                
 
|
Dana's Blog
|
|
Ron Paul Revolution: Let's Finish What We Started By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
For those Ron Paul supporters who are feeling weary, we need not be discouraged. There is nothing to feel sorry about and all our hard work has not been in vain. In many ways this revolution for change has only just begun. Ron Paul has further passed on the baton to us and what we do with it will ultimately shape our future. We have not been abandoned and he will continue to fight for the Constitution and freedom like he has for the last 30 years.
|
| |
With insurmountable odds we have put a dent in the establishments armor and have changed the rules and the political landscape forever. We are not alone and our voices will be heard. The power is in the people and together there is no limit to what we can accomplish.
|
| |
This movement was always more than about Ron Paul - it is about getting proactive and taking action on our own at a grassroots level. We have him to thank for all the ideas and issues he has injected into the campaign that would have never otherwise seen the light of day.
|
| |
This has been a learning curve and along the way some mistakes have been made, but this will only help us in the long run and make us stronger. Real everlasting change will not come easy, but it is attainable. This is not the end but the beginning, the first stages of this peaceful revolution.
|
| |
This whole election season, I have likened Ron Paul's campaign to the Star Wars movie, A New Hope, and in particular a certain scene. During the lightsaber duel on the Death Star, Obi-Wan Kenobi says to Darth Vader, “You can't win Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” We have not been defeated as this movement will go forward and continue to grow.
|
| |
We stand on the threshold of change, and by continuing to plant seeds we will win over more hearts and minds. Together we can and will take back this country - one district, one county, one city, one state, and one mind at a time. Thank you Ron Paul and supporters for giving America hope. Now let's finish what we started.
|
|
Local British Columbia Council Passes Motion to Halt SPP By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
The Village of New Denver in southeastern British Columbia, Canada, has recently passed a motion to halt the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America. The motion to stop the SPP is until such time as there is more parliamentary oversight and a democratic mandate from the people of Canada to further pursue this agenda of deeper integration.
|
| |
The motion passed reads as such, “the Council of the Village of New Denver supports the position of Alex Atamanenko, MP, B.C. Southern Interior, in calling on the Federal Government of Canada to stop further implementation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America with the United States and Mexico until there is a democratic mandate from the people of Canada, Parliamentary oversight, and consideration of its profound consequences on Canada's existence as a sovereign nation and its ability to adopt a autonomous and sustainable economic, social, and environmental policies, and urge the Government of Canada to conduct a transparent and accountable public debate of the SPP process, involving meaningful public consultation with civil society and full legislative review, including the work, recommendations and reports of all SPP working groups, and full debate and a vote in Parliament.”
|
| |
Some might view a small town passing such a motion as insignificant, but it could lead to a domino effect. Many U.S. states have already passed anti-North American Union resolutions. It is at a local, municipal, state, and provincial level where we might be most effective in further engaging this agenda.
|
| |
The groundswell of grassroots resentment towards a North American Union is growing in Canada. Demonstrations and protests were recently held all across the country against deeper integration. People are taking action, but despite their best efforts, there is still a lack of knowledge and understanding from the general public in regards to the SPP. Don't look to the Canadian mainstream media for help as they have been just as silent and complacent as their American counterparts on reporting on this agenda.
|
| |
It is up to activists, bloggers, and those in the alternative media to further expose the North American Union and force it into the mainstream. As individuals, we need to educate our co-workers, friends, and families. This also means our elected representatives, and we must hold them more accountable. There is no doubt that an informed public will rise up against this threat to our sovereignty.
|
| |
We must stand up to the globalist traitors and let them know that their efforts to destroy our country will not go unchallenged. In the end, it will take a coming together of concerned and informed citizens on both the left and the right if we are going to truly defeat the North American Union.
|
|
NDP Tables Motion that Would Make SPP Working Groups More Accountable
|
| |
NDP trade Critic Peter Julian tabled a motion on February 12 in the House of Commons that would make the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) working groups more accountable. Some might recall that it was because of Julian's efforts that the Standing Committee on International Trade held hearings on the SPP last year in Canada.
|
| |
In his recent motion Julian said, “the government should ensure that Parliament is informed and consulted on the progress of each of the working groups of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America by mandating that each working group file with Parliament a quarterly report to be reviewed by the appropriate standing committee, which should include information on each working group meeting, specific issues discussed, status report on existing objectives, projects and agendas, including any new additional actions or projects decided on by the working groups, and an account of which stakeholders were consulted.”
|
| |
Upwards of 20 working groups along with over 300 agencies are quietly and with little or no scrutiny harmonizing regulations, writing policy initiative, and recommendations. They are integrating our laws into a North American structure, and by engaging in policy making they must be made more accountable. All to often, their activities go unnoticed without any proper public or governmental oversight.
|
| |
It is in the shadows that a North American Union is being forged by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats working side by side with the business elite. The whole SPP process lacks transparency, and this motion tabled by the NDP will hopefully shed more light on the working groups. The North American Union is being created incrementally, expanding upon NAFTA and using the SPP as its framework.
|
| |
While the NDP should be applauded for their efforts, this is just another step in exposing and defeating this agenda. A North American Union is being created, and it is the working groups that are laying the foundation for deeper integration. The only way to stop this agenda is to walk away from it, disband the working groups, and cancel any harmonization that might have already taken place.
|
| |
This is a greed-driven agenda, and if completed, it will represent the complete corporate takeover of North America, the end of our borders, sovereignty, and another step towards global governance. Ultimately it should be the people of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico who decide on a North American Union.
|
|
The United Nations is Coming For Our Children By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
A global transformation is being manifested through corporations, the media, entertainment, and the educational system. The social engineers and the agents of change wish to purge our children's beliefs, value system, their independence, and their individuality. They are being replaced with more global beliefs, universal values, and interdependence. Their fragile little minds are being molded and shifted into group-think, while parental authority and influence is being undermined. The United Nations, through its numerous agencies and treaties, is undermining national sovereignty, and further dictating family policy. This is not to say that there aren't well meaning people working for the UN, but at its very core, it has been hijacked by some wishing to use it for their own agenda. Under the guise of human rights, these cleverly worded and crafted treaties are anti-family and are about control and fail to honor, respect, or adhere to our own Constitution. It is through the educational system that they wish to correct any perceived errors in home training. As a result, children's love and loyalty to their family and country is being systematically destroyed.
