It’s Time To Revise The Strategy To Secure A Sovereign United States

Radiofree West Hartford ^ | October 02, 2006 | Doug Wrenn

[CTposterBoy]

Some members of Congress have stated that we must first secure our borders before we can even discuss immigration reform. I part company with some of these folks, because despite their tough talk, their view of immigration reform, even post-border security, still translates into a diluted version of amnesty, and the allowing of “day-workers” to transverse our border, and potentially abuse their privileges. While I disagree with the latter part of that plan, the first part is correct, or at least, it was until recently.

One of the biggest obstacles to real border security and immigration reform has been our forked-tongued president. Now, the motivation for his agenda is exposed, and to regain and preserve any semblance of security and sovereignty, the citizenry of the US, and our elected representatives of government must now revise the now obsolete formula. Border security must no longer be our first priority. Now, we must stop the SPP, or “Security and Prosperity Partnership,” dead in its tracks, and right now, while, or even, if, we still can.

The SPP plan, agreed upon in 2005 by the US, Canada and Mexico removes the borders from the three nations in 2010. Article 2, section 2 of our now endangered US Constitution says that the President may only make a treaty with the advice and consent of the Senate, with 2/3 of that body present concurring. For those who do not call SPP a “treaty,” but an “agreement,” I refer those naysayers to the 2nd College Edition of the American Heritage dictionary, which in part, defines a “treaty” as “A formal agreement between two or more states.”

Call SPP what you will, but it is a treaty, and it has not been officially condoned by the US Senate. The President has usurped the Constitution in violation of his inaugural oath and exceeded his Presidential authority, no precedent for him by any means. Meanwhile, several members of Congress such as Representatives Katherine Harris (R-FL) and Dan Burton (R-IN) are proposing legislation and traveling abroad to help along the President’s SPP agenda. The original SPP idea and meeting was held in secret and now we know why. Kudos to The New American magazine, which dedicated almost an entire issue (October 2nd) to comprehensively exposing the SPP, otherwise known as the North American Union, or NAU.

The New American traces the origins of this idea to Europe in the 1950’s, when several countries consolidated their energy resources. It expanded more with so-called free trade treats such as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and now regional globalism has been ratcheted up to the North American Union, modeled after the current European Union, with a similar plan in the works for the Middle East. As mentioned in TNA, NAFTA was intended to facilitate the movement of goods. The North American Union, or NAU is designed to move people.

Continued at Radiofree West Hartford

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I read it with interest until I reached all that bogus stuff about the "NAFTA Superhighways."

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I was never quite sure what "stakeholders" meant. Does that mean the various interest groups associated with a given issue (w.r.t school shootings, that would presumably be teachers unions, student governments, PTA, and so forth)?

[wolfcreek]

respond to actual threats.



Hmmm? The Bush doctrine would oppose that approach.

[wolfcreek]

Here's some irony. The DCCC weblog=the Stakeholder

[Paul Ross]

LOL! You really blew it Rudy, quoting Ronald Reagan...because he describes something DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to the SPP's Stakeholders euphemisms. I.e.,

...only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefitting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people.

That is PRECISELY what W is not doing. That is PRECISELY who is EXCLUDED as being a stake-holder in the SPP!

You have destroyed your own thesis with your own quote! LOL! You come here for the laughs! The Laugh is on YOU!!!!!!

[texastoo]

Like you, I couldn't figure out why he posted this from Reagan. LOL!

Regarding the word "stakeholder" which at one time meant the person holding the stake in a dueling match. We also had words such at "boot hill, graveyard, cemetary and now memorial garderns." So now this PC word could mean anyone who preceives to have an interest in a meeting. An extreme example be a homeless man who wants the school back porch enlarged. So far as I could tell the homeless man fits Bush's definition. IMO, Bush should have mentioned local PTA groups, ect to be at these meeting instead of "experts and stakeholders". This was cold and calculating.

[Paul Ross]

Ping.

......only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefitting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people.
---Ronald Reagan, 1981.

[Paul Ross]

FYI Ping:

...only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefitting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people.
---Ronald Reagan, 1981

Bears repeating!

[Paul Ross]

Check out the various UN agencies. They have been using the 'stakeholder' concept since they created the property stealing, freedom stealing,anti-American catastrophe called Agenda 21. It is the basis of the WTO's grab for power, and the force behind the usurpation of individual rights in our country and the intended destruction of constitutional government.

Bump. Agreed. Euphemisms to mask the very serious disregard for the individual...and rule of law.

[Paul Ross]

Bump.

Great post!

[1rudeboy]

texastoo wrote: “Thousands of pages of government control for NAFTA or any free trade agreement was not Reagan's style”.

NAFTA is not thousands of pages long. Ergo, you are not qualified to judge whether it is “Reagan’s style,” or not.

