>
Posted on 04/24/2002 4:57:43 AM PDT by B4Ranch
Globalists are maneuvering America into a merger with the rest of the Western Hemisphere via "free trade" agreements. Their goal, as with the EU, is regional government.
>
America is being hijacked, but the hijackers don't go by names like Mohamed,t Omar, and Osama. The hijackers to whom we refer bear prominent names, such as Bush, Clinton, Kissinger, McLarty, Greenspan, Rubin, and Rockefeller. They don't use box cutters and bombs or commandeer airliners to create towering infernos; their weapons of choice are instruments such as the WTO, NAFTA, the IMF, and the FTAA. They hijack entire nations, stealing sovereignty and destroying constitutions -- usually under the banners of "free trade," "debt relief," and "globalization" -- proclaiming all the while that their lawless actions will advance global prosperity, democratization, and "the rule of law."
A colossal hijacking operation is in full swing even now. Its primary target is the United States of America, but it is aimed at all the other nations of North and South America as well. It is the FTAA, the so-called Free Trade Area of the Americas, which proposes nothing less than the economic and political merger of the 34 nations of the Western Hemisphere.
EU Blueprint
Following the same plan of attack that was used to hijack the nations of Europe into the sovereignty-destroying European Union (EU), the internationalist architects of the FTAA intend to transform the nation-states of the Western Hemisphere -- including the United States -- into mere administrative units of the supranational FTAA. (The article beginning on page 23 examines the European model for this attack, where the hijacking is so far advanced that the EU is now widely recognized as a developing regional government sapping the sovereignty of France, Germany, Great Britain, and the other member states. As it is in Europe, so it will be in the Americas -- if the architects of world order are successful.)
The FTAA represents a vast "broadening and deepening" of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which set the hijack operation in motion by tying Canada, the United States, and Mexico together in a system of ever-expanding and tightening political, economic, social, and military entanglements. Following the EU model, the trinational NAFTA is adding new members (what the internationalists call "broadening") and claiming jurisdiction over an ever-increasing swath of functions ("deepening") that have previously been solely the purview of national governments and their state and local governments.
The NAFTA/FTAA plan calls for an entire hemispheric regime of regulations to "harmonize" business, industry, labor, agriculture, transportation, immigration, education, taxation, environment, health, trade, defense, criminal justice, and other matters of policy and law "from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego." NAFTA is not, and never was, about "free trade." Free trade -- real free trade -- is a voluntary exchange between two parties, unhampered by government intervention and subsidies.
But NAFTA, like the European Union, seeks to regulate and control virtually every industrial, agricultural, commercial, social, environmental, and labor matter. Rather than creating or permitting economic freedom by eliminating government intervention, NAFTA seeks to homogenize the multitude of socialist programs that now hamstring the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian economies -- and add a new host of controls besides. Also, in keeping with the EU pattern, the NAFTA/FTAA globalists have already launched their campaign for a single hemispheric currency as a counterpart to the euro, which replaced the currencies of the EU member states in January of this year. For now, the dollar is being touted as the hemispheric legal tender, but plans have already been floated to replace the dollar with a new currency called the "amero."
Strikingly obvious is that the NAFTA/ FTAA "broadening and deepening" and "harmonization and integration" represent a radical, revolutionary assault on national sovereignty and constitutional government. Piece by piece, governmental functions are being ripped from protective firewalls so carefully constructed by our own country's Founding Fathers. These powers are being transferred to unaccountable, unelected international bureaucracies that are not bound by the checks and balances that have prevented the accumulation of absolute, tyrannical power in our constitutional system of government.
The people of the EU have only recently begun realizing that the process started five decades ago under the banner of "free trade" was really a stealth attack aimed at nothing less than destroying their national sovereignties and imposing a tyrannical oligarchy ruling over them from Brussels. The EU has become a supranational regional bloc in the new world order, and its ruling elite now pushes to further concentrate and centralize power at the global level -- under an all-powerful United Nations. That same EU process is now being imposed on the Western Hemisphere, but on an accelerated schedule. What took decades to accomplish in Europe, the FTAA schemers intend to achieve in the next few years. They have, in fact, set the fast-approaching 2005 as the target year for locking the FTAA into place.