|
| |
Children are being indoctrinated to view everything from a world perspective, and are being conditioned to conform to universal values, environmental standards, and a whole new global management system. This is all part of training children to be good little slaves, I mean good global citizens. In schools, collective thinking is strongly encouraged, and children are taught that there must always be unity and consensus. Group interaction is important, but it doesn't always have to end with everyone agreeing. Children are being made to see themselves as a group, where personal worth depends solely on service to the community and to the state. They are being desensitized to contrary values, and teaching is now more focused on feelings and emotions rather than facts and logic. They are being taught that morals and values are constantly changing, and that they need to establish a system that best suits them. There is no room for those who uphold their morals, including their parents. They are all viewed as intolerant and trying to impose their values on others. In this new system, a strong family unit is a threat, and there is no place for nationalism or individuality.
|
| |
Founded in 1945, the United Nations Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has been described as a propaganda machine for the UN and world government. In 1984, the late President Reagan withdrew from UNESCO and stated., “It has exhibited a hostility toward institutions of free society, especially a free market and a free press.” In 2003, President Bush brought the U.S. back into UNESCO, promising they had reformed for the better. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who opposed the decision, said, “UNESCO meddles in the education affairs of its member-countries and has sought to construct a UN-based school curriculum for American schools.” Much of our education system is already UNESCO-orientated and in fact an almost worldwide curriculum has been archived. UNESCO seeks to be the school board of the world and is indoctrinating children for world government. Its first director, Julian Huxley, said of UNESCO, “The task is to help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas and with its own broad purpose.” In order to truly achieve this goal, they will have to destroy any feelings of nationalism and loyalty to one's country, and undermine any traditional family values, biblical principles, and other influences at home and in the confides of the family structure. To further acclimate itself, the UN has entered into partnership with Marvel Comics, where superheroes will be depicted working side by side with the world body. Millions of American school children will receive these comics for free.
|
| |
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is based on the same principles of the UN charter that rights and freedoms are granted by governments and institutions, and are conditional. In an article from 15 years ago, Phyllis Schlafly states that the convention, “is based on the concept that a child's rights originate with the UN Treaty itself or with the government. The logical conclusion is that a child would have no rights except those in the Treaty, and what government gives, government also can take away.” The whole UN framework and philosophy runs contrary to the Bill of Rights and to the Constitution. The UNCRC fails to cement a parent's right to make decisions for their own children. It is an assault on parental authority, and is a blank check for governmental interference in family affairs. It states that the government shall uphold and ensure children's rights to freedom of thought, religion, conscience, privacy, and rest and leisure. In Article 13 it says that, “The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or though any other media of the child's choice.” This clearly undermines parental authority and seemingly grants children radical new rights. It is meant to further promote a child's autonomy and freedom from parental guidance. This was never about protecting the children, and has given the UN more power over our lives. It is being selectively enforced in countries where the convention has been signed and ratified.
|
| |
In Belgian, homeschool parents must sign a document stating that they promise to rear their children in accordance with the UNCRC. Government inspectors decide whether or not families are complying to UN training. Those not following the criteria have their children sent to government schools. It appears as if homeschooling has become a UN-sponsored activity. In Germany, the state views homeschooling as a violation of a child's well being. The UNCRC gives the government the power to define and determine what is in a child's best interests. If it does not pertain to abuse or neglect, it has no business otherwise. The UNCRC transfers parental rights and responsibilities to the state and grants children dangerous freedoms. It was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995, but has yet to be ratified. It lies dormant, but when the time is right, it could be dusted off much like the Law of the Sea Treaty was.
|
| |
Parents need to understand that the moment they send their children to public schools, they are surrendering a certain amount of authority and influence over their children. Values and principles installed by parents are being manipulated and pushed aside. The ideology of globalism and world government is at the very core of the educational system. Many are choosing to homeschool, but they are being demonized and are under attack. In places like Germany, homeschool parents are being fined, jailed, and in some cases are having their children taken away. There is a battle going on for the hearts and minds of our children. The social architects know that if they can shape and mold our children's minds, they will undoubtedly control the future.
|
|
Rudy Giuliani's Losing Ways Continue Against Ron Paul By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
What do Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul have in common? Neither has won a primary or caucus, the difference being that Giuliani was expected to challenge and even win the Republican nomination while Paul has been labeled as a fringe candidate with no chance of winning. With a second place finish in Nevada, Paul is building momentum for Florida and Super Tuesday. Giuliani is going in the opposite direction and is staking his whole campaign on winning Florida, but he is fading fast. As a result of his poor showings, his national support is also eroding and Florida is shaping up o be a dog fight. After Nevada and South Carolina, Duncan Hunter has decided to drop out of the race. On February fifth, Super Tuesday will further make or break the candidates, which could see the field dwindle down even more, and this could very well include Giuliani.
|
| |
Giuliani's poor showings in the early contests are not because of a lack of trying. As a result, other candidates have been given more exposure and gained momentum. His strategy of seemingly abandoning early states and shifting money and resources to focus on Florida was done out of pure desperation. Florida has become a must win and could further cement his presidential campaign as one of the biggest busts in American political history. It could also turn out to be pure genius if he is able to win in Florida, and it would catapult him back into the race. There are reports that some of his staff are working without pay, and that his campaign is cash-strapped as contributions have all but dried up. In a last ditch effort to salvage his campaign and his pride, he is now proclaiming himself to be an agent of change, and is further attacking his opponents. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
|
| |
In Iowa, Giuliani finished with 4% of the vote, well behind Paul's 10%. In fact Paul spanked him with a 2-1 ratio in votes, even though Giuliani had made more visits to the state. In New Hampshire, it appears as if much of Giuliani's support went McCain's way. Giuliani spent almost as much money as the winner. He once again failed to reach double digits and finished with 9%, edging out Paul by only one percent. Then it was on to Michigan, which was another Giuliani disaster, whereas Paul garnered almost more votes than Thompson and Giuliani combined. Nevada saw Paul pull off a dramatic second place finish, picking up 13% of the vote as opposed to Giuliani's measly 4%. South Carolina turned into another embarrassing performance, and another loss to Paul. Giuliani's campaign is in free-fall mode, but is still banking on Florida and other voter-rich delegate states. A win in Florida would elevate and rejuvenate his campaign, but a loss would see it crash and burn and come to a screeching halt.
|
| |
A turning point in the Giulani campaign might have been his ill-fated attack on Paul over foreign policy in one of the earlier debates. Paul stated that American foreign policy was a major contributing factor leading to 9/11, but he never suggested that we invited the attacks. Giuliani urged Paul to retract his statement and claimed he had never heard of such a theory. He later stated that they hate us because of our freedom and our values. Paul did not back down, and questioned if Giuliani had ever read the 9/11 commission report, later holding a press conference where former CIA officials further backed up his statements. He issued a list of books for Giuliani to read on the subject. At the time, many pundits believed that Giuliani had delivered a knockout blow, and Mr. 9/11 looked strong and presidential. It may have been the highlight of his campaign, but a turning point in a negative way. It exposed Giuliani's lack of foreign policy knowledge and elevated Paul's status
|
| |
After more than six years, it appears as if Giuliani's opportunity to use the attacks and the whole fear of terrorism are gone. In fact, 9/11 has become his can of worms, and many accuse him of covering up the toxic dust scandal at ground zero. Others are angry for his decision to put firefighters and other victim's remains in landfills. Almost everywhere he goes, he is dogged by those who blame him for some of the firefighters deaths. There can be little doubt that Giuliani has used the 9/11 tragedies for personal profit and to launch his presidential bid. It is becoming obvious to many that he is no longer a viable candidate.
