President Bush to Host North American Leaders' Summit [Security and Prosperity Partnership(SPP)]

White House.gov ^ | 31 Jan 2008 | Office of the Press Secretary

[BGHater]

As he noted in his State of the Union address, the President will be hosting the North American Leaders' Summit on April 21-22 in New Orleans. This fourth meeting of North American leaders since 2005 will continue our work on Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) initiatives. It will also serve as an opportunity for the three leaders to discuss hemispheric and global issues of importance to North America.

[proudofthesouth]

Concreting plans to make the U.S. and Mexico one country.

[1rudeboy]

And fluoridating the water supply.

[Travis McGee]

Treason ping.

[1rudeboy]

Treason? Do you even care what the word means anymore?

[FReepapalooza]

“Treason? Do you even care what the word means anymore?”

An everday occurance anymore.

[1rudeboy]

I’ll place you in the “word is meaningless” camp.

[DoughtyOne]

Do you even care about the polices they are going to be discussing? That’s it, attack a person who actually gives a damn about our sovereignty and self-determination and then act like you’re the man on high ground.

You need to sit up and smell the rotting fish bud.

[F15Eagle]

bump!

[maclay]

Maybe in a few years, we’ll actually get to hear what was talked about, for the “NAU commemorative special” on CNN.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. I appreciate it.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, that’s when we’ll hear about it, after the fact... or at the very best several weeks before the big vote, if there even is one. We’ll express our objections and the RP will join with the DP to disolve our nation.

[1rudeboy]

I don't see meeting the heads-of-state of two neighboring countries as "treason," much like I didn't see it as "treason" when Bush met the Pope. So instead of telling me to "sit up" you should be telling your friends to "step up."

If you're telling me it's treason, let's hear why . . . or is treason too difficult a concept to illustrate?

[maclay]

"In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation" - Wiki

[1rudeboy]

Great! So let’s get started: how is meeting a head of state treason?

[maclay]

Well dependes on the head of state. Say a visit from President Hillary Clinton to Iran to discuss secret policy.

But back on topic, until we know the specifics of the meeting, we’re going to have to give the political elites the benefit of the doubt that they are working in the interest of soveriegnty, not in the path to it’s desctuction.

Anyone want to flip a coin for the future of our country? I think not.

[FReepapalooza]

“I’ll place you in the “word is meaningless” camp.”

well then,

I’ll place you in the “sovereignty is meaningless” camp.

[1rudeboy]

I agree that we can only go on the information we have. If the White House tells us the summit will discuss SPP initiatives, all we can do is note the SPP initiatives that have been made public (there are many).

I will note that the SPP initiatives made public do not amount to treason. If there are secret initiatives that do, we are screwed one way or the other. My point is that you can't skip the step. "The summit is treasonous because there are secret plans . . ." is more constructive than "the summit is treasonous because I say so."

[1rudeboy]

Any other words you care to add to the list of those you do not understand? It would save some trouble.

[redgirlinabluestate]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1963445/posts
What John McCain Supports

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

It’s still just Pre-treason.

Another couple years left before the real treason starts, but they are laying the groundwork.

[1rudeboy]

“Pre-treason” is funny. (I’m not laughing at your position. Seriously, it’s a funny turn-of-phrase).

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

I’m so sick of the depressing cesspool of politics, that I’m trying to turn into a sports nut. But the addiction is hard to beat.

It’s still just a Pre-treason game!

Whoo hoo! Who do you like for the Sedition Bowl?
Republicrats or Democans?

[FReepapalooza]

I understand those words perfectly.

It is you that apparently has a comprehension problem.

[nicmarlo]

"Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes as important as the future prosperity of North America, and the freedom of movement of capital, goods, services and persons."

-- Vincente Fox, then President of Mexico
May 16, 2002 | Before the members of the "Club Century XXI" in the Hall Conferences of the Eurobuilding Hotel, Madrid, Spain
[full text: Spanish | English]

VIDEO (3:12 min.): Lou Dobbs | North American Union by 2010

SPP Summit Scheduled in Canada, Summer 2007
U.S. Taxpayers May End up Footing the Bill

Through the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch recently obtained a 10-page document, "a financial work plan that describes how U.S. taxpayers would fund grants to Mexico. The work plan states:

'...the establishment of a grant fund for development with U.S. and Canadian resources to finance the development of physical infrastructure in Mexico.'

Canadian funds would also be committed to the project. Judicial Watch is calling for complete disclosure...."

NASCOcorridor.com

KeepTexasMoving.com

Kansas City Smart Port

More information at the conservative and respected Eagle Forum website.

Construction of NASCO Highway in Mexico

[1rudeboy]

The acquisition of Vicente Fox (career BA .287), placed on waivers by Mexico, elevated the Bush Administration’s pre-treason hopes and vaulted it into contention in the NAU.

[yorkie]

Thanks for the ping, nic! But (according to some), you do know that this is all to reinforce the sovereignty of our country, don't you? It is to insure less government control over the people. It is to guarantee that Washington adheres to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, down to the enth degree. Oh - the pictures? There is no such thing as a superhighway - those pictures are photo-shopped. /s

[nicmarlo]

(according to some), you do know that this is all to reinforce the sovereignty of our country, don't you? It is to insure less government control over the people. It is to guarantee that Washington adheres to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, down to the enth degree.

Right. That would be coming from paid shills and those who have their 30 pieces of silver.

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

--David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

David Rockefeller - Memoirs, Random House, 2002, page 405.

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries"

David Rockefeller in an address to a
Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991.

Cheney Laughs At Lying about CFR Directorship,
after taking a question from David Rockefeller [youtube]
(at ~ 1:38 into 1:54 min. video).