"We're working to build a Free Trade Area of the Americas, and we're determined to complete those negotiations by January of 2005," President George W. Bush declared in his January 16, 2002 speech to the Organization for American States (OAS) and the World Affairs Council in Washington, D.C. "We plan to complete a free trade agreement with Chile early this year. And once we conclude the agreement, I urge Congress to take it up quickly. And I ask the Senate to schedule a vote, as soon as it returns, on renewing and expanding the Andean Trade Preference Act. Today, I announce that the United States will explore a free trade agreement with the countries of Central America.... Our purpose is to strengthen the economic ties we already have with these nations … and to take another step toward completing the Free Trade Area of the Americas."
The 2005 timetable did not originate with President Bush; he was merely renewing a pledge that his predecessor, Bill Clinton, had also made when endorsing the FTAA agenda in 1994. In December of that year, President Clinton hosted the Summit of the Americas in Miami, which served as the FTAA launch pad. He endorsed both the "Declaration of Principles" and the "Plan of Action" promulgated at the conference.
The Declaration's preamble declares, "We are determined to consolidate and advance closer bonds of cooperation.... We reiterate our firm adherence to the principles of international law and the purposes and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and in the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS)...." Moreover, the Declaration pledges "to begin immediately to construct the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)," to be concluded no later than 2005. The signatories also swore to "advance and implement the commitments made at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development" (the enviro-Marxist Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro) by creating "cooperative partnerships to strengthen our capacity to prevent and control pollution" and promote "sustainable development" (globalese for UN control over economic, industrial, and population matters).
The FTAA Plan of Action states that governments will "cooperate fully with all United Nations and inter-American human rights bodies," "undertake all measures necessary to guarantee the rights of children, and, where they have not already done so, give serious consideration to ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child." The governments will also seek to strengthen "the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights," both of which can be expected to interfere with increasing frequency in U.S. civil and criminal cases.
That barely scratches the surface of the kinds of transnational meddling in U.S. affairs that the FTAA will bring. At that 1994 summit, the presidents of El Salvador and Guatemala condemned California's Proposition 187. This measure to deny various welfare benefits to illegal aliens was passed by an overwhelming majority of California voters. Proposition 187, said the presidents, grossly violated "children's rights." In similar fashion, the Mexican consul demanded that the U.S. "consult" with its hemispheric neighbors before passing certain laws. However, news coverage of these and other manifestations of the new world disorder bearing down on us received short shrift. As with coverage of NAFTA, the internationalist media giants focused public attention on the glorious economic benefits that allegedly would accrue with the new wave of hemispheric trade that the FTAA would bring.
A few candid admissions did surface. Mack McLarty, President Clinton's chief of staff, offered this comment: "[T]his summit is much broader than [lowering tariffs], and that's how it should be looked at. This is not a trade summit, it is an overall summit. It will focus on economic integration and convergence." The terms integration and convergence pass over the heads of average Americans. But they are pregnant with meaning for committed globalists, of which Mr. McLarty is a hearty specimen. Subsequently moving on to a heady (and highly profitable) partnership with Henry Kissinger, McLarty now prominently advocates hemispheric integration and convergence in the business and financial communities.
Henry Kissinger, a member of the executive committee of the Trilateral Commission and a longtime power in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), called the NAFTA vote the single most important decision that Congress would make during Mr. Clinton's first term. Indeed, Kissinger admitted in the Los Angeles Times in 1993 that passing NAFTA "will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War...." NAFTA "is not a conventional trade agreement," he said, "but the architecture of a new international system."
Self-appointed Wisemen
Over the past decade, many of Kissinger's Trilateralist and CFR brethren have expounded on how important this "new international system" is in constructing their subversive "new world order." Some of them openly admit that NAFTA and the FTAA can, and will, follow the sovereignty-destroying path blazed by the EU. Many of the most important revelations in this regard can be found in the pages of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs. In the Fall 1991 issue, for example, CFR member M. Delal Baer penned an article entitled "North American Free Trade," hinting at the hemispheric leviathan emerging from the murky depths.
"The creation of trinational dispute-resolution mechanisms and rule-making bodies on border and environmental issues may also be embryonic forms of more comprehensive structures," said Baer. "After all, international organizations and agreements like GATT and NAFTA by definition minimize assertions of sovereignty in favor of a joint rule-making authority." (Emphasis added.) Dr. Baer went on to draw a direct analogy to the EU, suggesting:
It may be useful to revisit the spirit of the Monnet Commission, which provided a blueprint for Europe at a moment of extraordinary opportunity. The three nations of North America, in more modest fashion, have also arrived at a defining moment. They may want to create a wiseman's North American commission to operate in the post-ratification period.... The commission might also adopt a forward-looking agenda on themes such as North American competitiveness, links between scientific institutions, borderland integration, the continental ecological system and educational and cultural exchanges.
