American Community," the official agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bite me. You might as well post some boiler plate from CAIR saying Islam is a religion of peace, with no intention of conducting jihad.
So it's hardly a "conspiracy." The CFR lays it right out in the open, Rocky.
Look, CAIR's PR flacks also tell the gullible that the "official agenda of Islam" is love, peace and flowers.
We're not stupid.
The CFR's agenda is right in the official CFR publication, "Building a North American Community." As you know, the CFR agenda includes one border around our three nations, with NO internal population controls.
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.