Posted on 05/07/2008 5:44:43 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
MONTGOMERY The state Senate may have been locked down for most of the year, but it did find time to endorse a widely discredited urban legend spread by the John Birch Society.
The upper chamber passed a joint resolution April 10 sponsored by state Sen. Rusty Glover, R-Semmes, claiming that Canada, Mexico and the United States are moving toward a "North American Union" and working on construction of a "NAFTA Superhighway" to link the countries and report edly destroy their sovereignty.
"It's about retaining independence," said John McManus, the president of the John Birch Society, in a phone interview Mon day. "If we merge with Canada and Mexico, we are no longer an independent nation."
The John Birch Society is a far-right-wing organization established in 1958 as a hardline anti-communist group. Its founder, Robert Welch, once called President Dwight Eisenhower "a dedicated agent of the Communist conspiracy." The group has often warned of alleged threats to U.S. liberty and sovereignty, and has historically opposed the United Nations as a sign of a world government.
In the case of the purported North American Union, the society has circulated model resolutions for introduction in state legislatures and assemblies. Glover's resolution incorporates one paragraph from the John Birch Society resolution verbatim.
Experts from the White House to snopes.com, a popular urban legend Web site, say no such union is in the offing. The 2005 Security and Prosperity Partnership, often cited by conspiracists as proof of the plans afoot, is an agreement between the three countries to cooperate on issues of common concern, from energy security to health-related issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at al.com ...
As if it matters what the population wants.
This is how we got into this immigration mess in the first place. We were assured in 1965 that the new immigration law wouldn't change America's demographics, and that only extremists and conspiracy mongers like the Birchers thought that would happen. Then, a couple of decades later, we were suddenly told that America's demography had changed. It was a fait accompli. There's nothing we can do about it, we were told, so let's celebrate it and say it's a great thing that we're becoming more "diverse".
About the same time we were promised that we would never, ever, ever, allow tens of millions of illegal aliens to sneak into our nation. We were encouraged to pass a law to give three million existing illegals citizenship, in return for a vague pledge to seal the borders later. Only conspiracy-mongers suggested that this bill was a dangerous precedent. Everyone else smirked that America would never leave its borders unprotected. But we did, and now we're told it's a fait accompli. There are 12 million or 20 million illegals here, and, golly gee, we can't deport that many, so I guess we'll just have to give them a "pathway to citizenship". Oh, and we can't break up families, either, so I'll guess we'll have to let them bring their loved ones here as well.
So sometime in two or three decades, when entire large chunks of our nation are dominated by Spanish-speakers and represented in Congress by La Raza types, and pandered to by national politicians, we'll be told that the merger of the U.S. and Mexico is already a done deal. We're already merged de facto, so what's the big deal about making it de jure?
This is a common liberal tactic and it works all the time in many variations. For example, they sexualize teens and then want to give them condoms and secret abortions because, hey, they're gonna do it anyway. They demand same-sex "marriage", settle for "civil unions" as a supposed compromise, and then tell us that there's no real difference between the two, so we may as well elevate the unions to "marriages". It works like a charm.
I guess it is all in what 'myths' you want to embrace.
So tell me again, where's the fence?
The list of conspiracy theories invented by Senator Goldwater seems to have been truncated from your post. I'm sure you'll be back forthwith to correct that omission.
"Nor am I particularly susceptible to appeals to emotions. That would make me a lib."
No, that would make you HUMAN!
My profound sympathy to your loved ones and/or your dog.
I guess that's why local Chambers of Commerce and economic development types up here were creaming their jeans over the prospect of being next to the branch of it heading to Regina and Calgary.
I heard about it from the government first!
It is patently stupid to ignore the effects of actual happenings because the one who pointed them out may have a theory as to their origin which seems crackpot.
The effects/events/stated plans are the reason the theory exists in the first place.
Regardless of origin, those effects/events/plans exist.
Besides, ridicule of the whistleblowers would be the most effective defense of anyone with an outrageous agenda.
• No Illegal Immigration! No Amnesty! No Guest Workers!
• NO North American Union!
• Repeal NAFTA!
The phrase “North American Union” conjures the image of the European Union, truly the prototype for what our elites have planned. One of the first orders of business will be a borderless North America. According to “Building a North American Community” (a Council on Foreign Relations task force report available here), the playbook for the construction of the North American Union, “Canada and the United States should consider eliminating restrictions on labor mobility altogether and work toward solutions that, in the long run, could enable the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico as well.” Full labor mobility throughout North America would mean no borders between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, spelling the end of our nation’s independence.
