4 posts tagged “sovereignty”
NAFTA is becoming a cause that is full of irony. It is actually an issue that many Republican Conservatives have decried and now the two Democrats fighting for their nomination are condemning.
NAFTA is something that actually divided Conservatives before it became a ratified treaty between Canada, USA and Mexico. Some Conservative supported NAFTA because of the implication open markets and free trade. Other Conservatives deplored NAFTA because they perceived it a threat to National Sovereignty and National Security (and this was long before the Islamist terrorist escalation of 9/11).
Here is where the fringe Left and the Conservative Right find agreement on dumping or renegotiating NAFTA though for different reasons.
The Democrats decry NAFTA because big corporations have taken advantage of the treaty to move operating plants to foreign nations, particularly Mexico. In Mexico the labor is cheaper.
The Conservatives that join the Leftists in decrying NAFTA assert they were correct all along. Since 9/11 NAFTA has become a cause in which America’s National Security has big holes in it. And the fringe Right Conservatives fear the Conspiracy Theory of the North American Union (NAU) which has mysteriously been in talks without particulars officially made public. The fringe Right believe a movement toward a NAU will terminate the U.S. Constitution and muddle the rights and privileges of American citizens. Since there is no actual smoking gun proof of the fringe Right that fear is still labeled in the realm of Conspiracy Theory.
Because of the big Primaries coming up in Texas and Ohio NAFTA is getting a lot of play from the remaining Democrat nominees for President.
Read the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) analysis of NAFTA and the current elections. (Yeah I know the CFR is supposed to figure into the Conspiracy Theory of the New World Order; nonetheless they are still a decent source of information.)
I personally have been an advocate for blowing up Mohammedan shrine cities or locations if Islamofascists successfully commit another act of terrorism on American soil. Yes, I know, it sounds so unchristian and medieval; nonetheless that is the nature of the enemy on the War on Terror.
About a month ago I posted an article from Dr. Don Boys (International Director for Common Sense Today) in which he advocates a modified form of the old Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) deterrent against radical Islamists.
Those who call Dr. Boys and me a warmonger might point out that officially not one Mohammedan dominated nation officially advocates Terrorism, thus the Terrorist Organizations of the world operate independently of a national agenda. The reasoning being Mohammedans and Mohammedan nations cannot be held accountable for the actions of the minority representative Mohammedan terrorists.
The fact is clear is that the globe is fully aware that Mohammedan nations tolerate Terrorists on their sovereign land mostly by agreement with their ideology and some because of their weakness to enforce their sovereignty. The sovereign weakness in itself can be attributed to mightier Mohammedan nations that directly support Terrorist Organizations. In some cases the weak sovereign nations officially denounce terrorism but a majority of their populace is strongly behind the hated filled ideology of Islamofascism (Sunni and Shia).
To the above scenarios I say tough! If there were any honesty in promoting global peace via a democratic paradigm, Mohammedan nations would squelch the wickedness of Islamofascism. The truth is most of the Mohammedan Middle East actually teaches in their schools, madrassas, Mosques and media forms the same hate toward America, the West and Israel that Islamofascist act out. I do not buy the statistics that a majority of Mohammedans in the Middle East find the actions of Islamofascist Terrorist organizations as reprehensible. In the back of mind I still remember the television cameras panning Palestinian-Arab cities showing Mohammedan citizens pouring into the streets in jubilant celebration that 9/11 occurred in America.
Citizens of Saudi Arabia are responsible for distributing hate filled literature to Mosques and madrassas in America and Europe promoting the Wahhabi school of Mohammedanism. The very school of thought that al Qaeda and Saudi born Usama bin Laden perpetuate. The Muslim Brotherhood centered in Egypt is active in distributing their version of Mohammedan hated and medievalism globally as well. Hamas is a benefactor of the Muslim Brotherhood. Why has Egypt not shut down the Muslim Brotherhood? Because chaos would ensue in Egypt due the popularity among the Mohammedan citizens of Egypt. Shi’ite Hezbollah residing as an independent military/terrorist organization in Lebanon preaches their hate and acts of violence as sustained by the crazy Mullahs in Iran (via nearly puppet state Syria).
I am sure I have left some Islamist nuts out that reside in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Indonesia and so on. My point is that Mohammedans can and should be held accountable for not deterring the actions of the so-minority Islamofascists.