[DoughtyOne]

It’s not the meeting of two (actually three) heads of state that concerns me, or should concern you. It will be the topics of discussion that should interest us both.

I consider a plan that will join Canada, Mexico and the United States of America in a plan that will see us drop our borders while only protecting a paramiter around the three, to be a loss of sovereignty.

What would be the need to join in a security acreement that even included nations outside our own? We can’t protect our nation as it is when we control all the variables, but now think it will be better when the Mexican government and the corrupt officals down there are added to the equation. That is patently absurd.

The next item that is going to be discussed is the wonderous plan for a North American Union. Yeah, that’s a great plan. Our leaders that we vote for don’t even listen to us today, but a body of governance above that will make it better.

The ultimate goal is to create an AU. The NAU will get us part of the way there, and the stepping stone beyond that will reduce your nation to nothingness.

Our military will be owned by the collective. Our trade will be governed by the collective. Our wealth will be redistributed (while it lasts) to the collective.

I don’t see the subject matter for this meeting to be something to be taken lightly.

We didn’t even meet in three nation meetings every year until four years ago. Why is it an imperitive now? What is so big and wonderful and fuzzy that our leaders need to bring massive teams of negotiators to annual meetings to pound out?

Do you every wonder? I do.

[calcowgirl]

'...the establishment of a grant fund for development with U.S. and Canadian resources to finance the development of physical infrastructure in Mexico.'

The only thing growing in Mexico is the number of billionaires financed by US taxpayers.

[nicmarlo]

The only thing growing in Mexico is the number of billionaires financed by US taxpayers.

You got that right!

[1rudeboy]

I consider a plan that will join Canada, Mexico and the United States of America in a plan that will see us drop our borders while only protecting a paramiter around the three, to be a loss of sovereignty.

I would also. I consider a plan to make it harder for, say, folks on the terrorist watch list to step foot on the continent while ramming our biometric passport requirements down the throats of the Mexicans and Canadians to be a net gain.

Just look who's complaining the most about it.

[DoughtyOne]

What I see here that I see all to often today, is that people are willing to brush aside the obvious, the truly treasonous, to pick out one little point and run with it, ignoring all else.

Sovereignty? Oh who needs it? Crimelord Mexican leaders involvement in our safety decisions? No problem. Why we’re getting biometrics. And look who’s complaining!!!

Yep, look at them and trash your fellow citizens that have not taken their eyes off the prize, sovereignty, impermeable borders, keeping crimelords out of our decision making processes, and self-determination.

Biometrics trumps all?

Bud, sit up and smell the rotting fish.

[1rudeboy]

That's funny, because what I see here all too often, is that people are willing to ignore the obvious to pick out and hammer an argument they are either too lazy or just plain unable to support.

Bush meeting with a foreign leader? Treason. Discussions about avian flu, biometric passports, cellular phone service, civil aviation beacons? All schemes to erase the border. Amazing.

[DoughtyOne]

What you are mentioning could easily be facilitated through department to department negotiations within guidelines. These are petty two bit matters.

You don’t need to bring a cadre of negotiators with you to a near summit level meetings, in order to facilitate the types of matters you have raised.

What you are trying to play this down as, wouldn’t even makes sense to you if you’d look at it reasonably.

[1rudeboy]

What you are mentioning could easily be facilitated through department to department negotiations within guidelines.

We do that already. It drives the kooks nuts.

[DoughtyOne]

Okay, then what is the quasi summet for?

[1rudeboy]

Among other things, it’s the bosses getting together to ask how their employees are doing . . . not that complicated.

[DoughtyOne]

You believe it takes a quasi summit for that.

[1rudeboy]

Well, you believe it’s treason. Who’s being more reasonable?

[DoughtyOne]

Considering that it doesn’t take a quasi summit to say good job men, I have to say it’s a safe bet something more than what you are willing to admit to is taking place.

Teams come together like this for only one reason, plans of large scope, where all the details need to be hashed out before it is presented to the public as a done deal.

When these people solidify the deal, the hundreds or thousands of pages that support it, and the resulting compromises that have to be made, our Constitution invariably winds up being ignored.

If some of the things we’ve been discussing are on the table, and we’ve had them talk about them before, what their plans are, then I do think treason is much more likely than a pat on the back for a job well done.

Oh I don’t deny a pat on the back for a job well done isn’t in the cards at all. I just don’t think that’s the only task at hand here, and I do think it will be opposed by many people on this forum. Perhaps even you.

[jedward]

Hate to tell ya this, but most of the one’s that cared are no longer here, and I honestly do not know where they went.

[nicmarlo]

I know. It’s quite sad.

[processing please hold]

Now, now, nic, you know that isn't true. Many FReepers have said so, of course they are the FROBL ones. lol

Lord have mercy!

[nicmarlo]

lol. Yeah, the same ones who are bought and paid to shill the government propaganda.

[processing please hold]

Yeah, the same ones who are bought and paid to shill the government

I so agree with that.

[nicmarlo]

Judas.

[processing please hold]

The pieces of silver is very appropriate, they sold out for a price.

[nicmarlo]

The pieces of silver is very appropriate, they sold out for a price.

They have as well as the OBLers. As attributed to either Winston Churchill or George Bernard Shaw:

A certain gentleman inquired of a lady whether she would be willing to sleep with him for 50,000 pounds. After some hesitation, the lady replied that she supposed she would, in consideration of the magnitude of the offer. Then he asked whether she would sleep with him for twopence.

"Certainly not," she responded with indignation. "Just what kind of lady do you think I am?"

"Madam, I believe we have already established that," he remarked calmly. "Now we are just haggling over the price."

[jedward]

bump!