The Monnet Commission Baer refers to was named for Jean Monnet, the socialist one-worlder who served as the principal architect of the Common Market. He and his self-appointed, self-anointed "wisemen" -- together with their American counterparts -- gradually foisted the EU on the people of Europe, using deception, outright lies, bribery, extortion, and corruption to achieve their objective.
Jacques Delors, the socialist president of the European Community Commission in 1992, when the NAFTA debate was raging, clearly saw the parallels between the two regional organizations. Delors gloated that "NAFTA is a form of flattery for us Europeans. In many ways, we have shown what positive, liberating effect these regional arrangements can have." Liberating for whom? Why, for one-world "wisemen" like Delors, naturally, who detest constitutional limitations on their powers.
In 1994, an important study by Gary Clyde Hufbauer (CFR) and Jeffrey J. Schott provided a fairly detailed guide to the globalist game plan for the hemisphere. Entitled Western Hemisphere Economic Integration, the Hufbauer-Schott study was published by the Institute for International Economics (IIE), a close sister of the CFR. The IIE, says The London Observer, "may be the most influential think-tank on the planet," with "an extraordinary record in turning ideas into effective policy."
"After four decades of dedicated effort," said the IIE report, "Western Europe has just arrived at the threshold of … monetary union, and fiscal coordination. It seems likely that trade and investment integration will proceed at a faster pace within the Western Hemisphere." Yes, the IIE-CFR internationalists have learned from the EU experience and expect to use those lessons to speed the process along in the Americas.
According to Hufbauer and Schott, "the more countries that participate in integration and the wider its scope, the greater the need for some institutional mechanism to administer the arrangements and to resolve the inevitable disputes, and the stronger the case for a common legal framework." This means supranational legislative, executive, and judicial institutions, of course. "The European Commission, Council, Parliament, and Court of Justice have many of the powers of comparable institutions in federal states," they noted approvingly before commenting, "On this subject, we score Europe with a 5 [on a scale of 0 to 5]."
But Hufbauer and Schott propose going even beyond the EU's rapacious appetite. They assert that "integration between NAFTA and Latin America should be legally open-ended; potentially the WHFTA [an earlier name for the FTAA] should include countries outside the hemisphere." They assert: "Economic logic suggests that the expansion of NAFTA in an Asian direction is just as desirable as its expansion in a Latin American direction."
A more recent brief for this hijacking of the Americas is provided by Felipe A.M. de la Balze, director of the Argentine Council on Foreign Relations and a professor of international economics. In an article entitled "Finding Allies in the Back Yard: NAFTA and the Southern Cone," in the July/August 2001 Foreign Affairs, de la Balze points his fellow Insiders toward the EU experience. "Witness the successive expansions of the European integration project (now the European Union)," he says, "which incorporated Italy in the 1950s, Spain in the 1970s, and then Greece, Ireland, and Portugal in the 1980s."
He continues:
Now a similar opportunity for integration exists in the Southern Cone of South America. A core group of countries -- Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay -- have made great strides in recent years and are poised, despite their short-term economic problems, to make steady political and economic gains over the next decade....
To this end, the best incentive the United States can provide is an expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to the Southern Cone, making these South American nations members of the pact alongside the United States, Canada, and Mexico. But economic integration will not succeed without a compelling political rationale as well: namely, the promotion of democracy and regional security that could follow the creation of a "super NAFTA."
Integration Express
Having helped design the economic program in Argentina that has brought about that country's bankruptcy and present crisis, de la Balze believes it is time to crank up the "integration express": "A seven-state NAFTA, incorporating democratic and security accords as well as economic agreements, would offer a wide array of benefits to the entire hemisphere and could eventually integrate other Latin American countries." De la Balze acknowledges that the countries he proposes to integrate into the NAFTA/FTAA "need help in addressing endemic problems such as economic instability, low per-capita income, illiberal democratic practices, and narcoterrorism." And that "bringing economic growth and social stability to South America will require not only a vibrant private sector and functioning markets but also public education for the young, job training for the unemployed, public health care for the poor, and courts and police that treat all citizens alike." In other words, it will take huge transfers of wealth from U.S. taxpayers, as well as transfers of U.S. sovereignty to the new FTAA institutions. The program he outlines is a hemispheric socialist manifesto, disguised with rhetoric about free trade. "Again, Europe provides a good precedent," de la Balze claims.