I hear from Terrorist experts that it is inevitable that some kind of nuke or dirty bomb will be detonated in America. How should America respond to the deaths of her citizens in potential numbers that will make 9/11 appear to be a picnic in comparison? Maybe American politicians, bureaucrats and diplomats should sit on their hands and wag their mouths about how America needs to engage in greater dialogue, diplomacy and negotiation? BY GOD NO!
If a crude nuke is set off in America that will have proven those tactics DO NOT WORK WITH ISLAMOFASCIST TERRORISTS.
A modified Mutually Assured Destruction plan might be effective, to wit: Voraciously publicize if crude nukes, dirty bombs or chemical weapons are unleashed in America; America will begin targeting Mohammedan Holy cities and Holy sites. This would be a MAD tit-for-tat warning that America would need to follow through.
Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo has endorsed such a deterrent. It does not change my mind as to who I would like to win the Republican nomination; however taking such a politically incorrect stand is bold, courageous and raises his political credentials in my sight.
Whether the name is the “North American Union” (NAU) or “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP), the term and/or agenda is surrounded in the kind of Conspiracy Theory enigma that is usually attached to the fringe worries of the Bilderbergers. The difference is the Bilderberger meetings are (often times) public or wealthy individuals that hold annual secret (content) meetings that are not connected to tax paying money. The SPP are government officials meeting and preventing the Press access to the content.
In the case of America, the House of Representatives is accountable to its constituents in matters of funding from tax payer money. The NAU/SPP meetings that are so secretive have moved beyond the Conspiracy Theory of the Right to Congressional wondering of what is going on. The Bush Administration has not been forthcoming in reporting its agenda of North American integration and how it will affect American sovereignty. Until disclosure is made various House members (mostly Republican) are telling the Bush Administration to “Back off.”
Here are the concerns of the anti-SPP crowd: sovereignty, illegal aliens and effortless entrance of Islamofascist terrorists.
The only transparency the SPP crowd is making is the so-called economic plusses that could occur without addressing the anti-SPP crowd’s concerns.
I am an admirer of the Constitution Party. Its platform for existence is actually closer to the Christian Right than the Republican Party. I would vote Constitution Party if it ever increased in popularity as a political party to be reckoned with; I am a bit of a neocon at heart and do disagree with some its platform. Nonetheless I like the emerging integrity that new politics that seems to attach to new idealism.
Here is a Constitution Party take on the NAU and the SPP.
Here is some detail about the SPP from a website known as USA Survival News: Evolution by Stealth.
President Bush is rapidly declining in popularity with Conservatives. The President has been hated almost hysterically by Leftists and Democrats for nearly seven years.
Dwell on this: Internet buzz is a major modem of Conservative dissemination of information because Conservatives KNOW the Mainstream Media (MSM) will not truthfully portray a story that supports Conservatism or President Bush. The difficulty with Internet dependence is that the information dissemination needs to often be verified by many reputable Conservative sources before it can be conceivable that the information has not been warped or planted merely as propaganda.
Now that the President is becoming unpopular with Conservatives he has become the target of Conservative venom as nearly the twenty-first century Benedict Arnold of Conservativism and Neoconservativism. There is a laundry list of betrayals: Ramos and Campos imprisoned for stopping illegal aliens doing drug smuggling, I. Scooter Libby being allowed to be convicted on trumped up charges, the harassment of Tom DeLay, collaboration with a Democratic Senate on a controversial illegal alien Bill and on and on.
Cliff Kinkaid who writes for Accuracy in Media is a person of huge respect as a source of information. I say that to honor him. Kinkaid has written an article that adds to the Conspiracy Theory of George W. Bush flirting with selling out. The Bush Administration has called the concept of a North American Union (Canada, America and Mexico) is rumor and manipulation of a little fact to create a lot of myth. Kinkaid cites evidence to the contrary. Kinkaid reports that President Bush could not pass the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) when the Republicans controlled the Senate. Kinkaid believes that Bush can push UNCLOS through a Democratic controlled Senate. Kinkaid believes the NAU and UNCLOS are both instances that will pass American sovereignty away from the USA and to the United Nations.
Are these issues Conspiracy Theories that should be banished to the works of fiction? OR are these issues the shadows of a changing global politic that will affect traditional American Constitutional government and sovereignty?
You really should read Cliff Kinkaid:
