Posted on 05/19/2006 6:56:03 AM PDT by Dark Skies
I don't get what this means:
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2000/sept00/psrsept00.html
President Bush far from some sort of lackey to the Wall Street Journal's editorial page. He believed in steel tariffs (wrongly, in my opinion), promnised in the campain and follwed through on that promise despite opposition from the WSJ, Limbaugh, Hannity and every other conservative talk show host.
I agree President Bush is wrong as far as "jobs americans won't do" etc. But he is far from the open borders ideology of the WSJ.
BECAUSE the more they attack Bush the more the faithful rally to him(even on free republic) SO that he can pass legislation NO democrat could hope to get passed with a republican Congress.. and conservative base.. i.e. expanding the scope and breath of givernment.. a.k.a. BIG givernment republicans
Pretty smart eh!.. thats why..
Shuush many republicans STILL don't know about this gambit..
NAFTA was Reagan's idea and does include Canada.
Since no one else can come up with a rational answer to what's going on, this theory sounds plausible. Wouldn't be the first time We've had the wool pulled over our eyes.
Great idea !!! It's high time we take over both of those countries.
Many UN and NGO documents confirm the goals and plans of these tireless promoters of global governance in six areas:
* Using the rubric "Peace, Security and Disarmament," the UN wants to establish a UN standing army under the command of the UN Secretary-General, with the ultimate goal of disarming national armies. The UN reformers want to eradicate national sovereignty as a barrier to UN action and use the shibboleth "security of the people" to rationalize UN action inside sovereign countries (as in Kosovo). The plan is to transform sovereign countries into administrative units assigned to carry out UN policies. The UN even wants disarmament of personal guns, with the UN controlling the manufacture, sale, distribution and licensing of all firearms
. * In the area called "Eradication of Poverty," the UN wants debt cancellation for poor countries plus Western-financed social development. This means forcing the United States to turn over our wealth to UN bureaucrats to distribute to Third World dictators.
* Under the do-good caption "Human Rights," the UN plans to enforce its version of global human rights through UN treaties, each of which has its own international compliance commission. These include the UN treaties on the Rights of the Child, on Discrimination Against Women, on Civil and Political Rights, on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and on the International Criminal Court (ICC).
* The heading "Sustainable Development" is designed to facilitate total UN control of the environment. In addition to bootstrapping power to the globalists under the unratified Biodiversity Treaty and Kyoto (Global Warming) Protocol, the plan is to use the UN Trusteeship Council to control the "global commons," which is UN terminology for the atmosphere, outer space, non-territorial seas, and the related environment that supports human life.
* "Globalization to Achieve Equity, Justice and Diversity" is a catch-all phrase to achieve any other power-grabbing goal the UN and NGO bureaucrats may dream up in the future. They want the authority to equalize rich and poor economies and pretend that redistribution of wealth is equity.
* "Strengthening and Democratizing the United Nations" is doubletalk for wiping out all power and influence that the United States might ever exercise in the United Nations. This goal calls for eliminating the veto and permanent member status in the Security Council and giving the UN the power to tax so that it will no longer depend on nations' appropriating funds to pay their dues. UN bureaucrats are salivating over the prospect of passing the Tobin Tax, the brainstorm of James Tobin who lobbied for it during the Copenhagen Summit in 1995. This plan to tax all international financial transactions would funnel an extraordinary $1.5 trillion a year to the UN. Other targets of UN taxing plans include international airline tickets, sea-shipped freight, and ocean fishing.
* Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms has been calling for the United Nations to reform itself and reduce its bloated budgets. But the UN "reform" agenda, now headed by Maurice Strong, is certainly very different from what Senator Helms has in mind.
Now, let some doubters on here dispute what lays ahead for this country.
Do you have any idea what Clinton signed?
And did the embedding of the NGOs with our Federal and Local governments tie Bush's hands from undoing what Clinton has done?
Or at least, make it harder to undo?
HELLLOOOOOOOOO! Canada is, and has always been, a part of NAFTA.
Concerning the UN or CFR? Because the NGO is talked about in both.
He'd have a helluva lot of work to do with only two years left in his term (barring John Conyers).
Think about this; BushI, Bill Clinton, BushII, H. Clinton, BushIII (Jeb). If they've been working together, this allows for plenty of time to do their deeds.
Didn't clinton sign onto the ICC, and didn't Bush strike it when he came into office? If my last sentence is correct, Bush can strike that as well.
At your own peril.
I should have added - If all that was true, then it is too late to do anything anyway...
I still don't belive it
What do you have to say about my post # 188?
You guys seem to be reading much more into this than me. I'm no CFR fan by any measure but this article enters the tinfoil hat realm when it starts equating measures that are business and economic and security related to a drive to a common government (inferring a common constitution) for the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
There is nothing wrong with a free flow of people as long as they eventually go home and abide by U.S. law when they are here. And despite what the Buchananistas think, free trade is a good thing, just ask your $28 DVD player what it thinks about that issue.
It is not your research that is at flaw. It is the conclusion you reach from it.
Does this system have a plan to disarm citizens? Not the UN but, our own Gov.
The CFR is already in violation of our laws. Laws mean little today it seems.
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.