|
| |
In less then a month, Giuliani has gone from Republican front runner to a second tier candidate. It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Like those who had earlier written off McCain, can Giuliani rekindle the magic? Anything less than a win in Florida would spell certain doom for his campaign. If Paul doesn't win the nomination, his revolution will have still succeeded, and we can forever look back with a smile on how he whooped Giuliani.
|
|
Ron Paul is the Real Candidate for Change, Not Barack Obama By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
Going into the New Hampshire primaries, polls showed that Barack Obama would win again for the Democrats, and Ron Paul was posed to finish third or fourth for the Republicans and improve his showing in the Iowa caucuses. It has been reported that both may have been cheated in NH by voting machines and hand count fraud. As a result there, will be a recount for both parties. Many fear that if no problems are found, it could further legitimize the electronic voting machines and hurt future recounts. Ron Paul does not endorse a recount, and instead has chosen to focus on the primaries to come. It was disappointing to finish in fifth place in NH, and I would have felt a lot better if he had finished ahead of Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. The good news is that there still isn't a Republican front runner. Giuliani failed to break into double digits in NH, finishing with 9%, only one percent more than Paul. Regardless of what happens, Paul is the true candidate for change. Others like Obama talk about it, but what are they saying would really change? There is a difference between calling for change and actually having a proposed plan to bring it about.
|
| |
First I'd like to say that I have no axe to grind with Obama, and find some of the allegations brought against him petty and ridiculous. That having been said, for someone whose campaign is based on change, he is pretty vague on exactly what and how he would change things. Saying you are going to change things is mere words and empty promises. Real change requires plotting an entirely new course with ideas, specifics, firm policy initiatives, and it doesn't always come quickly. The truth is that behind all the rhetoric, Obama represents the status quo, and there is very little difference between himself and Hillary Clinton. Obama's two years in the Senate and thin resume means that he doesn't have that much political baggage. One can hardly dispute the fact that he lacks experience, is unproven, untested, and lacks critical wisdom and policy knowledge. Paul, on the other hand, has been advocating real change to our foreign policy, monetary policy, and the corporate welfare state for thirty years. He is well read, and there is no other candidate who studies political philosophy and economics more than he does. He has a distinguished voting record, upholds the constitution, and has been likened to the founding fathers. One's gender or race does not mark significant change, and I believe that Paul is the only candidate who can restore America.
|
| |
There are definitely some similarities between Paul and Obama. Both are promising change, enjoy huge support on the Internet, have grassroots appeal, and have struck a chord with young voters. After that, most of the similarities end. Obama is young, charismatic, smooth, and a great communicator whose words are captivating and intoxicating. He makes you feel good about yourself. For the most part, he has been a media darling, and some reporters have admitted bias on reporting about him objectively. It will take more than a certain look, an image cute phrases and catchy slogans to change things. The contrast is that Paul is a humble 72 year old constitutionalist, and is a model of consistency. He admits that he has limitations, but his message of freedom does not. For the most part, the mainstream media has tried to ignore and misrepresent Paul, his message, and his supporters. Paul has always championed civil liberties and voted against the Patriot and the Real ID Act. Meanwhile, Obama voted for the Real ID and to renew provisions of the Patriot Act. Paul doesn't sugarcoat things, and is one of the few politicians who acknowledges our overspending, the weak dollar, and the evils of the Federal Reserve. He also wants to eliminate income taxes and abolish the IRS. There is little doubt that there is an appetite for change. Ron Paul addressed this issue and said, “To me that means the only significant change we ought to have is get enough people in Washington that read the constitution, obey the constitution, do only things that we are allowed to do.”
|
| |
Ron Paul admits that there is very little difference between the mainstream candidates, Democrat or Republican. He said, “Foreign policy never changed. Domestic fiscal policy, the welfare entitlement system never changes.” For years, both parties have been double teaming the American people. One gets in power and further advances the New World Order agenda, and then falls out of favor and passes the baton to the other. Both parties are supported by special interest groups, and many are waking up to the fact that the Democrats aren't going to save us either. Paul's support is diverse and transcends party lines. We don't have to choose the lesser of the evils, because with Paul we have the right man with the right message. He is shattering the fake left-right paradigm and dismantling the establishment. While most candidates including Obama grovel to AIPAC, Paul is not bought and paid for by any special interest groups, corporations, or countries. He is the only one of the top candidates in either party that doesn't have any connections or affiliation to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Obama gives speeches to CFR members and at CFR sponsored events. His top foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has intimate ties to both the CFR and co-founded the Trilateral Commission. Obama has tried to paint himself as an outsider, but has surrounded himself with consummate insiders and political heavy weights. It's always the same people behind the scenes.
|
| |
Both Obama and Paul are receiving the most contributions from military personnel for their respective parties. Out of the two, only Paul can be considered an anti-war candidate. Paul was against the Iraq war from the beginning, and wants to pull our troops out of Iraq and the whole middle east almost immediately. He advocates a foreign policy of non-intervention. Obama says he would have voted against the Iraq war if he were in the Senate at the time, but has voted for continued funding of the war. He talks about a timetable for withdrawing main-combat forces in Iraq, but would then send more to Afghanistan. He has talked about possible missile strikes against Iran and military action against Pakistan. He would continue to expand the war on terror, and he supports preemptive strikes, increasing the size of our armed forces, and further militarization of the middle east. It is impossible to label Obama as an anti-war candidate, but it might be unfair to say that he is a warmonger. He is pro-military, and has demonstrated his willingness to maintain the U.S. as the world's police force. Obama as president would not bring about any radical shift in foreign policy.
|
| |
Barack Obama would bring about artificial change, and he is like window dressing to make something old and broken appear new and fixed. Ron Paul is like a big wrecking ball, with the words change on it. He understands the role of government, and would limit its size and scope. Limited government would bring about more liberty, and that is what America was founded on. We would return a more constitutionally-sound monetary and foreign policy. There would be no more nation building, foreign entanglements, and trying to police the world. Hillary Clinton is still the anointed one, and will probably win the presidential nomination for the Democrats. There is a good chance that Obama will be on her ticket. A woman president and a black vice-president, with the Democrats back in power, that might be the only change we get. Maybe Obama is the insurance policy in case Paul wins the Republican nomination, or runs as a third-party candidate. Ron Paul is the real candidate for change, and Barack Obama is a tool of the elite.