President George W. Bush, like Bill Clinton before him, is following the destructive and subversive FTAA road plan laid out by de la Balze, Hufbauer, Schott, Baer, Kissinger, et al. Why? Senator Barry Goldwater explained in his 1979 memoir, With No Apologies, that despite the heated rhetoric and change in party label from one administration to the next, the same internationalist policies continue unabated:
When a new President comes on board, there is a great turnover in personnel but no change in policy. Example: During the Nixon years Henry Kissinger, CFR member and Nelson Rockefeller's protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, CFR member and David Rockefeller's protégé.
That same musical chairs rotation of CFR-Trilateral one-worlders has continued through the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II administrations. This was plainly evident at a February 15, 2002 CFR program televised on C-SPAN. Vice President Dick Cheney, the featured speaker, drew a round of laughter by noting that he had been a longtime member of the Council but that he couldn't let his constituents back in Wyoming know that when he was serving as a member of Congress. The first person to speak following Mr. Cheney's speech was David Rockefeller, former chairman of both the CFR and Trilateral Commission (TC). "Mr. Vice President," said Rockefeller, "I just enjoyed so much your whole speech, but I was particularly pleased that you gave such a strong endorsement for the free-trade agreement for all the Americas -- a subject that has been of great concern to me for many years and particularly recently."
Indeed, David Rockefeller and the Rockefeller family have spearheaded the entire FTAA process for several decades through organizations such as the CFR, TC, IIE, the Chase Manhattan Bank, the Council of the Americas, The Americas Society, the Center for Inter-American Relations, and other institutions.
Both the FTAA and Trilateral processes entail building regional relationships that will eventually coalesce in world government. In With No Apologies, Goldwater noted that "the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power -- political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.... What the Trilaterals truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved.... As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future."
Clearly, the EU-NAFTA-FTAA schemes are intended to accomplish precisely that criminal and treasonous objective. As such, they are far more dangerous than any of the terrorist attacks that Osama bin Laden or others of his ilk can throw at us.
Much of the ballyhoo of 911 for homeland defense is worrisome but lawmakers climbed all over each other to see who could do more to make(the people) safe, in their warm little beds. This is what I saw! Not a, grow the government on the backs of the people senario.
I guess it is a matter of perception. That is why I stay away from any organized political group of any kind. I don't like to be inundated with partisan rancor and positions.
I find myself in agreement with 90% of the positions that JBS takes. The 10% that is left, makes it impossible for me to support them. Same goes for all of them. I am about 90% in aggreement with the republican party as well but the political realities of split houses of congress is making any real progress impossible. I suppose your perception of this fact is that republicans have lost their way and are traitors to the conservative cause.
Perceptions can and are being manipulated by many with a hidden axe to grind. I prefer to be carefull.
I want to talk about another subject that's incredibly important for not only the border states, but all of America. And that's relations with our neighbors to the south, Mexico. Mexico is a friend of America. Mexico is our neighbor. And we want our neighbors to succeed. We want our neighbors to do well. We want our neighbors to be successful.
We understand that a poor neighbor is somebody that's going to be harder to deal with than a neighbor that's prospering. And that's why it's so important for us to tear down barriers and walls that might separate Mexico from the United States. And that's why it's so important for us to stand strong when it comes to free trade with our neighbors to the south.
NAFTA has been good for New Mexico, and it's been good for Mexico. And that's an important relationship that I pledge to continue on. I ask -- I ask for the Congress -- I ask for the Congress to give me trade promotion authority, so that we can not only have free trade with our neighbor to the south, so that we can have free trade throughout the hemisphere.
Oh, I know there's some voices who want to wall us off from Mexico. They want to build a wall. I say to them, they want to condemn our neighbors to the south in poverty, and I refuse to accept that type of isolationist and protectionist attitude. (Applause.)
And let me say one other thing, one other issue that's important. It speaks to the spirit of our nation. It speaks to whether or not we're going to be true friends with the neighbors to the south. And that's the issue of trucking. There are some people who say we shouldn't allow our friends to the south to send their trucks into the United States. I say that's discrimination against Mexico.