Why the term “civilian disarmament” instead of “gun control”?
In principle, every group that promotes what is called “gun control” is promoting the disarmament of civilians, which not only gives private criminals a tactical advantage over law-abiding innocent citizens, but is historically a necessary precursor to various forms of “democide” (the murder of civilians by the governments that rule them).
Get US out! of the United Nations
World government through the United Nations is a serious threat to the freedom of all Americans. Imagine being held prisoner in a foreign land and tried in an international court with judges from such countries as Afghanistan, China, or Iraq.
The United Nations (financed by American taxpayers!) has long been a safe harbor for terrorist and oppressive regimes which target America as the enemy.
Even more alarming, the United Nations is beginning to take aim at the God-given rights enjoyed by Americans since our great nation was founded. The right to self defense, use your own property, or even the right to have children may all be trampled if the United Nations is allowed to have the power it seeks.
Help Get US out! of the United Nations
Update for the JBS STOP the FTAA! Campaign
The JBS STOP the FTAA! Campaign has been put on hold due to the virtual disappearance of the Bush administration’s Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) initiative since sometime in 2005. If the American public and Congress permit the current Security and Prosperity Partnership/North American Union process to proceed, then we can expect a resuscitation of the FTAA project somewhere down the road.
JBS 50th Anniversary
What purpose has education served in American history and society?
Noah Webster (October 16, 1758 – April 28, 1843), an American lexicographer, textbook author, spelling reformer, political writer, and editor, saw clearly the link between political and intellectual freedom and educational freedom
The family is the basic social unit in society. And nations are only as strong as are the individual families that comprise them.
Parents in all societies want their children to have the same values as themselves. The values of America and its Judeo-Christian-style civilization reflect a rich and unique history of liberty and productivity. These values should be maintained and passed on to future generations by appreciative American parents.
This philosophy is best encapsulated in Proverbs 22:6 of the King James Version of the Bible, which states: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” Parents are solely responsible and accountable for their children’s education.
The John Birch Society believes that education is the domain of parents, and adult students who seek further education, and that free societies are impossible to perpetuate without freedom in education.
These are excerpts from The John Birch Society website.
They sound a whole lot like typical Freepers, don’t they?
Lopez Trucking is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than Singh Dhaliwal Trucking, IMO. The latter being the new wave of “American truckers”.
Not legally possible.
Once amnesty is passed and much of the country is full of Spanish speaking people who have as much, if not more, loyalty to Mexico than to America, we'll be told it's a fait accompli.
I think you are confusing ethnic pride with political commitment to the PAN or the PRI.
"Hey, a large part of the country regards America and Mexico as being one nation already, why not make it official?"
Even if every illegal alien in America were handed full citizenship tomorrow, they would not have enough votes to force a merger.
This is how we got into this immigration mess in the first place. We were assured in 1965 that the new immigration law wouldn't change America's demographics, and that only extremists and conspiracy mongers like the Birchers thought that would happen.
False on two counts: (1) The 1965 immigration law has almost nothing to do with demographic shifts in the USA; (2) plenty of reputable conservatives recognized it as bad law - like Bill Buckley who was rightly contemptuous of the JBS. Cranks like the JBS were mostly concerned over whether or not there were enough controls to ensure that the new immigrants were not communists.
Then, a couple of decades later, we were suddenly told that America's demography had changed. It was a fait accompli. There's nothing we can do about it, we were told, so let's celebrate it and say it's a great thing that we're becoming more "diverse".
Demographic shifts in America between 1965-1985 were due to two causes:
(1) The legalization of abortion and the widespread use of oral contraception from 1965 on. During 1973-1985 approximately 12 million putative native-born Americans never got the chance to be born and who knows how many Americans were never even conceived. In the 1970 census 28% of the US population was 14 and under. In the 1990 census, 18% of the US population was 14 and under. That is proportionally one-third less children in 20 years. Contraception and abortion ravaged the demographics of Americans - particularly white Americans during the 1975-1985 period.
(2) Illegal immigration. Illegal immigration swamped legal immigration in numbers during the Reagan economic recovery.
Demographic shifts occurred because white Americans chose not to reproduce.