|
|
Open Borders, the NAU, and the Betrayal of the American People By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
Every nation has the right and the duty to protect its citizens, and it ceases to exist as a sovereign independent country if it fails to defend and control its own national borders. The lack of immigration enforcement, open borders, the push for amnesty, and the NAFTA Superhighway don't make a lot of sense unless you view them in the context that there is an effort to merge Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. into a North American Union. Multinational corporations view borders as barriers to increased profits, and this is all part of the destructive cycle of globalism. Trade deals such as NAFTA and CAFTA have further facilitated the freer flow of goods and people across our borders, and are also part of the framework for a North American Union. This agenda will further erode our national sovereignty and erase our borders.
|
| |
The proponents of NAFTA said that it would bring prosperity to Mexico and thus ease illegal immigration into the United States. It has been an economic disaster and has not benefited the average Mexican, nor has it solved our illegal immigration woes, but has added to them. Mexico is marred in a culture of corruption, and this includes its economic system. As a result, most Mexicans are trapped in abject poverty. Well over 20 million illegal aliens have crossed the border since NAFTA was passed. Some believe that the solution is to simply eliminate our borders with Mexico and legalize the invasion. Any guest worker or amnesty program will result in even more illegals crossing over. Furthermore, is rewarding those who have entered the country illegally such a good idea? What kind of message does this send? This is also a slap in the face for those trying to come here legally. There should be immigration, and I support and welcome any immigrant who comes here legally and works hard to build a better life for themselves and their family. It is our own policies and social programs that are subsidizing illegal immigration. Increased numbers are putting a tremendous amount of strain on federal social entitlement programs. Pat Buchanan has stated that, “Immigrants consume social services-welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, free schools, prison-cells at rates far greater than our native-born.” The more illegals who enter the U.S, the more wages will go down, the more health-care costs will increase, and the more it will drain our social services and further burden tax payers. Any Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico will spell almost certain doom for a system that already faces future shortfalls. It will only serve to attract even more Mexicans to enter the U.S. illegally. Most entering are unskilled labor, pay little or no taxes, and send much of their earnings out of country. There is no possible way that we can absorb the current levels of illegals without it further effecting our economy and prosperity.
|
| |
The amnesty bill that was defeated several months back was drafted in secret by liberal think tanks and Latino interest groups, such as the National Council of La Raza. They promote a racist ideology and have called for a revolution inside America. Rep Charles Norwood, R-Ga described La Raza as a, “pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland.” Mexico's government instructs its own citizens on how to safely and illegally cross the border. Many Mexicans are taught to hate America, and mass illegal immigration is part of an invasion, a “reconquista,” which is Spanish for reconquest. Some have laid claim to California, Arizona, Nevada, New-Mexico and parts of Colorado, and Texas. Groups like MECHA advocate, “Everything for the race, for those outside the race nothing.” If you doubt that there is an invasion taking place, here are a couple quotes from two former Mexican Presidents. Ernesto Zedillo said, “I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders.” Former President Vicente Fox said, “We are Mexicans that live in our territories, and we are Mexicans that live in other territories. In reality, there are 120 million people that live together and are working together to construct a nation.” They both acknowledged that Mexico as a nation goes beyond its own borders, and Fox illustrates that a Mexican nation is being constructed inside the United States. Many who come here refuse to adapt in any way, and their loyalty and allegiance is not to their new home, but to their native country. In Europe, some countries like France have paid the price for guest-worker programs, with many refusing to assimilate. This has lead to violence and civil unrest on the streets of Paris and other cities.
|
| |
The majority of Americans want something done about illegal immigration, and upwards of 70% were against the last immigration bill. If passed, it would have granted amnesty to more then 20 million illegals, and put millions more on the path to citizenship. This is not a solution, but will only further escalate the problem. Real solutions include ending birthright citizenship, ending welfare-state incentives for illegals, enforcing visa rules, rejecting amnesty, prosecuting employers who hire illegals, making current immigration procedures more fair, and securing our borders and coastlines. What happened to the promised border fence? It appears as if the U.S. Senate has turned its back on the project. The San Diego double-layered fence has greatly reduced the smuggling of drugs and people across the border. In Arizona, many illegal immigrants are leaving because of the poor economy and as a result of tough new legislation on employers who hire them. Along the border with Mexico, parts of Texas have seen a reduction in crossings and crime because of a strict arrest policy, jail time, and fines for those caught. While illegal immigration is being sporadically enforced in some areas, other city and local governments have adopted sanctuary laws and policies. This forbids local law enforcement from asking anyone whether they are here legally, and in some cases it even prohibits the police from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities. Some who have tried to monitor the open borders, such as the Minutemen, have been demonized and called vigilantes. Only when we regain control of our borders will we be more secure and better able to preserve our national identity.
|
| |
Not only does illegal immigration threaten our economy, but our security as well. Many illegal aliens commit crimes against U.S. citizens, and close to 10% of our prison population is made up of illegal immigrants. Increased illegal immigration has sparked a rise in violence, with immigrant gangs and crime spreading across our borders. Many Americans along the Mexican border live in fear of illegal immigrants who cross their property every night. Several years back, it was reported that some parts of South Texas and Mexico were more dangerous than the West Bank in Israel. There have been kidnappings, car bombs, machine gun deaths, rocket-propelled grenade attacks, and houses being burned to the ground. There is an undeclared border war with Mexican drug gangs vying for control of drug and human smuggling routes. Many have died as a result of this turf war. Most illegal drugs entering the U.S. are smuggled along our border with Mexico. Drug traffickers are running narcotics into the U.S., sometimes helped by rogue Mexican troops, which has resulted in skirmishes with Border Patrol agents. The fact that our borders are not completely and physically controlled, secured, and defended makes the war on terror seem that much more illegitimate.
|
| |
The Bush administration has failed miserably to stop or fix open borders and illegal immigration. Intentionally unsecured borders with Mexico, and the lack of immigration enforcement helps to advance a North American Union agenda. Perhaps Bush had wished amnesty and a North American Union to be his lasting legacy. What is clear is that defending our borders and preserving our sovereignty has long since been abandoned. Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul stated, “For national security, we need to give more attention to our own borders which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure borders situation – we don't have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs.” The failure to adequately enforce immigration laws, properly secure our borders, and any move towards a North American Union represents a betrayal of the American people.
