Posted on 05/19/2006 6:56:03 AM PDT by Dark Skies
During the decades long Cold War, the Eastern Bloc countries of the Soviet Communist Empire... which included Cuba ... could have used border infiltration as a means to sabotage the U.S.
During the Reagan years we were actively opposing Communism in Nicaragua and there was a shooting war in that country between the Communists and "our side".
We have even been at war with Terrorism especially from the fall of the Iranian Shah onward (Carter), but even before if you count our strong support of Israel against her violent enemies. It's just that it took us far too long to realize that it was a war, not random acts or a law enforcement problem.
So I don't look at this as a "Declared War" issue regarding American Presidents and Congress not securing the border. I look at it as our nation under persistent threat through all those Presidencies and Congresses but none of them secured the border.
Now we have these who say the reason Bush (what happened to Congress?) didn't secure it had to have been because he is secretly planning to do away with the United States as a soverign nation (so why didn't other President's secure it?). Involving CFR, and we have to learn about it from Phyllis Schafley (but it's secret don't you know). She is a Buchananite. 2 + 2 equals 4, and that ain't no conspiracy theory.
She has done some good things in her career, but she has always supported Buchanan and some of them thar folks can be very far out and very destructive kooks.
I don't doubt that, but you didn't answer my question. Have you read the whole document? If you say "no" I will simply state that we can resume this discussion once you've had a chance to read it. That's it.
It almost would be if you didn't have to go back and some people are.We are at war and my granddaughter and the man she fell in love with are going back.
Whew.
Thanks, and I agree.
Thanks yourself. What a thread! I won't bother elaborating. No need.
It not only implies it it directly states it.
I stand by my replies. You won't even state your question.
How did you manage to answer it several times then?
Blind, stupid luck.
Mmmm hmmm. ; )
I think that's from the CFR about page:
http://www.cfr.org/about/washington/congressional.html
The Council’s Congressional Staff Roundtable Series provides a near-weekly forum for discussion of essential issues under the Council tradition of no attribution. It assembles key staff from relevant congressional committees and foreign-policy staffers who work for individual members of Congress in a neutral setting to discuss international topics. Roundtables engage congressional staff from both political parties in the House and Senate in sustained discussion of major issues in U.S. foreign policy, ranging from U.S.-China relations to American evangelicals and U.S. Middle East policy. The roundtables focus on links between domestic and international factors, the relationship between economics and security, new dimensions of international relations, and changing conceptions of U.S. interests in an evolving international order.
We are at war.We are at war and my Granddaughter is going back to fight in a war.
Yes, I believe I acknowledged the fact that we are at war.
Godspeed to your granddaughter.
Thanks for that. I wish yours was a common courtesy.
Ah, but if someone hires members disproportionate to the labor pool for such positions, might you not infer a trend? BTW, are you a member?
I'm not sure what you mean. If I wanted to hire the most qualified people for a position, I would seek the people with the best qualifications. Often, those people have been recognized in a variety of ways. (Who's Who in America, honorary degrees, memberships to various boards and councils etc). High achievers tend to accumulate awards and recognition. That is a plus, not a minus when you are looking for the best person for a job.
"BTW, are you a member?"
Nope. I'm barely able to maintain a FreeRepublic membership.
When you say NAFTA was sold as a way to STOP illegal immigration, you're saying that it was sold as a way to completely eliminate illegal immigration, and that's what I'm saying is too strong.
I can see arguments against NAFTA but I don't see how using the word "minister" could be one of them.
I can see arguments against NAFTA but I don't see how using the word "minister" could be one of them.
I never learned any of this in school. What about you? I don't have a clue as to why these words are used but they are used by the UN types.
The Secretariat
The Council of Ministers of the Commission is supported by a Secretariat, whose staff is drawn equally from the three NAALC countries. It includes labor economists, labor lawyers and other professionals with wide experience in labor affairs in the region. They work in the three official languages of the NAALC English, French and Spanish in a unique multinational institution devoted to advancing labor rights and labor standards as an integral part of expanding trade relations.
Located in Washington, D.C., the Secretariat also undertakes labor-related research and public information, and assists the member countries with their cooperative activities.
Go to www. naalc.org
I don't necessarily agree with the premise of this article but it stirred plenty of debate (over 6,000 views and over 600 comments so far). So I guess your point about it not helping anyone is debatable.
And just a tip on debating. Your post contains no argument and immediately moves to personal insult. I don't know you, but I'll bet you prefer to aim higher than that.
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.