State of the North American Union Address 2008
Interesting State of the Union tonight. Too bad the President has not used vetoes over the past 7 years. 1) On our dwindling US sovereignty, it seems the North American Union is on track and the North American Union Summit will be held this year in New Orleans. So, to hell with treaties and a vote by the American people. The North American Union is complete and clearly "moving forward". Good luck to us on the highways. So, soon it will be amnesty for all illegals from around the world because, hey, they won't be illegal. President Bush seems not to appreciate the difference between legal immigrants vs illegal immigrants; the difference between us being a nation of laws or a nation without the rule of law except for "legal" American citizens. 2) Our nation cannot afford a Democrat (of the current ilk) in the White House during this time of war and invasion. Watching the Democrats remaining in their seats during any discussion of Iraq is such a clear reminder that they are and remain the strongest supporters of Islamic terrorists that they do not deserve to be in the White House. The very idea that they will allow legislation enhancing our ability to "hear" communication between terrorists run out on February is reprehensible. Whose side are they on? Certainly they do not support our military and refuse to give our military praise for such dedication and success. 3) It would be nice to see the President veto something coming out of Congress. Too bad he didn't use the pen on the Republican Congress when they were adding earmarks like drunken Mexican drivers killing us on US highways. My Left Coast Operative informs that it has gotten so dangerous in Southern California now that it is no small matter. Our lives are in danger. 4) I'm just a sceptic on national security/homeland security when Americans are inhibited by regulations and illegals get a pass every which way. What is the most oft-repeated, meaningless phrase coming out of politicians today: "Moving forward..." So far the Democrats want to end the Bush Tax Cuts - hitting those of us in the middle class HARD. They want to MANDATE that everyone purchase health insurance. And, most likely will legalize the illegals. Americans need education on economics. We need our money to put in our pockets and we need to be able to save. As long as Congress confiscates our money, we Americans cannot save; we cannot reduce our personal debt; we cannot provide for our children; we cannot be responsible for ourselves. And let's end the inheritance tax! And on allowing younger workers to put a percentage of their "social security" tax into a private account. Here's the point. Having some of those funds in a private account will enable you to leave that money to your dependents, your wife, your children. We need to free up money for the growth of personal accounts. I'm going to have to look at the Republican candidates more closely. I watched Senator Clinton tonight and she is not the person for these times. And then if Clinton wins the primary as is pretty well fixed it seems and then asks Obama to be her Vice President to win back the black vote she and her husband trashed in South Carolina - well then we'll know the drama was all "theatre." That would be very sad for Obama. Would he be strong enough to say no? Foreign workers can come to the US legally to work but NOT be paid with citizenship! On building the fence, no money from me to any candidates anymore, just money to the Minutemen and we'll build our own darn fence...
<$PostedBy Beach Girlo$> <$AtTimeWithPermalink$>
3 Comments:
Beach Girl: All great points. One key point you missed; when talking about Islamic terrorists the president never once used the term Islamic. He conveniently left that out. He kept saying extreemists, extreemists, extreemists... Which begs the question; if we can't even describe our enemy honestly, how can we protect ourselves from them? We are doomed to allow our enemy to destroy us through this PC bull. Who are we targeting if we are targeting "extreemists"?
Hi, Rich. Didn't miss the point; just chose not to mention it. Seems the President has conceded to the Islamists, to the invasion, and has essentially tossed us under the bus. No doubt, we are targeting Christians - soon crosses will have to come down from atop churches because the crosses offend some beheading fascist from the 7th century who enslaves women to this day and spits on the kuffars. We are living through a transition just not certain what we are transitioning to. May not be anything any of us suspect...
AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY AND THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION
The term FREE TRADE is usually defined as the absence of tariffs, quotas, or other governmental barriers to international trade. There is no doubt that some recent free trade agreements have not been very good for the American worker. On the other hand, the agreements have been great for the large multinational corporations, particularly those that have moved their manufacturing plants from the United States to China, Mexico and other low-wage countries where they can hire people there for a few dollars a week. These corporations can now produce their products without worrying about the costs of meeting OSHA requirements, providing employee health care or pensions for its workers and then they can bring their products back into the USA to sell. These products oftentimes are not made to the same quality standards as when they were produced in America and as recents incidents involving Chineese imports have shown, these products can pose health hazards to Americans as well.
The supporters of many free trade agreements, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have always promised increased exports, better jobs and better wages. Under many of these free trade agreements, however, just the opposite has occurred. Under NAFTA, for example, the U.S. trade deficit has soared and now averages $55-65 Billion dollars per month; the U.S. has lost over a million manufacturing jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen significantly. In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to the citizenry of either the United States or Mexico.
In 2005, a new mechanism was created to speed the further expansion of the NAFTA free trade agreement into a North American Union. It is called the Strategic and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)’ The SPP is designed to facilitate the establishment of a North America Union through the “economic integration” of the US, Mexico and Canada. The most important feature of the SPP is that it does not require congressional ratification or the passage of any federal legislation by the congress of the United States. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States. How else would Mexican truckers be able to begin operating in the USA over the objections of Congress, American truckers and most of the American people?
The people and their elected representatives in congress no longer seem to have a voice when it comes to international trade. This is definitely a national sovereignty issue. International trade issues that affect 300+ million Americans should be made by the people’s representatives in Congress, not by a handful of government bureaucrats and corporate elites who use their government connections to bypass congress and ignore our Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.
The goal of these international trade elite is to create an integrated North American Union, complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the proposed Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the destruction of our national sovereignty. A free America, with limited, constitutional government, would just be a memory.
Not all free trade agreements are bad, but I believe that the United States of America must withdraw from any international agreements that infringe upon the freedom, sovereignty and independence of the American people.
By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
www.johnwallaceforcongress.com
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home