|
|
If Ron Paul Loses, We Still Win By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
Although some of his supporters might be disappointed with Ron Paul's fifth place showing in the Iowa caucus, it certainly is not the end or the last we have heard from him. Many have lost early primaries and have gone on to win the nomination. Iowa demonstrated that his Internet presence can translate into real support on the ground. Many forget that not so long ago he was polling in low single digit numbers, therefore to finish with 10% of the vote can only be seen as positive. This is a huge victory because not only does it build more momentum and set the stage for New Hampshire, but it ensures that his message will reach more people. To exclude him from any debates at this point is a travesty of justice, and denies the American people the opportunity to hear his simple but popular message of hope and freedom.
|
| |
It would have been nice to finish ahead of both McCain and Thompson, but Ron Paul supporters can take some comfort in placing ahead of Giuliani, who finished with 4% of the vote. Giuliani did make more visits to Iowa than Paul, but he still wasn't expected to win. Paul beat him more than 2-1, and managed to capture one out of every ten votes. He is posed to build off that and if he can finish with 15% or higher in New Hampshire, this could put him in the top three. If the field remains close, this could also favor him. In a tight race, a split in votes could lead to Ron Paul coming right up the middle. He has more money and resources than some of his opponents, and this puts him at an advantage. The nomination could go down to the wire, with Paul winning or playing a key role.
|
| |
Throughout the campaign, Ron Paul has been ridiculed and attacked for his views, as well as ignored and excluded from polls and debates. Nevertheless, he has shown remarkable resiliency. His huge Internet support, his ability to raise substantial amounts of money, and his 10% of the vote in Iowa have made ignoring him that much harder. He has never been one of the establishment media-preferred candidates, but with his support and polling numbers on the rise, there is no reason for him to be excluded from the Fox News debate. He deserves to be heard. Let the American people make their choice. Trying to suppress his message could have the reverse effect. It is because of his powerful message that he has been catapulted from relative obscurity to legitimate contender and possible spoiler. In the fourth quarter he raised close to $20 million, more than any Democrat or Republican candidate. His support hasn't peaked and he has more room to grow. Nothing seems to be able to derail the Ron Paul revolution, and the longer he stays in the race, the more of a threat he will become.
|
| |
There is no doubt that a lot of money and resources have been poured into New Hampshire. It is important to have another strong showing, and anything less could torpedo Ron Paul's whole campaign. He doesn't have to win, but another impressive showing will further boast his campaign, and carry over into the next primaries. As the field dwindles down, if he can somehow hang around, the differences between himself and his opponents will become more apparent to the American people and will help his cause. To write off Ron Paul might prove to be unwise, and to underestimate him and his support plays to his advantage. Try as they might, the mainstream media can't ignore this revolution. Ron Paul is still in this race and very much alive.
|
| |
It shouldn't be all that surprising that Ron Paul's message of freedom, limited government, lower taxes, following the Constitution, defending American sovereignty, and his non-interventionist policy has been so popular. Some who were disinterested in politics are taking action for the first time. He has restored faith with many who had given up on the whole political process and those sick of the governments lies and corruption. His message of freedom crosses all party lines, and we have him to thank for bringing many key issues to the forefront. This revolution is bigger than Ron Paul- it has given hope and a sense of power back to the people. No longer will our voices be silent, and the actions of his supporters have spawned a movement that will remain in place no matter if he wins or loses. If he does fail in his bid to win the Republican nomination, he will have the support, money, and organizational infrastructure in place to make a serious third party challenge.
|
| |
The Ron Paul revolution of hope and change has come a long way in a short period of time. After the Iowa results Paul said, “This is not the end. This is the beginning.” He is exactly right, but the big question is, can he win? He could pull off a stunning victory, but regardless, supporting him is the right thing to do. This movement goes well beyond Paul. It is about taking our government and country back. He may be America's last hope, and it is up to use to seize this opportunity and make history. His campaign will continue to astonish his supporters, critics, and the so-called experts. Win or lose, Ron Paul and his supporters have changed the rules and the political landscape forever. Ron Paul's message, his dream, his passion and his legacy will live on.
|
|
Disarming of the Population and the Tyranny of Gun Control By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
There is a war on our freedoms and this includes the right to bear arms. Over the years there has been a mass indoctrination to the evils of guns, which has resulted in the systematic psychological disarmament of the American people. With less armed law-abiding citizens and more gun-free zones, the result has been more helpless victims. It has also demonstrated that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals. Most crime we are facing will not be solved by further gun control legislation. Furthermore tyrants like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao all sought to disarm their own citizens in order to control them and ensure their own power. Many genocide victims were deprived of the necessary means to adequately defend themselves. A clear violation of the Second Amendment took place after Hurricane Katrina, when authorities engaged in gun confiscation. In many cases, it was these same guns that kept many individuals, families, and property safe from criminals and thugs when there was no police presence. This has set the precedent for future gun grabbing in times of crisis. There is also a new program in Boston that would allow police with parental permission to search their children's rooms for guns without a search warrant. There has been legislation introduced that would ban U.S. veterans who have experienced even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress from ever owning a firearm. The Second Amendment is about upholding the Founding Fathers vision of a free society, and the disarming of the population is a path to tyranny. History serves as the best example, and we all need to stop being naive and thinking that it can't happen here.
|
| |
There are calls for stricter gun control laws after almost every mass shooting. Taking firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens won't prevent such tragedies; it makes us less safe. Gun control laws do little to prevent criminals from acquiring guns, and they simply ignore any gun-free zones which in turn makes them victim disbarment zones. In many cases it was a gun that prevented a situation from further escalating. We can't rely on the police to save us as they usually show up after a crime has been perpetrated. It is our responsibility to protect ourselves and our families. Criminals fear an armed citizenry, and it is not surprising that crime tends to rise in an environment where people have lost their ability to properly defend themselves.
|
| |
On the heels of a mass shooting that took place in a mall in Omaha Nebraska, there were two recent shootings in Colorado which took place some 12 hours and 70 miles apart by the same shooter. It began at a Youth Mission office and ended in Colorado Springs at the New Life Church. The gunman opened fire in the parking lot, and was later shot several times and brought down by an armed security guard. Although he later shot himself in the head, this is a good example of guns saving lives. The attacker had a backpack which contained as much as 1,000 rounds of ammunition, and the heroic actions of an armed security guard prevented anymore bloodshed. Also recently, Washington Redskin's football player, Sean Taylor became yet another victim of gun control and disarmament. Although his probation had ended, he was unable to own a gun because he had plea bargained. Someone broke into his house, and he tried to defend himself and his family with a machete. He was shot and later died. A population that is disarmed is defenseless and is more easily enslaved.
