Posted on 07/19/2007 3:39:30 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
Touché. But I happen to know what the two terms actually mean.
Also the reason for the income tax.
There is no congressional oversight, because this isn’t technically a treaty. Most of this is being doent through the executive branch with the implicit approval of many in the legislative branch. See those who voted for amnesty as an indication.
Frankly, its probably too late. People are too distracted, in debt, naive, or just don't care or understand the impact.
Of course, then there are those who may think it will benefit them, and sovereignty and freedom, are of lesser importance than wealth.
The kids anymore, not all of them, have been sold false history in schools, wallow in self, lust for things, and most likely wouldn't understand what is going on.
The thought of fighting for a nation they have been taught is illegetimate and corrupt would be most awful.
People would have to get outside the box of party politics and see this issue as something that would take citizens united to fight.
Divide and conquer technique has always worked in the past and continues to do so now.
People focus on fighting each other rather than paying attention to the truth, the elitists encourage that and like it just fine. Oh, how they must laugh at us while throwing out the idea that what they are doing is tin foil hat. Thats makes it understandable as to why it is done behind closed doors. They will release the parts they want us to believe.
He missed a few.
In any case, here's a primer on what the term means.
Bingo, winning post. If conservatives take notice, the people behind all of this are RINOs and Democrats.
Our government has managed to dump most conservatives off the boat. We have very few left out here.
Duh, wonder why? Could it be that conservatives do not want open borders, guns taken away, general debauchery, have a fondness for that Constitution and US sovereignty?
Pesky things that get in the way of socialism lite and globalists agendas.
How much help does Hunter get from the GOP, I don’t know, but I would guess very little. I would also guess he hasn’t any recycled Bush folks working for him.
Food for thought.
Already in play; check out "Agenda 21" through the UN, and how much of it is being instituted in your own neighborhood.
I see it as little more than a variation of the unelected communist soviets who ruled over the villages, towns, cities and regions in the old soviet union.
We have our own little soviets -- School Boards, Home Owners Associations, Private Security -- which the NAU will coalesce under its specified Stakeholders.
The SPP, is basically a working group to come up with a common security standards for the three North American nations. Any proposals coming out of it would have to be implemented by each country in accordance with it’s Constitution and laws.
It works like this. The SPP groups come up with a proposal for say, airport security. The proposals would then have to be written ups as legislation in the US Congress, the Canadian Parliament, and the Mexican Congress. The legislation would then have to go through the normal legislative process in each country, including amendments and then get passed into law.
In some cases additional legislation would need to get enacted at the State level in the US and Mexico and the Provincial level in Canada.
The end result would be the US, Canada, and Mexico all having roughly the same standards for a particular process, if the enacting legislations were passed and if the proposals were not amended by the national or state/provincial legislatures involved.
Drugs. Ya know.
No good deed ever goes unpunished.
Just click “Report Abuse” when you find one, then.
I hope their protest is a huge success. Most in Our country as well as Canada and Mexico have no idea what’s being planed for our futures.
You infect all these threads, don’t you?
I’ve run to the mod only once in 8 years, and it was seriously needed.
I have more faith in FR than that. People aren’t stupid, they can figure you out on their own.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Regardless of one’s judgment concerning the type of government that the Constitution brought into existence in 1787, no one can deny that it was truly the most unusual and radical in history.
Consider: With the tragic and costly exception of slavery, the United States was a society in which people could, by and large, engage in any occupation or economic enterprise without a government license, permit, or regulation.
Where people could travel anywhere in the world without restriction (no passports) and trade with whomever they pleased without the permission of their government officials.
Where people could accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth without government interference, because the Constitution did not permit the government to levy taxes on income.
Where people were free to do whatever they wanted with their own money — save, spend, donate, invest, hoard, or even destroy it.
Where government was not permitted to take care of people — no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, education grants, or foreign aid.
With a few exceptions (e.g., 1850s Massachusetts), there were no compulsory public (i.e., government) school systems.
No wars on drugs, poverty, or wealth.
And open borders for the free immigration of people from anywhere in the world.
Like I say, regardless of how you might feel about the political and economic philosophy of the Founders of our country, no one can deny that the political and economic system that they brought into existence was the most unusual and radical in history.
Our Founders’ philosophy toward foreign affairs was also an unusual one. The primary responsibility of the U.S. government, they believed, was to protect the nation from invasion or attack and not involve itself in the affairs or conflicts of other nations.
The Founders clearly understood that horrible things would be seen all over the world, such as brutal tyrannies and cruel dictatorships — after all, they themselves had only recently been the victims of the tyrannical British Empire.
But they believed that the best gift that America could give to the world would be a model for a free, peaceful, harmonious, and prosperous society — a beacon for the rest of the world to follow. And they believed that that goal could be not be served if their government had the imperial and military power to straighten out messes all over the world.
Here’s what George Washington counseled to all succeeding generations of Americans in his Farewell Address: “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.... Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns.... Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”
Celebrating American freedom on July 4, 1821, U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams delivered a speech to the U.S. House of Representatives setting forth the vision of the American republic: “She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.... She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence ... the fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world.”
Thus, when our 18th- and 19th-century ancestors celebrated the Fourth of July each year, the concept of freedom that they were celebrating was totally different from the concept of freedom that Americans today celebrate on the Fourth. The freedom they celebrated involved a way of life in which government had little power to take their money, regulate their peaceful activities, or take care of them. It was also a freedom arising out of their government’s noninterference in the conflicts of foreign nations.
No one can deny that somewhere along the way, America changed direction, both domestically and internationally. How about a national debate as to which vision — the vision of Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Madison, or that of Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, and Nixon — should guide our nation into its third century of existence?
|
|||
|
For more information, concerning the Future of Freedom Foundation, click here. |
|||
I wonder if we’ll see the protest on the news. I won’t hold my breath though.
LOL Certainly not my style. I still wear jeans and sneakers or cowboy boots.
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.