LOL! Wonderful Zinger!
Posted on 10/02/2006 6:17:22 PM PDT by 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
Government is the people's business and every man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid.Hence, your argument is insupportable when you attempt to construe this as equating "shareholder = stakeholder?"
--- Ronald Reagan, January 14, 1982.
And the SPP clearly does not accord those taxpayers and "every man, woman and child" as any kind of stake-holder or shareholder. They are decisively excluded. Instead, special interests to countervail against the general public interest are expressly recruited, "invited".
Looks like you should! LOL!! Keep quoting Reagan. I love it.
Reagan didn't...but you apparently do! And in spades! LOL!
Now, there you go again!
Think about it . . . somewhere, and operating without your input, was a "working-group" [dramatic sound effect] dealing with the Soviet Union. In other words, your very notion that the SPP is illegitimate because Joe Six-Pack hasn't been consulted is simple populist BS, and frankly, betrays a fundamental misconception of our form of government.
LOL! Wonderful Zinger!
LOL! There you go again!
You keep having a problem with that "vision thing". You also misconstrue the elements of our Republic when you misstate Reagan's conception of Government when you claim this:
He assumed that you delegated the authority to him as a function of our representative government.
Certain general authority of course. But Reagan also knew his mandate was circumscribed by the President's role within the Constitutional framework...and not unlimited, but explicitly one for Limited Government. Under God. Under and within the Constitution. Of the People, By and For the People. A number of the promoters of the SPP apparently don't ascribe to any of these limits.
Hence it is you who "bretrays a fundamental misconception of our form of government."
And your argument is therefore really with Ronald Reagan:
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.
Thank you george. Might be a good one to animate!
I cannot channel Ronald Reagan. I'll leave it to you.
If this is his vision, then suggest bi- focals or tri-focals.
...Ronald Reagan did not envision ....
In other words, your very notion that the SPP is illegitimate because Joe Six-Pack hasn't been consulted is simple populist BS, and frankly, betrays a fundamental misconception of our form of government.
Then I guess you like the secret tribunals, ministers, free trade agreement transparency clauses. Wink, wink, nod, nod, it is on the website so it if legit? Joe Six-Pack had better check the web every night before he doses off. LOLOLOL The words congressional oversight have conveniently been omitted from these discussions.
Fantastic cartoon! TM needs to see this.
That is a good cartoon also. Thanks.
Thank you.
    |
LOL, I was cleaning up the kitchen and missed this!! Very cute.
Sorry to disappoint you but I really don't believe any of your blabberings regarding "visions of RR or channeling". Those were good tries at diversion and not wanting to answer questions on your part though.
Great toon! According Rudy....Bubba must have had "authority" to betray the U.S. as well. We "delegated" that to him...and he just represented us...!
That is hillarious. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!
"The new "PC" word?" Stakeholder.
Not a new word. Been around for well over 20 years. It came up in the context of employees and customers having an interest in a company, even if they didn't own security shares.
Same was true for vendors, government agencies, local residents (in view of environmental, traffic, types of issues).
Educators (PhD. in Organizational Development) in Business Colleges advanced the word.
I would prefer to be a $hareholder, to a stakeholder.
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.