|
| |
Only an armed civilian population can properly defend themselves and resist a tyrannical government. When the Nazis seized power in Germany in 1933, they immediately began massive search and seizures of firearms to further neutralize their political opponents. The Gestapo later established a system of central registration of persons obtaining firearms. Hitler's gun control and disarming of the population almost completely guaranteed that firearms were in the possession of Nazi supporters and sympathizers and made any kind of armed resistance inside Germany next to impossible. Hitler said, “The most foolish mistake we would possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquers who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” The Second Amendment protects the gun rights of individuals and is about preventing tyranny. Gun control and the disarming of the population threatens a nation's very survival. It should come as no surprise that the United Nations, which is essentially the mechanism for world government, wishes to gut the Second Amendment and institute a global gun ban that would include the private ownership of firearms.
|
| |
The threat to the Second Amendment is also coming internationally as the United Nations has a goal of disarmament. They have actively campaigned for worldwide gun control, and have declared that civilian ownership of guns is a major cause of violence around the world. The reality is that the UN has failed miserably in preventing crimes against humanity, and has further facilitated in the disarming of populations, leaving them defenseless. Many who advocate gun control want every gun in the world to be under UN control. This includes rifles, shot guns, and hand guns. Past UN conferences and forums have proposed a ban on possession of handguns by anyone other than a government official and strategies to reduce the number of handguns in private hands. Others initiatives include a worldwide licensing of firearms registered and administrated by the UN and mandating a maximum one gun per person. They also wish to develop and implement an effective disarmament, dembilization, and reintegration program. The United Nations remains a threat to the Second Amendment , our sovereignty, and security and international laws, and treaties further jeopardize our freedoms. Only after the American people have been disarmed can world governance truly be achieved.
|
| |
Gun control and the disarming of law-abiding citizens should never be a solution to reducing crime and serves as a recipe for tyranny. Criminals rarely obtain firearms legally, and gun-free zones act as safe havens for criminals and crazies alike, making us all less safe and potential victims. There is a push for tougher gun control in Europe that would include a centralized firearm registration program as opposed to one controlled by individual European Union nations. History has demonstrated that the biggest advocates of gun control and limiting self-defense are those wishing to further empower the state. The training and tactics of police departments have changed, and in the process their traditional role of serving and protecting has been largely abandoned. We need to become more self sufficient and rely less on government, and this includes our own personnel safety. In many respects we are already in a police state. We have almost lost our freedom to challenge the government, and one of the final stages will be the disarming of the American people. It is a fact that the state is the leading cause of unnatural death. An armed citizenry remains an obstacle and a threat to the New World Order's agenda and its power monopoly. We need to restore and protect the Second Amendment and support gun rights. This is not a privilege, and the right to bear arms not only protects citizens and their property, but acts as a deterrent to government tyranny.
|
|
Fake News and Propaganda: Shaping Our Reality By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
The mainstream media is dominated by a handful of mega corporations who control what many of us hear, read, and believe. The propaganda masters are censoring and suppressing the truth from the American people. There are many reporters who know the truth but dare not talk or write about it, and what some report they don't even believe themselves. Those who are courageous enough to stand up to the establishment are often ridiculed, intimidated, and blocked by editors and producers who are acting as gatekeepers to the truth. There have been calls for the arrests and even death of those who criticize the government. You know you have slipped into a fascist dictatorship when those who dissent are treated like traitors, terrorists, and enemies of the state. We are being brainwashed with all the propaganda that we are subjected to in our everyday lives in an effort to control our minds and shift us into massive groupthink. We are being told that we are spreading democracy around the world while our own freedoms are being systematically taken away.
|
| |
There is a war on the truth, and we are partly to blame as we have lost our respect for genuine news. Dissent is an important ingredient in any free society, yet there is an effort to silence those who criticize the government. Through propaganda, the global elite wish to control our thoughts and perceptions. Just as there is an assault on our personnel freedoms, there is war on the freedom of the press. When journalists are threatened for doing their jobs, the big loser is the free flow of information and ultimately the truth. The Founding Fathers envisioned the press as being independent, reporting the facts and uncovering the truth. Instead, it has become a circus of entertainment and theater mixed in with spin, lies, and disinformation. The Bush administration has been caught paying actors and journalists to appear in and write propaganda pieces. Television stations are using prepackaged news releases produced by corporate and governmental groups without such facts being disclosed. It is clear that we can no longer trust the mainstream media to hold the government accountable.
|
| |
The Bush administration is spending millions, paying off journalists and producing fake news spots to promote their agenda. Some $10 million was spent in a propaganda-like advertising campaign to push President Bush’s Social Security plan. Fake news reports were also put out to promote his Medicare prescription drug program, with production company employees masquerading as reporters. These mock prepackaged reports are distributed to broadcast outlets across the country and inserted into local news casts. They look so authentic that most would mistake it for a real piece of independent journalism, not partisan propaganda politics. They are paying journalists and reporters to further advance the government's agenda. One of the best examples is commentator Armstrong Williams who was paid $240,000 by the Department of Education to help promote Bush’s No Child Left Behind. Maggie Gallagher also received tens of thousands of dollars from the Department of Health and Human Services to promote Bush's marriage initiative. The list goes on with the likes of Jeff Gannon, Michael McManus, and Karen Ryan, and these are only a few who were caught. This is not unique to the Bush administration as such practices were also common under President Clinton.
|
| |
A very recent example of fake news occurred during a FEMA-orchestrated news conference which took place during the recent fires that ravaged Southern California. By all accounts, it had the makings of a real news conference, but the only thing missing was real reporters. Some of FEMA's employees posed as reporters, asking softball questions that were carried live by some news stations. It turned into a FEMA love fest, an event to showcase the great job they were doing in regards to the fires. It represented a miscarriage of information, and further legitimized the fact that there is a war on the truth. The only reason there was an apology was because FEMA was caught. It turned out to be a big mistake, an error in judgment, and we were told that this was an isolated incident. It has been reported that both the White House and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff were aware of the fake news conference, and would have more than likely given it the green light. This fake news conference can be best described as government-sponsored propaganda. If the intentions were not to deceive, why wasn't there a disclaimer announced beforehand? We would probably all be amazed by how much propaganda is being passed off as news.
