Pursuing the "North American" Agenda

The Phyllis Schlafly Report ^ | Phillis Sh

[dvan]

Pursuing the "North American" Agenda Vol. 40, No. 2 September 2006

The hottest issue at the grassroots is illegal immigration and what our government is not doing to stop it. The question most frequently heard is, Why doesn't the Bush Administration get it?

Maybe the Bush Administration doesn't want to stop the invasion of illgal foreigners and wants to declare them all legal through amnesty lite and guest-worker proposals. Maybe the Bush Administration is pursuing a globalist agenda by means of a series of press releases (without authority from Congress or the American people).

Consider this chronology.

On March 23, 2005, President Bush met at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, with Vicente Fox of Mexico and Paul Martin of Canada in what they called a Summit. The three heads of state then drove to Baylor University in Waco, where they issued a press release announcing an agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

On May 17, 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations issued a 59-page document outlining a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter" to achieve "the freer flow of people within North America."

This document is full of language spelling out an "integrated" strategy to achieve an "open border for the movement of goods and people" within which "trade, capital, and people flow freely." The document calls for "a seamless North American market," allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access," "totalization" (the code word for putting illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system), massive U.S. foreign aid, and even "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution."

[Guenevere]

a Must Read!

[ovrtaxt]

pinging you to more game playing...

maybe you’ll get it this time.

[ovrtaxt]

It’s not just us— it’s just that the MSM has a complete blackout on it. I’ve heard it on talk radio, and other net forums. Even the wacko lefty forums. They don’t like it either— usually.

Funny how this isn’t really a left vs. right thing. It’s a control freak vs. free American thing.

[1rudeboy]

I’d rather you keep our arguments to the thread where they originate, instead of jumping from one to another as soon as I make you look like a fool.

[ovrtaxt]

You just did the same thing lol.

[1rudeboy]

In response to you. Duh.

[cgbg]

Thanks for telling me about the MSM blackout.

(You see, I have _them_ on _my_ blackout list.)

:-)

[Jim Noble]

Ideologically the Democrats and Republicans are becoming one party. Conservatives need to wake up and accept the fact the Republican party has abandoned Conservative values for Socialism. Conservatives can only rectify the one party system by forming their own party.

I've thought this for a long time, but watching this one issue has made me rethink your point. I now think you are mostly wrong, and that we need to take a different tack.

The socialism which both parties are now committed to is a tool which they are wielding for a purpose. That purpose is to replace the sovereign of this nation with a new and different sovereignty, without revolution. They have other tools, as well. Tools like "civil rights". Tools like the "living constitution". Tools like "the environment".

But it is the seizure and control of our elections, and thus the institutions of government which result therefrom, which is the root of the status quo power.

Until we exercise the latent power which we possess to reassert our sovereignty TO RULE OURSELVES IN OUR OWN NATION, the rest of it is meaningless - including the "conservative" vs. "liberal" game.

There are allies for the restoration of People Power on the Left (of course, they believe empowered people will demand more leftism). And there are enemies, many of them, on the Right.

As long as we have elections, the potential for change exists.

The form that change takes must be the destruction of both governing parties and the seating of a national unity government.

Just do it.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[hershey]

Finally, the American public is awake and outraged at being sold out by elitists.

[Jim Noble]

We need to elect House members and Senators whose FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITY is supporting our right to make our own laws and to enforce them ourselves, through local and representative institutions.

THIS is the core problem which has led to all our other troubles, and which has now for the first time since 1812 put the nation under serious threat.

[PghBaldy]

Probably because the majority of the elite is for it. Media, Congress etc. Including supposed conservatives on other issues. The ONLY members of Congress who seem to care about this country as an entity unto itself are a FEW Senators (Sessions...) and more in the House. The people who are for it mock those who think a NAU is coming. I don’t necessarily think this is around the corner, but many indications make it seem so.

[hershey]

Bush and the rest of the elitist movers and shakers/big business, decided the enemy was ingrained poverty and the threat of communism in the southern hemisphere. (That was the big picture and all that mattered, they didn’t bother to consider any downside.)The solution? Decent jobs. Well, NAFTA and CAFTA didn’t solve the problem — those pesky Orientals snatched up the jobs...Bush and the rest of the cabal forgot to factor in market forces, corruption, lack of education, and cultural differences. So Plan B. was to open borders (in wartime no less), move them north to become ‘Americanized’. They’d work and send money home.

Unfortunately, Mexico’s decided she’s better off siphoning billions through remittances than actually educating her own people. So Mexico ethnically cleansed itself of her lowest citizens and even encouraged any remaining to head for Canada...’You need cheap labor!’ Why did we ever think Mexico would behave ethically? They have no trouble with their drugs ruining American lives. They’ll never change. They’re jealous, angry, sick of being at the bottom of the heap and itching to get even. Remind you of anyone? Muslims, maybe?

[hershey]

Bingo.

[Man50D]

I've thought this for a long time, but watching this one issue has made me rethink your point. I now think you are mostly wrong, and that we need to take a different tack.

I agree they are using different issues as a front to advance socialism. Liberal is a misnomer. The correct term is socialists. Conservatives preventing Socialists from replacing our Democratic Republic with Socialism is not meaningless. It is the very basis for preserving our independence.

Conservatives can exercise the latent power by distinguishing themselves from the socialists in the Republican party. Many unaffiliated Conservatives did not know where to turn in the last national elections. Some either did not vote or by some twisted thinking voted for Democrats out of frustration. Unaffiliated voters would have not voted for the Democrats if there was a party solely for Conservatives. The Socialists in both parties can be destroyed only if Conservatives unite under one party umbrella.

[wtc911]

www.spp.gov

[Jim Noble]

The Socialists in both parties can be destroyed only if Conservatives unite under one party umbrella.

No one can do anything as long as the existing parties control the process.

The names "Socialist" and "Conservative" are misleading.

Either you think the People are sovereign and can write and carry out their own laws, or you don't.

There are conservatives on both sides of this fence. Putting conservatives in power without knowing where they stand on this foundational issue is meaningless.

[Man50D]

No one can do anything as long as the existing parties control the process.

I agree. The problem is they are ideologically one party as Socialists. We currently have a one party system. Conservatives can wrest control from the socialists by forming a second party based on Conservative principles.

The names "Socialist" and "Conservative" are misleading.

This vague comment has little credence without providing specific points to back up your statement.

Either you think the People are sovereign and can write and carry out their own laws, or you don't.

You completely misinterpret my comments. It is ironic you make such a statement when I have clearly and consistently supported a second party based on Conservative core principles that will ensure our sovereignty and preserve our Constitution against the Socialists!

There are conservatives on both sides of this fence.

This fallacy couldn't be more of a self contradiction. Any political ideology has certain beliefs they will adhere to without ever waivering. Playing "both sides of the fence" as you phrase it is another way of stating someone or some people who are willing to sacrifice their core principles and to relent to those who hold diametrically opposing viewpoints. The so called "moderate Conservatives" are such a group. They are willing to their principles to appease they Socialists. Consequently they are not Conservatives. This has been the downfall of the Republican party.

Putting conservatives in power without knowing where they stand on this foundational issue is meaningless.

Conservatives know precisely where they stand on the issues as they never have abandon their core beliefs to appease the Socialists as those who pretend to be Conservative have done. Conservatives in the Republican party have not yet come to the realization the party is not what it used to be and unaffiliated Conservatives are waiting for a party they can call their own. Creating a Conservative party will clarify to the nation where Conservatives stand.

[ovrtaxt]

har!

[ovrtaxt]

Just do it.

Well, yes. But there needs to be a little organization, don't you think?