Paul Ross wrote: “. . . Ronald Reagan . . . describes something DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to the SPP's Stakeholders euphemisms.”

I’m not frightened by the term “stakeholder.” Maybe because I see it as describing “someone who has a stake.” Makes one wonder, in the context of that quote, are the terms “stakeholders” and “individuals” interchangeable? And your feigned indignation entirely is based on a definition of the term you created in your imagination?

Also, my choice of that particular Reagan quote is a direct response to texastoo’s above. It is sophism to suggest that I was addressing the SPP when I was addressing NAFTA. Wait, I’m being generous . . . not sophism, but merely a knee-jerk reaction.

In any case, it is amusing that a Reagan quote provokes such a flurry on Free Republic, even on a thread inspired by some guy’s blog. So here’s another one, have at it:

We live on a continent whose three countries possess the assets to make it the strongest, most prosperous and self-sufficient area on Earth. Within the borders of this North American continent are the food, resources, technology and undeveloped territory which, properly managed, could dramatically improve the quality of life of all its inhabitants.

It is no accident that this unmatched potential for progress and prosperity exists in three countries with such long-standing heritages of free government. A developing closeness among Canada, Mexico and the United States -- a North American accord -- would permit achievement of that potential in each country beyond that which I believe any of them -- strong as they are -- could accomplish in the absence of such cooperation. In fact, the key to our own future security may lie in both Mexico and Canada becoming much stronger countries than they are today. [emphasis added]
Ronald Reagan, November 13, 1979.

[Paul Ross]

You did it again, Rudy, LOL!! You better quit while your only 50 points down! I.e.,

In fact, the key to our own future security may lie in both Mexico and Canada becoming much stronger countries than they are today.
---- Ronald Reagan, November 13, 1979.

By encouraging Mexico and Canada to become "stronger countries" The operative word was countries, not region or provinces. Reagan did not urge their...or our...destruction as countries. But PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE. Rather he is indeed affirming sovereignty, unlike Robert Pastor, the CFR and the SPP.

I have another Reagan quote for you:

[1rudeboy]

"Without borders?" Reagan said, that?

[Simply using your technique]

[Paul Ross]

Interesting, Rudy, that you of all people should attempt to reject a critical evaluation of your argumentative position as a sophism. That is your M.O.

BTW, you should not be running around pretending it is some great mystery that there is a serious Marxist agenda afoot in Academia, foreign policy, and leftist pop culture establisments, to get us to abdicate and so self-destroy our borders. It is well understood that the Left and the Hollyweird crowd do not respect our borders. Did you see this which passes for "compassion" in their crowd?

“I am the kind of person who doesn't recognize borders. I don't understand why we think it is okay to keep someone within one border when they are unable to feed their family when they could be getting help somewhere else. I don't see people as different so I don't understand the idea of borders in this world.”
---- Angelina Jolie

[1rudeboy]

More specifically, you are engaged in deconstructionism (which is its own peculiar brand of sophism). Funny that you also speak of "leftist pop culture." But again, I amuse easily.

[1rudeboy]

Here, let me illustrate.

Government is the people's business and every man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid.
Ronald Reagan, January 14, 1982.

shareholder = stakeholder? Run for the hills!

[texastoo]

In any case, it is amusing that a Reagan quote provokes such a flurry on Free Republic, even on a thread inspired by some guy’s blog. So here’s another one, have at it:

No one is upset here regarding the Reagan quote. Grow up!

Do you in all of your infinite wisdom think that Reagan would have approved $20 billion a year for Mexico in the year 2000 forward when he made the above quote in 1979? Do you think Reagan would have approved press1" for English and press 2" for Spanish in 1979? Do you think Reagan in 1979 would have approved the vast illegal immigration since the signing of NAFTA? I wonder what Reagan would have said in 1979 resgarding the counterfeilting, smuggling, prisons being filled with hispanics . Send uls the links, Rudeboy.

Reagan should have left his laws regarding punishing employers for hiring illegal aliens of the amnesty bill. No President has followed the law since then.

I wonder when Jimmy Carter, Bill, and Hillary will start using the word "stakeholder" to discribe parents?

I wonder why Reagan didn't implement any of this in the 1980's if he really believed what you free traders believe.

[1rudeboy]

I cannot channel Ronald Reagan. I'll leave it to you.

[texastoo]

shareholder = stakeholder? Run for the hills!

I quess it is good that we have Mr Webster on our website. I wonder why Reagan didn't use the word "stakeholder' when describing parents in the 1980's?

I cannot channel Ronald Reagan. I'll leave it to you.

LOL

[1rudeboy]

I quess it is good that we have Mr Webster on our website.

Maybe good, but definitely sad. I mean, who has trouble with the words "individual," "strong," and "country" in real life?