Posted on 01/15/2005 11:51:07 AM PST by JesseHousman
So has Venezuela, the new (and much younger and stronger and oil-rich) Cuba.
I'm glad to hear so many FReepers express their disdain for Sen. Boxer's "I hate to say it" comments, but hardly anyone here seems willing to discuss THIS part of the article:
"Nor do Members of Congress or the Bush Administration express concern over SPF membership when ladling out more foreign aid, or when planning political & economic "integration" w/ these new "partners" under bilateral trade agreements or the proposed 34-nation Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)."
What about this? What about President Bush's refusal to enforce our immigration laws? HMMMMMMMM??????
The ACLU's crusade against religion should be no secret to anyone. The organization is well know for its stand against any signs of religion in government buildings or practices. But it seems when it comes the U.S. constitution, the ACLU has taken matters into it own hands, Here is how the first amendment appears to the ACLU on its web site. (link Here)
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."- as quoted by the ACLU Something in the passage above is amiss, has been omitted, replaced with ( "...") in the ACLU's recitation of this important amendment.
Have a look at the original wording of the first amendment below and see if you can see what the ACLU left out. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The ACLU has taken it upon itself to edit out all reference to religion in the first amendment, which by the way comes ahead of free speech. We understand ACLU has its views on what the first amendment means and respect its free speech rights to debate it. That debate, however, ought to be legitimate. Altering the text of the first amendment to suits it ends is anything but legitimate. It's downright deceptive. Shame.
Who, exactly, "promised Capitalism would bring the world out of poverty"?
Jimmy Carter paid the Panamanians over $200 million tax dollar to take back the canal they never owned. The money paid off Panama's bad debts to Carter's banker advisers, namely one Sol Linowitz.
This un-Godly, un-American organization needs to be placed on a subversives list and disenfranchised!
Carter, like the filthy scum who is proprietor of the Massage Parlor and Lieberry in Little Rocks, is a weasely, leftist idiot. God have mercy on us for electing such bottom-feeding carp as this to be our leaders.
If things get much worse we'll need a benevolent despot to take over for a decade or so.
Worked wonders for Spain, but then the muslims blew up the train, killed the people and got their allies, the communists, elected.
Preferably, somewhere along the outskirts of Siberia.
As for the article, even though it comes from the flagship publication of the John Birch Society-which would ordinarily, make me extremely skeptical of the author's credbility-its general thrust is accurate.
Aside from the nation of Columbia, I don't think there are currently any South American governments that could, even charitably, be characterized as "conservative" or even "conservative-leaning."
I wasn't aware of that.
I looked online for this quote, and the only other place I found it was on NewsMax.
I would like to verify that Boxer really did say this - because if she did, it ought to have been big news.
Not quite right. The U.S. negotiated a treaty with Colombia, but the Colombian Congress rejected it. After that Panama rebelled and established its independence, with the help of U.S. forces. A treaty was then concluded with the government of the new republic. Although the Panamanians had no wish then or later to return to Colombian sovereignty, the Panamanian governments of the 60's and 70's argued, eventually successfully, that U.S. acquisition of the Canal was illegitimate.
If this were thirty-or even twenty-years ago, someone of her ilk would have been weeded out of the nominating process before she even came close to winning a general election.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party-especially in the state of California, but elsewhere as well-has been hijacked by what I call "reactionary leftists."
For them, Boxer is the ideal vision of the party they call home.
And there is the problem exactly - the sheep have been asleep. Maybe the time is right for a major shift to the Constitution Party.
This is an unfortunately charitable assumption given that the President gets daily briefings on the best availabile intelligence.
What is more concerning is that one should be quite certain that they do recognize the peril and either don't care, have more pressing priorities, or are complicit. Assuming ignorance is not an option.
Hey now let's give Boxer some credit for being in touch with her constituency. :)
That is a lot of it, also that there are certain things which were developed in our history that are essential to capitalism that haven't occurred in their's.
The United States and several economists. It wouldn't eliminate the poor, but would help end absolute poverty in countries.
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.