Here are a few key passages:
In March 2005, President George W. Bush and the leaders of Mexico and Canada announced the establishment of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America." This represents the official public beginning of an ongoing series of agreements and implementations aimed at combining the economies, populations and cultures of the nations of North America into a borderless “North American Free Trade Zone”.
While most Americans expect to pass on to their children a nation of law, with defined, secured borders - and a common language, the Globalist elite who are actually making the decisions concerning our future have a far different America in mind.
There is a section in the article called, "Organizations and their agendas" that contains tons of links indicating that this is no hidden secret thing but a bold plan that is being revealed right under our noses, and without our votes.
In light of this information, the illegal immigration issue that so many Americans are passionate about, me included, is just a stepping stone to a global economy that those who represent us have no intention of really dealing with. I predict we will hear a lot of empty promises this coming election about how the borders need to be closed, with no action.
11 comments:
04 26 06
Hey there Bullfrog:
I am sick of the illegal immigration debate because it is often crouched in subtle hues of racism. However, it is still necessary to discuss it because we have to secure our borders. What bothers me is the double standard. They are talking about building a wall along the Mexican border, but what about the Canadian one? Because if they cannot get in one way, they will try another. Another thing I was just reading about is how the US is talking about relaxing passport requirements for Canadian visitors. Talk about a double standard!
If we really care about the sovreignty and independence of our nation, we will build fences on BOTH of our borders and have our ports locked down as tightly as possible. What is wrong with being a Patriot? From some of these free trader folk, you would think it was a bad idea!
I agree that there is definitely a double-standard when it comes to our security. That is what prompted me to write this post. I believe we will continue to see our administration act in according to the philosophy of globalization and global governance no matter what promises they make about securing our borders.
Yikes!! This news is a little unsettling.
Actually bullfrog, I believe we will continue to see our leaders act in ways that are in what they perceive to be our "best monetary interests". It will make no difference the area. As always, follow the money.
As for how this relates to immigration, notice how when the Republican Congress (just an example, I have plenty of problems with the Dems too)talks about enforcement of immigration issues, it is primarily focused on the immigrants and not what they are seeking; jobs, and the employers who offer them. That is because if we really eliminated all undocumented aliens/workers, we would have to fill those positions with Americans who would then demand living wages, thus igniting inflation.
It is interesting to note that even as Americans decry this type of economic policy, the fact that we have become a nation of stockholders in those companies means that while we say we want different policies, how many conservative stockholders would be happy or willing to see a 10% drop in profits or their 401K's to eliminate immigrants and have a more Americentric business/political policy? I'll bet very few.
Dave: that is precisely why global governance is so appealing to global thinkers, it is very beneficial financially to all involved.
Bullfrog: Excellent analysis. At this rate, with the influx of immigrants who are willing to work for non-livable wages and the outsourcing of jobs, this could lead to the elimination of the middle class. Everything the Democrats did for the American people (The New Deal) is being repealed. Not only is affirmative action for Blacks, but for Whites too are being repealed. You see, the government under Democratic leadership made a conscious effort to create the middle class, but now under the Republican leadership all of that is being threatened. I wonder how long Americans are going to let this government take advantage of them. But now, I think the results we are seeing are based on bi-partisan politics, i.e. what is best for the wealthy.
Cyn: Thanks for your comments. I think The New Deal and Social Security may have had it's place at one time, but they still add up to one thing: bigger government. It is a shame that, in the end, everyone chases the money. Where is the character and integrity in leadership that we need to make this country great again?
Bullfrog: That's a good question and I hope we can find an answer.
Where is the character and integrity in leadership that we need to make this country great again?
I think the answer to your question lies in examining the premise of the question itself, Bullfrog. How are you defining greatness? Not to rain on your nostalgic parade, but I think you are falling into the trap of convincing yourself that things were once much better and have mysteriously gotten worse.
I think your characterization of the New Deal as "big government" speaks volumes. I suggest you read a little history about conditions in this country before the New Deal. You'll find that the ummitigated greed and feudal sensibilities that facilitated the Great Depression made the New Deal not just some pie-in-the-sky experiment in socialism, but a necessary measure that kept the country from descending into revolution. In other words, the New Deal was enacted in order to save the country from the effects of an under-regulated market.
That said, I fail to see the lost greatness to which you refer. The U.S. has never been much more than a lofty ideal beset by conflicting realities. We are a nation founded on ideals of freedom, but built by slavery. We pat ourselves on the back for being the first democracy in the Western Hemisphere, but over half our population (women) had no constitutionally protected right to vote until the 1920s, and another huge percentage (African-Americans) lacked the same until the 1960s. Even now our system of elections has proven prone to massive fraud and tampering. Those are just a few examples of our dicey history.
My point is that things are bad, but they have been worse in some ways. We won't improve things by pretending that they were somehow better in the past. That's no way to learn from our mistakes.
I think if we are honest with ourselves, we will see that when this country was allegedly great (and we are only referring to white people because we can all agree it was never good for black people), then one has to admit, the greatness came with the New Deal. For the first time in the U.S. history, the government cared and promoted the middle class. Therefore, in order for this country to go back to its greatness, it must maintain an old order i.e. the Democratic agenda. The Republican ideology has never been synonymous to U.S. greatness that you speak of. Those who subscribe to the Conservatives agenda must face this dilemma. Conservatives talk about restoring America to its greatness, but if you perform an analysis (honest one that is) of the history of the U.S., you will see that the government was actually serving white people that made this country great. “The Democratic Agenda” perpetuated this nostalgia you are so fond of today. Everything was set by the Democratic Agenda including family values. The New Deal was set up so that white males can adequately support its family. The Republican Deal is set up so that immigrants (outsourcing and insourcing) can support their families while the average American suffer. The rich gets richer and the middle class is squeezed out, this is exactly how it was before “The New Deal”.
Fast forward to now and what you will find is this – those who are backing the Republican Agenda (if you are saying you want to go back to a time when America was great) you are in essence vehemently oppose to this Conservative agenda. This is a paradox of the Republican mind that you will have to resolve.
Church: We will not improve things by never leaving the past in the past either. I would categorize your view of our history as pessimistic at best, although I do agree that there are parts of this countries history we should not be proud of. Do you disagree that as a country we have had better times? Or that things are worse than they have ever been in terms of our morality as a country? The sad thing is most of the decline we have seen is due to the love of money.
Post a Comment