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

[Dog Gone]

Oh good. More kooky articles about this. We've had a real shortage in the last 20 minutes or so.

[AZLiberty]

SPP Myths and Facts.

[hedgetrimmer]

Our national apathy must end now.

[raybbr]

Improve Productivity

• Regulatory Cooperation to Generate Growth
  
  
  • Lower costs for North American businesses, producers, and consumers and maximize trade in goods and services across our borders by striving to ensure compatibility of regulations and standards and eliminating redundant testing and certification requirements.
    
    
  • Strengthen regulatory cooperation, including at the onset of the regulatory process, to minimize barriers.
    
    

How do you expedite trade if the borders remain intact? By creating regulations common to all three isn't that in effect erasing the border?

All the talk about increasing efficiency between the countries can't be done without relaxing border control.

Read Bush's speech about a "new America". He says "By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America."

When, during his campaign did he mention this outside of a captive audience of Cubans? He clearly has envisioned a "new America" for some time.

He also clearly empbraces multi-culturalism. Only if the multi-cultural society is made up of Americans and hispanics. Have you ever heard him extoll the virtues of Italians in New York, the Poles in Chicago, the Irish in Boston, the Danes and Swedes of Minnesota, the Germans in Wisconsin, the French in the south, the Asians in San Fransisco, etc?

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico.

George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.

You can read the speech here.

Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:

In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster

The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

Click the Pic!!!!

How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.

This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

[William Terrell]

If we move against it, and it is and was not what it seems, we have lost only time and effort. If we don't move against it, and it is and was what it seems, we have lost our nation.

I'd rather be wrong my way than yours.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

[Dog Gone]

I'd rather be rational and respond to actual threats.

Maybe that's just me.

[Smartass]

PING!

Good find...
Thanks for posting the link to:
"Path to National Suicide.

 

[raybbr]

Auster's essay, a long one, predates Buchanan's attempt to make Americans aware of the impending disaster. I wonder if Buchanan read it picked up the idea from Auster.

[William Terrell]

Reason tells me that I'd rather be wrong my way then yours.

Maybe that's just me.

I doubt it. There always has been a percentage of ostrich in human beings.

[Dog Gone]

doubt it. There always has been a percentage of ostrich in human beings.

As well as at least an equal number of Chicken Littles.

Feel free to believe what you'd like. If we were all in agreement, this forum would be boring.

[Smartass]

Good point...
I'm not personal fan of Pat Buchanan, but I think he hit a home run with his new book. I believe he picked up many ideas from a vast source of Internet Bloggers, writings, essay's posted on World Net Daily, Human Events, and of course Jerome Corsi.

 

[hedgetrimmer]

Good link by Auster.

[texastoo]

To me this article has it about right.

The first I had ever heard the word "stakeholder" was in a government SPP article. Today on TV Bush was in California making a speech regarding the shootings in our schools. He is pushing his agenda using the NWO wording.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061003-4.html

"Yesterday, I instructed Attorney General Gonzales and Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings to convene a meeting next Tuesday, a meeting of leading experts and stakeholders to determine how best the federal government can help states and local governments improve school safety."

The new "PC" word?

[hedgetrimmer]

Chicken littles?

There will always be avarice. 1rudeboy, this quote is for you.

"An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state for his own acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents."

--Alexander Hamilton

America's being robbed blind. ...thanks to free trade and avaricious men

[hedgetrimmer]

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.

[1rudeboy]

And here's a quote for you:

We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, 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. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development.
Ronald Reagan, September 29, 1981.

[hedgetrimmer]

Reagan was a "free traitor"? Have fun!

[texastoo]

Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development. Ronald Reagan, September 29, 1981.

Since George H.W.Bush was the father of NAFTA, I doubt that Reagan would have had thousands of pages written for NAFTA. Thousands of pages of government control for NAFTA or any free trade agreement was not Reagan's style.

[texastoo]

I am aware of the UN agencies using the term "stakeholder". However, it did surprise me to see Bush using this word with the sad occasion of children dying. It looks like his agenda comes first.