I say that if we're going to have NAFTA, we ought to enforce all of NAFTA. I believe strongly we can have safety on our highways without discriminating against our neighbors to the south. To the protectionists and isolationists, I say if Mexican trucks, if United States trucks, and Canadian trucks are allowed to move freely on our highways, we can not only enforce the laws, it will help prosperity spread its roots throughout our neighborhood. And that's important for the future. (Applause.)
They think the Civil Rights laws are the product of a weak culture. What we think of as noble egalitarianism is to them an expression of feminine fear. So they have no respect for us, which is contempt, and that leads to the hate.
What rational country pretends that people who hate them have a right to live with them, and that we should engage in the self delusional charade of calling them immigrants?
To lock down the borders would be interesting and have some benifit as far as allowing time to absorb these illegals or deport them but it does not solve the continuing problem.
What Bush believes and I support, is to work toward better parity between mexico and the U.S. I realize that NAFTA has caused great convulsions in our mfg. base and has resulted in loss of many jobs but the situation is leveling off. We have actually lost more to China than Mexico and that is a fact.
The changes that the world economy is going through are going to occur. You cannot stop them. Integration of mfg. and consumption is a given. Consumers, you and I, drive it! WE want low cost quality goods and don't care where it comes from. I would rather it came from Mexico than China. That is the reality of it! I see nothing we could do to revert to the old status quo. Japan tried it. Did it work?
When the winds of change blow strong, you have a choice. You can stand in the way and get blown about by forces much stronger than you, or you can watch which way it is blowing and guide your trip so that you benifit to the maximum level possible. My 2 cents.
Flame away! I am used to it.
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to criticise directly to the top and have the leaders listen open minded and intellectually consider what we say?
Only a country such as United States which is under the hidden controls of elitist groups trying to subvert the nonsense written into the Constitution and Bill of rights. Unfortunately by lowering the educational standards instead of correcting the teaching methods they have been succesful.
Then we have the corruption of the legal system which of course makes everything appear proper and just furthuring this movement.
Yup! But, the top dog rarely gets involved in the day to day wrangling. Being of military backround, I use the command chain. As you know, that does not work either!LOL!
If we could clearly see the future, decisions and stances on issues would be much easier. I take a macro view of this. I respectfully try to avoid looking at things in terms of how I would benefit. It has always got me a lot of grief in return but I persist. I care alot about the future because of my kids and grand kids. If it takes turning loose of old preconceptions of the ways I thought things should be and accept the ways they are, I will do that.
I have no idea of whether I am right or wrong but at least I came to my conclusions independently and honestly. Groups follow each other like lemmings over the cliff. I digress again........Oh well.
LOL! You forgot capitalist canine.
The answers are Yes and Yes. But, what would be the long term costs of not recognizing it? Who would pay that price?
Remember, we are looking for 10 "kingdoms" to come about....What other Kingdoms can you envision from the current geo-political situation?
"Freedom" and "Liberty": Dirty Words
By April Shenandoah
April 25, 2002
Please indulge me by carefully reading the words of the Star Spangled Banner: Oh, - say! Can you see - by the dawn's early light, What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming, Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watch'd were so gallantly streaming? And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. Oh - say, does the Star-Spangled Banner - yet - wave - O'ver the land - of the free and the home of the brave.
(Third Stanza) Oh - thus be it ever, when - free men shall stand, Between their lov'd homes and war's desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land, Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation! And conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: "In God is our trust." Oh - say, does the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave O'ver the land - of the free and the home of the brave.
Francis Scott Key, who fought in the War of 1812 and penned the three stanzas of the Star-Spangled Banner understood the fight for America's "freedom." Can you imagine if after he wrote our national anthem (officially designated by Congress in 1931) he was told he could not refer to "freedom" or use the word free? Unthinkable! Well -- it's now 2002 and the unthinkable has happened!
According to the Rutherford Institute's Insider, an inner-city music teacher, in Michigan, was informed that she could not use any songs in class that contains the words "freedom" or "liberty." School administrators proclaim they do not want to offend any children that may not be U.S. citizens.
Excuse me! The last time I looked we were still flying the American flag. Yes, America is a melting pot; however, "freedom is exactly the reason that millions of people risk their lives, escaping their dictators, to come here. The truth of the matter is that our educational system has been infiltrated by persuasions that have disdain for "freedom." Sadly, these Michigan children are practically being taught that "freedom" and "liberty" are dirty words. They will have no concept of what "freedom" means. We as a society can be as vulgar as we want, including protecting virtual-child-pornography. But don't mention God or sing about freedom, because that is a No-No!
