So, you admit there is a published paper laying out the groundwork for an American union with northern and southern countries.
The phrase "so many words" means references to a proposed concept expressed in words other than one would use himself.
You've heard yourself the president refer in many ways to the concept of an an American union with our neighboring counties. You saw a bill passed in the Senate that virtually dissolves our border with Mexico, a border being to keep people outside from getting in. If no border, no country, you dig?
Over the past decade I've seen many references to a consolidation of the Americas into a regional union, which will form a regional sovereignty. I've heard Alan Greespan refer to it, Bush Senior, Bubba, and numerous bureaucratic functionaries in executive agencies.
Public papers and memoranda refer to it. And every word from the mouth of officials consistent with opening our southern border make reference to it. If you were of a reasonable age in the '50s and '60s, you would have a sense of the state of America at that time and have a reference point.
In the last six months, here on FR, there have been posted a lot of references to public official documents, available to anyone, with statements of intent by federal government officials of one level or another, and reports on peripheral issues that bear on the American consolidation quoting statements of intent of opening the Canadian and Mexican border. Surely you must have read them.
But, standing out from all the lesser, the chief executive has been working obviously to that end. This isn't a conspiracy, it's right out front, which is probably how you miss it. You're look for secret conspiracies.
And people are just beginning to understand what it means in their lives.
What the copulation are you talking about? You don't even know what sovereignty means, you're like Vizzini in The Princess Bride, using "inconceivable" over and over again. I posted a nice concise definition of sovereignty (hint, "sovereignty" is not whatever you decide it is), but I guess you were too busy to notice.
I'm talking about agreements executed by our president with the executives of Mexico and Canada. I believe several references to it are on this thread, with excerpts.
Sovereignty is the right, given by law or might, to make the final choice in a matter. Sovereignty is transfered from its natural source to a political entity by law and statute.
In America, it is acknowledged that sovereignty resides with the people. This is because any individual can make a final choice in any matter, unless he is restrained, or deterred.
A law against spitting on the sidewalk does not dry your mouth up. You may still choose to spit. That there may be sanction has nothing to do with it. The act is already done.
The transfer process must continually be exercised by the individual when in the presence of a sidewalk, the individual deciding to spit sometimes or not sometimes.
Sovereignty is on loan to any artificial entity like a government and can be withdrawn at any time. One person at the proper time and place can chose an action that can topple a nation, in spit of any custom, law, regulation or convention to the contrary.
What??? Only in your diseased mind. Where do you get this crap? There isn't anything "consistent with" anything here except your posts and manure. They're TRADE AGREEMENTS, you loony. You've started with a premise and now you'll be damned if you'll let facts get in the way.
Is it necessary to call me names like an ill raised child?
Trade powers are the backbone of a national and international entity, especially if there is a regulatory force outside our law which trumps our law in the areas covered.
It's been consistently the ruling of the courts that implied powers peripheral to a specified power are as real as the specified power. Therefore, any national pollicy, custom, regulation, or law that affects trade and is affected by trade are within the realm of the clauses of any trade agreement.
We have seen the effects of NAFTA, for example, and they are consistent with the breakdown of discrete nation of people. The effect advertised before passage were exactly opposite. It has to be presumed under those circumstances that the effects observed must be the effects planned.
Wording consistent with a common parameter border around the three countries and elimination of internal ones are found in these "trade agreements" and some posted to this thread.
They are somewhat more than "trade agreements" in their actual effects.
Actual actions, eh? Well, that shows me. Those virtual actions just don't have the same impact.
Yes, actual actions. Noninterference with illegal entry from Mexico, refusal of the executive to enforce the current laws that would eliminate illegal immigration, and, in some cases, facilitate it, the obvious working relationship between Bush and Fox with Fox demanding and Bush complying, construction of a very large corridor from Mexico to Canada where none is needed but to facilitate merging of the nations, hard work with congressmen and senators and even executive threats against same to craft legislation consistent with what the CRF document calls for, executive agencies created and administered to take action consistent with the initiatives of the working paper, and, in the last year or two outright, unhidden efforts along that line.
I can go on.
Think about what you are saying. You're saying, not the CFR, but a paper published by the CFR is now pulling the strings of everybody in government.
No, the policy crafted by many in the central government is being expressed and organized in the CRF document. Actions indicate that it's policies are being implemented.
Dude, I hope you don't try to order a Geno's cheesesteak, because there ain't no English in that incoherent nonsense.
Then read it more carefully. I said, "Other than extra watchers on the border, not having the power to interfere, there being no action to stem the flow of Mexicans, when executive action can remedy it completely on a relatively low budget."
The president put Guard troops on the border. You knew about that, right? They have no executive powers at all, all they can do is watch and be there.
Their orders could have been otherwise, allowed by Posse Comitatus. I thought this was pretty clear in the way I phrased it. How would you have said it?
The President of the United State of America is the chief executive. There are many ways the chief executive can use the laws of the US to discourage and eliminate any large population of illegal entrants.
An executive agency dedicated to examining and prosecuting employers, and correcting mistakes made in specific prosecutions for the success of future prosecutions (think of the IRS and its evolution) can be established at a fraction of the cost of any other executive agency, and the illegals would deport themselves withing a half decade, dwindling to the point that the funds needed to run the agency diminish.
No duh, Sherlock, but Bush can't come out and say, "Yes, we would like very much that the Commie not win in the June elections in Mexico." That is playing a minor role in all of this, if you've been paying attention. Unless, of course, you are in favor of the Communists...
I could care less who runs Mexico so long as they resist commingling of our nations.
But I was talking about reasons like "We can't deport them all." , while no one asked for that; deport them piecemeal over time and do things that make them want to leave, "Illegals do jobs Americans won't do." noting that I did those jobs when I was younger, and students and migrant types here in the country will do them, and students look for summer work. There have been other, more complicated, statements, but these are the top two.
You know, the weird sentence structure is supposed to sound erudite but it just makes you sound like a kid playing grown up.
Sorry you don't like my phrasing.
Do you know why they put canaries in mines? Well, there is the analogue of canaries in the American population, and that's what you're hearing on this thread.
Edmund Burke said to the English Parliament during the rebellion of the American colonists,
"This study (reading law) renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterious, prompt in attack, ready in defense, full of resources. In other countries, the people, more simple and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill principal in government only by an actual grievance; HERE THEY ANTICIPATE THE EVIL, AND JUDGE OF THE PRESSURE OF THE GRIEVANCE BY THE BADNESS OF THE PRINCIPAL. They augur misgovernment from a distance, and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze."
He was talking about canaries. The canaries are chirping now, and you, as a miner, should listen.