|
| |
It is through propaganda that our minds are being shaped and molded. A mass conditioning is taking place through the media, television shows, commercials, and video games. It is being used as a tool to control, program, and manipulate our minds through the power of suggestion and repetition. Our values are constantly being shaped and re-shaped, and at times our subconscious minds are unable to distinguish between fact and fiction. Ideas and premises are stored in our memory banks, and when they do become reality, we will have already accepted or at least warmed up to such scenarios. Television, radio and print media dictate to us what is important, what is in fashion, what are the latest trends, what to eat, read, and watch. To many, what they see on TV becomes their reality. There is definitely a correlation between the dumbing down of the population, the moral meltdown, and the amount of television being watched. One need not look any further than reality TV, where we are being desensitized to endless degrading acts on shows like Big Brother. These shows are inundated with sexual content, vulgarity, and humiliating, conniving, and backstabbing acts. Today’s television is destroying our very moral fiber and what is left of our values. When we are subjected to the true reality TV like the Iraqi prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, where is the outrage? We have become a decadent society and are on the decline, being made to accept things like torture. Many television shows, such as 24, openly advocate torture and it seems as if art is imitating reality. America is the new Rome, and we aren’t that far away from so-called terrorist and other enemies of the state being abused and even killed for our viewing pleasure.
|
| |
The propaganda masters are experts in the art of building favorable public opinion with their spin, double speak, and talking points. David Rockefeller is quoted as saying, “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.” Nevertheless, many are now conscious to the fact that the mainstream media is spreading lies and disinformation, and as a result, television news viewership and newspaper circulations are on the decline. Many are turning to the web for their news and entertainment, abandoning television and print altogether. As a result there is a greater effort to further control the Internet and regulate online speech. Nazi Germany and their Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels used many different techniques including ad nauseam, which is the repeating of an idea until it is taken to be the truth. President Bush has said, “see in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in, to catapult the propaganda.”It is quite obvious that those at the top of the power structure and their puppets wish to shape our reality.
|
|
Internet UNder Attack By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
The United Nations control freaks seek to micro-manage all aspects of our lives, and this includes the Internet. Many have used the Internet as an instrument of truth to counter the spin, lies, and disinformation spewed by the mainstream media. That is not to say that everyone in the alternative media can be trusted, and furthermore, the Internet is also being used to spread government propaganda. The mainstream media and government are so intertwined, and often the media simply parrots and toes the line. In many cases, the Internet gives the other side of the story with different points of view which encourage critical thinking on important issues of the day, where as the corporate media caters to the dumb-downed public. More and more people are moving to the web for their source of news and entertainment, and in the process are abandoning television and newspapers altogether. Even with all its imperfections, the Internet is truly one of the last havens of free speech and offers an alternative to the corporate-controlled media. Attacks are coming from all directions, and there is a desire by some to shut down the Internet under its current format, and curb, control, and further restrict its access.
|
| |
The Internet has become a vast worldwide infrastructure which more and more people rely on in their everyday lives. It is a free market of ideas and creativity, and has accelerated our capacity to share information. In the process it has challenged the mainstream media's monopoly on news gathering and has lead to unpopular legislation being defeated that might not have been otherwise. That is not to say that you should believe or trust everything you read on the Internet, but there are many creditable and well-researched sites and archived news information. The Internet has become a force in politics, and no where is that more apparent than Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's campaign. It has been used to rally grassroots support and volunteers, and raise substantial amounts of money. There is also a lot of fear-mongering surrounding the net as many are warning that it is struggling to survive under the strain of technical limitations. There has been much speculation that Internet 2, which is used by universities working side by side with government and industry, could replace the current format. The Internet of today poses a threat to any illegitimate government, and the stage is being set to hand over its control to the United Nations.
|
| |
The UN wishes to end U.S. control of the Internet, and at the same time silence many who oppose its agenda of world governance. At the 2006 World Summit on the Information Society, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was created as a permanent standing body. The Internet of today is run by a non-governmental organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which has the task of managing the assignment of domain names and IP addresses. They do not decide who can and cannot access the Internet, and there is a genuine fear that shifting ICANN control over to the UN could facilitate censorship of the web. The IGF recently met in Brazil, and is being used by the UN to achieve control of the Internet in an effort to standardize legislation and fund their world government through a series of global taxes. The UN has talked about keeping the world safe from SPAM, cyber crime, terrorists, increasing Internet access to the third-world, and instituting a global e-mail taxation system. A ban on taxing the Internet in the U.S. recently received a seven year extension. Some are warning that UN control could lead to a slower and more expensive Internet. Any challenges and problems that face the Internet cannot be solved by the UN or any another global entity. That is not to say that the Internet is perfect the way it is now, but I would take the status quo over UN control. By controlling the Internet, the UN could severely restrict information, silence free speech, and quell dissent. China's massive censorship of the web is the UN model. The Heritage Foundation said of UN control of the net, “it would give meddlesome governments the opportunity to censor and regulate the medium until its usefulness as a vehicle for freedom of expression and international competition is crippled.” An Internet governed and managed by the UN would represent a serious threat to our freedom, sovereignty, economy, and security.
|
| |
China has been leading the charge to further globalize Internet control, their technological capabilities have further enabled them to track and restrict access and they have exported such tools to other countries. Companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are also accomplices in Chinese Internet censorship, and their involvement and complacency illustrates how this could be achieved anywhere. Recently, Yahoo settled a case with two Chinese journalists who were jailed for ten years as a result of information of their on line activities provided to Chinese authorities. Google is hypocritical as they state that Internet censorship is a threat to their business, yet censor their own website in China. Asia director of Human Rights Watch, Brad Adams said, “When companies like Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google decide to put profits from their Chinese operations over the free exchange of information, they are helping to kill that dream.” Many western computer companies are providing filtering equipment to the Communist Chinese government, and are aiding to suppress free speech and political activism, which is leading to the further control and management of information. In China, there are divisions inside the police department whose task is to delete any information they find harmful that could challenge the system and impede social stability. Chinese President HU Jintao said that Internet cultural units need to, “take on the responsibility of encouraging development of a system of core socialist values.” There is no room for dissenting voices, and thus access to many political websites has been blocked or is content-censored. Bloggers are being targeted, and any breaking news that has not been reported by the official government media is also blocked and censored. Thousands of Internet cafes have been closed, and there are even pop-ups that worn users not to access unapproved sites. Amnesty International campaign director Tim Hancock said, “The Chinese model of an Internet that allows economic growth but not free speech or privacy is growing in popularity, from a handful of countries five years ago to dozens of governments today who block sites and arrest bloggers.” There is an agenda by some to further tighten surveillance and restrict access to the Internet around the world.