Remember the Red Cross event, held in California March, 10, 2002, where children were banned from singing the "Heroes Trilogy" consisting of America the Beautiful, Prayer of the Children and God Bless the USA? The Red Cross (Red Crescent in some countries) also said the Declaration of Independence, that was to be part of the program, was also inappropriate as it had the potential of offending as well. The Red Cross and the United Nations are two of the culprits distributing their own textbooks to our schools. They have prepared a study guide on "global topics" and "International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions." It is designed for teachers of grades 7 to 12. The 28-page study guide contains background materials, classroom activities, research projects and a glossary of terms. It serves as a primer on International Humanitarian Law (Indoctrination in to Humanism). No American patriotism here! They believe they have a duty to remain all-inclusive at all times -- raising little Communist robots.
Let's refresh our memory... The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal (in God's eyes - not in the Communistic sense of distributing the wealth), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. America -- the wool has been successfully pulled over our eyes and the Socialist Shepherd will soon come to round up his Sheep!
May God have mercy!
...liberty and justice for all (hope that doesn't offend anyone)! Let Freedom Ring! (Hannity, keep playing that theme song)
_________________________________________________________________________________
This is probably the best example I can think of that shows everyone how the fences are closing in on America and the freedom fighters in the American school system. "Freedom" and "Liberty" have become forbidden words in our school system! Imagine what the classes discussing the Founders statements are like, is it permitted to carry a textbook with a full written text of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independance or the Constitution in any public funded educational building? Is there any discussion of the World Wars in our classrooms today. This could only teach the children that it is permissible to defend your country so I presume those are forbidden subjects also. Our freedom and liberty in the past fifty years has continually shrunk as we sat on behinds and didn't protest because we had no idea what would be effective in correcting the situation.
My opinion is that we should stop protesting every 'little' thing and narrow our vision to the cause of all of these 'little' restrictions, the United Nations. If we as protestors attacked the cause by hand mailing letters to our local officals, county officials, state officials and federal representatives demanding that any and all programs that originate from the United Nations be immediately stopped and unfunded we would effectively disrupt the New World Order program. Then demand a complete unfunding of all Bills to the United Nations. To the elected officials just a short note saying that your vote will go to whomever supports your letter. This would cause the office lights to burn late at night.
Remember that without liberty the individual has no inherent rights.
Let me know where you find one. I lost mine some years ago and unless I'm wrong, it's out of print.
That is what is so great about being ornery. We have the ability to think for ourselves even when it does fit the "Party" line. LOL One of these days I am going to join the Birch Society just to get a bumper sticker and tee off my neighbors.
I agree wholeheartedly!
Is the U.N. the cause of this type of thinking? Or is it a product resulting from it? This is my question.(which came first, the chicken or the egg?)
In my view, the thinking came first. We flippantly call it political correctness. Actually, it is neither political nor correct.
I have watched it grow and prosper. It started in the racial equality movement when the utterance of words became major racial issues. It then spead to the media where the common names of countries and cities were changed to a more generic name to prevent insulting other countries. The use of the term "foreign", was even prohibited. Then came the names of sports organizations like the "tomahawks" and now the "redskins". The awful offensive names.
Now in the name of kindness we remove words, change words, and ban songs, poems, and anything that could remotely be offensive to someone, somewhere, or somehow.
The U.N. did not do this, but the people who serve in the U.N. do think like this.
I believe it was a product of the end of the cold war and a general feeling by the social engineers that now is the time to correct all this bad kharma. The freaks who errantly believe that we must all love one another now, and everything will be ok. The greedy trial lawyers saw it as a whole new cash flow opportunity and the spineless polititian did not stand in the way of a purely emotional arguement to do the "right" things in the name of the "children".
These folks have way too much time on their hands IMHO!
Just found a link where you can order a copy for $9.95
http://www.aobs-store.com/reviews/none_dare_treason.htm
Amazon wants $35.95 but they have used copies for $0.49
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/offering-page/ref=sdp_ab_ub/104-6113619-2699924?index=fixed-price&field-offering-type=used&field-asin=0899667252&field-status=open&size=25&rank=+price
I've heard that the majority of Mexicans in Mexico are very conservative and religious (Catholic). We could add the states in stages or have some kind of transition period like "Puerto Rico" status.
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.