I'll be happy to start.
1.Legislation eroding the bill of rights. (Patriot Act)
2.Legislation increasing the federal hold on various powers normally delegated to the states. (Homeland Defense)
3.Incumbant control of elections. (CFR)
4. Increased ability to track the daily activites of individual citizens. (Cameras, smart card IDs, assorted biometric IDs and assorted tracking devices using GPS--all deemed necessary by a frightened public to track terrorists)
5.Decreases in soveriegnty brought about by insisting on working within the framework of the UN and trying to mold Canada/US/Mexico into one seemless entity.
6.Spreading our own armed forces so thin that we'll have to rely on UN troops one of these days to help with the terrorists at home (Obviously that hasn't happened yet, but we're on the way.)
7.Insuring a supply of oil by placating the muslim oil kingdoms with whatever they want--and maybe picking up some lucrative contracts for American companies and the Carlyle group along the way. (Securing oil for the country is certainly a valuable national security effort--but not when it comes to allowing the Islamics to work toward annihilation of Israel and conquest of the US.)
8. To put it in a nutshell, there's a very good chance he's using all this to advance his daddy's dream of a NWO dominated by a one-world government.
Am I absolutely 100% convinced that this is his goal? No. There's still a tiny part of me that doesn't want to give up hope. But all of the evidence he keeps piling on can't be ignored.
And just what is your suggestion to protect citizens from imminent attack without finding ways to wiretap, check records? Come on - it is your responsibility to protect all Americans - now don't wiretap, don't look at any private records, don't search people, etc., etc. How are you going to do it? Please don't say - I would find some way. We were surprised 9/11 and who knew what other cells were making their moves for the next strike. Think, think, think.
2.Legislation increasing the federal hold on various powers normally delegated to the states. (Homeland Defense)
Homeland Defense suggests to the states - they don't have to follow the directives. Homeland Defense does not even have budgetary power, does not have a cabinet position.
3.Incumbant control of elections. (CFR)
Bush set out his goals for CFR - they were not followed. If he had vetoed, this would have been the hammer the Democrats used to say "See, Bush is against election reform because his cronies were so successul in getting him elected. He warned them that he would sign what they sent. The Congress is responsible for this mess - not Bush. Talk to your senators.
The decision was made to go with this version of campaign finance. They had the clause in place that parts could be thrown out if unconstitutional and the remainder stands. If CFR not done now would come back again and maybe pass under a more liberal supreme court. You may not agree but, hey, who can get 100% approval rating?
4. Increased ability to track the daily activites of individual citizens. (Cameras, smart card IDs, assorted biometric IDs and assorted tracking devices using GPS--all deemed necessary by a frightened public to track terrorists).
Yes, it is deemed necessary by a frightened public to track terrorists. Bush's number one job is to protect America. I have yet to see any great ways to find these terrorists without the ability to get information.
5.Decreases in soveriegnty brought about by insisting on working within the framework of the UN and trying to mold Canada/US/Mexico into one seemless entity.
I think this has nothing to do with the UN - this is for trade and to provide a stronger base of support for North America.
6.Spreading our own armed forces so thin that we'll have to rely on UN troops one of these days to help with the terrorists at home (Obviously that hasn't happened yet, but we're on the way.)
I see, looks like you want no efforts to fight the terrorists - why? Since when has the U.N. ever done anything to help us? (Except the surveillance flights right after the attack.)
7.Insuring a supply of oil by placating the muslim oil kingdoms with whatever they want--and maybe picking up some lucrative contracts for American companies and the Carlyle group along the way. (Securing oil for the country is certainly a valuable national security effort--but not when it comes to allowing the Islamics to work toward annihilation of Israel and conquest of the US.)
This is a direct result of our situation as dependent on Mideast Oil. Denying that fact of life does not make a man presidential material. You might contact Daschle and suggest he quit sitting on the ANWR drilling so that we can have some protection from the Mideast power hold on us. Your statement on contracts and the Carlyle group claim is merely trying to cast aspersions on Bush and is a bunch of unprovable slander.
8. To put it in a nutshell, there's a very good chance he's using all this to advance his daddy's dream of a NWO dominated by a one-world government.
Please explain to me how telling the UN that the U.S. will control how the American foreign aid money is spent and it will be given only to citizen elected government run countries in any way promote a NWO? We no longer will give our money for the U.N. to supply aid to those countries that hate us. Sounds like protecting the U.S. to me.
How does being willing to go-it-alone in the war in spite of advice to the contrary from the U.N. help in a NWO?
How does refusing to go along with the Kyoto treaty with the other countries help?
Again, you tend to ignore an awful lot of the Bush agenda to further your theories.
Am I absolutely 100% convinced that this is his goal? No. There's still a tiny part of me that doesn't want to give up hope.
I wonder if your tiny part is a tiny as my tiny part. It's pretty damned tiny these days. And it started out very very small.