There was zero discussion in the 1965 debates over immigration about even the possibility of tens of millions of illegal immigrants. One of the signal failures of the 1965 bill was to not even bother to consider US demographic trends nor to project what long-term incentives the bill was creating. Both the bill's proponents and opponents, in retrospect, were absolutely clueless about the real issues involved.
Only conspiracy-mongers suggested that this bill was a dangerous precedent. Everyone else smirked that America would never leave its borders unprotected. But we did, and now we're told it's a fait accompli.
No one at the time, not even cranks, predicted massive illegal immigration or massive failure of border enforcement. You are reading our current situation back into an historical period that did not anticipate it.
There are 12 million or 20 million illegals here, and, golly gee, we can't deport that many, so I guess we'll just have to give them a "pathway to citizenship". Oh, and we can't break up families, either, so I'll guess we'll have to let them bring their loved ones here as well.
What's amusing about your argument is this:
(1) You proceed on the (correct) assumption that the 1965 immigration bill was terrible law. So far so good.
(2) You then make the (completely incorrect) assumption that our current immigration situation was contemplated and designed by the 1965 bill. It wasn't at all.
(3) Your solution is, apparently, to solve our existing immigration crisis by . . . enforcing that terrible 1965 bill!
The 1965 bill was a terrible bill because it based immigration on market-ignorant artificial quotas and negatively-incentivizing family reunification.
A rational bill would have been based on encouraging immigration based on favoring young, healthy, well-behaved individuals with sponsored employment. It wasn't. The reason why we have 6,8,10,20 or however million illegals now is because the existing immigration laws from 1965 are badly designed and because Americans have refused to have enough children.
So, the correct policy is to treat the well-behaved, productive Mexicans in the US as a suspect class that can never be loyal and never have citizenship?
There does not exist in this country the political will to deport 6 or more million people.
What does exist is the political will to deport a million or so convicted criminal aliens and to erect a system of border enforcement that keeps violent criminals out.
Murdering unborn children and sodomizing people are not morally equivalent to trespassing. Sorry.
My profound sympathy to your cognitive abilities, if you think I just killed my dog because I do not object to Mexican trucks operating legally in the United States.
I didn't claim in my post that Goldwater invented any conspiracy theories. Nice bait-and-switch.
Why is a meaningless resolution approving one idiotic conspiracy theory better than another resolution approving another idiotic conspiracy theory?
The only reason I can think of why they haven't caused serious mayhem is that they don't travel on the Interstate.
A resolution approving that 'meaningless conspiracy theory' just gives the blessing of Congress to the regulations to follow.
The John Birch Society is a far-right-wing organization established in 1958 as a hardline anti-communist group. - article
sounds good to me.
The group has often warned of alleged threats to U.S. liberty and sovereignty, and has historically opposed the United Nations as a sign of a world government. - article
And they are correct - Fact: socialist agents in the USA and elsewhere were key figures in forming the UN.
The conservative movement will never get back on track if the conspiracy-mongering lunatic fringe captures the party the way it did in 1964.This leaves only one question: Did Bill Clinton teach you the art of evasion via technical semantics, or did you teach it to him?
We need another Reagan, not another Goldwater."Extremism in the pursuit of liberty -- hell, lifting a finger in the pursuit of liberty -- is a vice." --the motto of modern "conservatism"
Inventing conspiracy theories contributes absolutely nothing to the defense of liberty.
I would also argue that endorsing Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan in 1976 - as Goldwater did - contributed absolutely nothing to the defense of liberty either.
Goldwater, McManus, Paul and the rest of their ilk = big talkers, small doers.
You are exactly right, that is exactly the way it works. The really bad thing is that it’s no longer a left vs right thing-the socialists, for their own reasons, work hand-in-hand with the “new world order” globalists from the right, and nothing illustrates it better than the “choice” of candidates we have this election, not one of them supports stemming the tide of illegal immigration, from either side, and Hillary has even stated that she won’t uphold the law of the land by cracking down on so-called “sanctuary” cities. They made sure—from both sides—that this agenda will be forced upon Americans no matter what we say.
Not in the slightest, as you proceed to demonstrate by showing that I referred to Goldwater as a conspiracy-monger - not as an inventor of conspiracies.
This leaves only one question: Did Bill Clinton teach you the art of evasion via technical semantics, or did you teach it to him?
Surely you are not going to argue that the obvious and great difference in meaning between the word "inventor" and the word "monger" is semantics?
If someone sells a telephone, does it mean that they invented it?
You were being witty? As in, you were making fun of those that NASCO is a conspiracy?
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.