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
Yeah? Well I have it on good authority that ALL the Black Helicopter pilots come from Spanish speaking countries
That's where postmodern arguments such as yours break down under scrutiny . . . Ronald Reagan did not envision Paul Ross of Minnesota actively taking a hand in the creating of his "North American accord," START I (or its variations), the Strategic Defense Initiative, or anything else. He assumed that you delegated the authority to him as a function of our representative government.
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.
44 posted on 10/04/2006 10:25:08 AM PDT by 1rudeboy [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I don't particularly like "stakeholder," either, if only because it appears to be "trendy" at the moment. I just don't see it as dispositive evidence 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." It's only a word, with a plain meaning at that . . . .
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."
I had much rather hear the words "parents', PTA's, teachers, ect. than the cold words of "leading experts and stakeholders".
Can you link me to a speech that the President, any U.S. President, referred to citizens as "Stakeholders"?
Not a new word. Been around for well over 20 yearsLinks to this word 20 years ago?
Please! It's pilotos de helicópteros negros, por favor.
"Can you link me to a speech that the President, any U.S. President, referred to citizens as "Stakeholders"?
No, but it is not a new word. Been around for well over 20 years. I stated my belief it came from academia, probably economics and political science. It was originally to suggest the interests of those other than financial shareholders.
I didn't write the President's speech, don't have to defend it, but he is a governmentalist. So he's inclined to be comfortable with buzz words used in government.
It would be a term used by an MPA while discussing civic issues. MPA = Masters in Public Administration. This degree designation follows on the popularity of MBAs, to run complex and large organizations.
Bush has an MBA. Not surprised he used it.
LOL!
I never heard him say "stakeholder" when he was governor of Texas. I wonder why he is using this terminology now?
....but he is a governmentalist. So he's inclined to be comfortable with buzz words used in government.
The definition of "governmentalist".
1 result for: governmentalist View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source gov‧ern‧men‧tal‧ism /ˌgʌvərnˈmɛntlˌɪzəm, -ərˈmɛn-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[guhv-ern-men-tl-iz-uhm, -er-men-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun the trend toward expansion of the government's role, range of activities, or power.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: 1840–50; governmental + -ism] —Related forms gov‧ern‧men‧tal‧ist, noun Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
(STAKEHOLDER) "Its a buzz word used by globalists"
The term stakeholder may sometimes be used with its intent being the concept of shareholding, in equity or citizenship. Perhaps that is how President Bush intended it. I would hope so! I pray so.
Conversely, in the globalist usage, it's not necessarily a good or bad thing...a stakeholder is 'affected by, or has an interest (but NOT necessary legal standing or equity in) a matter, policy or entity.' (my own definition)
Convicted criminals are 'stakeholders' in legislation that deals with prosecution and capital punishment. They may not like the law and want to change it.
China is a 'stakeholder' where, for example, U.S. tariffs and MFN status are concerned.
Mexico is a 'stakeholder' in legislation and enforcement of laws pertaining to, for example, U.S. borders and anchor baby and illegal immigration matters.
Cuba is a 'stakeholder' in matters pertaining to U.S. political asylum.
The Democratic Party is a 'stakeholder' in the leadership of the GOP.
And so on.
None of the above may necessarily have any equity investment or legal or moral right/citizenship or other standing to affect the policies and laws--but all have vested interests in trying to do so.
And for a "positive" use of the term, the U.S. is a 'stakeholder' as regards China's pollution of the environment and oil stockpiling/consumption....
I don't remember if I observed it on this thread or another, but my definition of "stakeholder" is "someone who holds a stake." Rather too conventional for some on this thread, I'm afraid.
"Stakeholder" = "We see no difference between a citizen and a non-citizen, or a legal alien and an illegal one."
Shareholders are not the same as Stakeholders although there is often deliberate substitution of the words.
At worst, 'stakeholder' is a semantic device to create conceptual Trojan Horses to usurp political/other power.
Thanks for the ping Lyman. I have not read through the thread and am not up on all the discussion so won't venture an unintelligent reply as to 'stakeholders'.
I am concerned, as a Texan, that Governor Perry may well lose to the dems because the Trans Texas Highway is becoming a big issue.
Is it conspiracy theories or fact that it will all be part of the eventual highway connecting a Chinese port down in Mexico clear up into Canada to 'other' ports?
I do not know, but it is worrisome.
"Is it conspiracy theories or fact that it will all be part of the eventual highway connecting a Chinese port down in Mexico clear up into Canada to 'other' ports?"
I don't remember if I observed it on this thread or another, but my definition of "stakeholder" is "someone who holds a stake." Rather too conventional for some on this thread, I'm afraid.
This is from post #36 of this thread.
shareholder = stakeholder? Run for the hills!
36 posted on 10/04/2006 8:52:37 AM PDT by 1rudeboy [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
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.