|
| |
Many other countries besides China are filtering Internet content in areas of politics, religion, and sex. Any effort to curb hate speech could constitute a ban on any speech the government disapproves of or fears. In late September, a bill was introduced in Australia's Parliament that would give the police the power to control which sites can and cannot be accessed. In Malaysia, there are new rules where by bloggers can be held without trial indefinitely. Many bloggers are being prosecuted using terrorism laws. Much of the control aimed at the Internet centers around terrorism, with the aim of preventing terrorists from using it as a tool to further achieve their goals. A definition of the terrorists could include anyone who criticizes the government. With the advent of the alternative and independent media, and bloggers alike, the days of media blackouts are a thing of the past. In many cases, they are breaking more stories than the mainstream media. For many, the Internet is the only true source of uncensored news and opinion. The battle for the Internet rages on with freedom of speech hanging in the balance. In his article, 'What The Chinese Style Internet Will Look Like,' PrisonPlanet.Com reporter Paul Joseph Watson said, “The new Internet will be nothing more than an electronic police state, merely acting as a tool for authorities to track down and incarcerate dissidents who dare question the government.”
|
| |
The United Nations is undermining our sovereignty, independence, and security. They seek to control the environment as well as the oceans of the world through the Law of the Sea Treaty. The U.N. wishes to institute a global ban on guns, and the disarming of the population can only be seen as tyrannical. It is not surprising that they also wish to control the free-flow of information on the Internet as it has been used as a weapon in the info war and has sparked a mass awaking. Many are using the Internet as a resource tool that has lead to countless research and investigations that demand real answers. This is exactly why the global elite want the Internet controlled, much like it is in China. It would mean the end of free speech on the web, and any site that criticizes the government. The days of the Internet as we now know it are numbered.
|
|
Raping American Sovereignty and a North American Union By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
It is becoming harder to chronicle the treasonous, dirty, despicable acts perpetrated by our government. Our sovereignty should not be given away, nor should it be for sale to the highest bidder as it is something to protect and it further defines us as a nation. The enemies of sovereignty are many and some include the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement(CAFTA). Our government is in collusion with powerful private corporate interests, and they are working together to create a North American Union. Every nation has the right and duty to protect its citizens, and it ceases to exist as a sovereign independent country if it fails to defend and control its own national borders. Multinational corporations view borders as barriers to increased profits and envision a world without them. Much of America's key infrastructure has been sold or is being leased to foreign corporations. We are surrendering our sovereignty, and the corporate takeover of America is almost complete. Some will have us believe that doing away with our sovereignty will bring big rewards and will benefit all. Tell that to the middle class and working poor. The result of globalization has meant that we have exchanged self-sufficiency, independence, and sovereignty for dependency.
|
| |
The WTO serves as a middleman, forcing nations to change its laws and brings unwanted meddling in domestic affairs. It severely undermines national sovereignty and allows for the domination of trade policies by multinational corporations. The WTO has given free reign and granted entrenched rights to the world's largest banks and corporations. It has the power to impose sanctions and lacks any real democratic accountability with hearings and disputes conducted by secret tribunals. It also has the power to overturn sovereign nation's laws in areas of tax, labor, environment, and consumer safety. The U.S. was forced to change tax laws relating to Foreign Sales Corporations, and the WTO rules that each year the U.S. must issue at least 65,000 H-1B work visas or be fined for not allowing enough foreign labor to enter the country. With more frequency, multinational corporations are turning to the WTO in an effort to change U.S. laws including zoning laws which could be changed by international courts. Former Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich said of the WTO, “We need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States, at a practical level significant authority to a new organization.” Our own laws should never be changed or overridden by a body of unelected bureaucrats. The WTO has lead to the loss of more sovereignty and democracy which has limited our decision making.
|
| |
NAFTA has lead to the loss of millions of American jobs, it has created trade deficits with both Canada and Mexico and has accelerated the destruction of the middle class. NAFTA severely undermines our sovereignty and control. Under Chapter 11, new rights and privileges were granted to foreign investors operating in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. It has lead to state, provincial and municipal governments being challenged by corporations using their new rights to undermine environmental and judicial decisions. Foreign corporate investors can sue NAFTA countries for cash compensation in secret tribunals if they feel their rights have been violated. Foreign investors have been granted more rights than U.S. corporations and American citizens. CAFTA is equally as devastating, and is essentially an outsourcing agreement that will lead to the loss of more jobs and it will gut all buy American laws which give preference to local companies. Under CAFTA, multinational corporations will have the power to challenge environmental and public interests laws. It could also undermine immigration laws, giving international tribunals the power to rule over Congress. CAFTA seeks to wipe out American laws, and along with NAFTA is being used to breakdown national independence and sovereignty. It was former secretary of state Henry Kissinger who called NAFTA a step towards a New World Order. Many who view NAFTA as a success want to use it as the model for the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which would encompass the whole hemisphere.
|
| |
The North American Union is being created incrementally, using evolution by stealth, and is being done at the expense of our sovereignty. It is being created by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, and SPP working groups who are writing policy initiatives. One of the leading experts on the NAU Jerome Corsi said, “The SPP is creating new trilateral memoranda of understanding and mutual agreements which should be submitted to the Senate for two-thirds votes as international treaties.” He went on to say, “They are sharing their laws and regulations so we can harmonize and integrate our laws into a North American structure, not a USA structure.” Bureaucrats are able to move about almost completely undetected and with little or no scrutiny. There is a real lack of transparency which makes this whole process undemocratic. The SPP was never debated or passed by the Senate, and the American people deserve to be consulted when they are losing their sovereignty and their Constitution is being trampled upon. Those who claim that the SPP is simply about open dialogue and cooperation are being anything but honest. We're talking about political and economic integration including a single North American currency, which would mean the end of our financial sovereignty, the merging of our laws, environmental, health and safety standards, a new court and tax system, and a new NAU constitution. Under the SPP, the U.S. and Canadian military are further merging their command structures. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said, “Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live.” Inside a NAU there is no room for American sovereignty, and how can harmonizing regulations with Mexico and Canada not undermine our independence? Bureaucrats and corporate interests are shaping our future with seemingly no oversight, and as we shed more sovereignty, we will lose the ability to govern ourselves.
|
| |
More and more of America's critical infrastructure, including highways, are being sold, leased, or manged by private foreign companies which constitutes a surrendering of our sovereignty. The Spanish company Cintra is financing and building the Trans-Texas-Corridor (TTC) and will lease and operate it as a toll road. Cintra-Macquaire consortium already has leases for the Indiana and Chicago Skyway toll roads. The TTC is to be the first leg of a NAFTA Superhighway and will be a borderless open transportation system that is the necessary infrastructure needed for a North American Union. Many of the trucks and freight trains filled with Chinese containers unloaded in Mexican ports will have Kansas City as a destination. To handle the increased flow of Chinese cheap goods, Kansas City will have an inland port, and part of the facility will include a Mexican customs office. It is to be staffed by Mexican government custom officials as Mexico wants the right to inspect their own trucks. More disturbing is that it is to be considered sovereign Mexican territory. Imagine a little piece of Mexico in the heartland of the United States. The Financial Services SPP working group has also outlined plans to improve Mexico's infrastructure using Canadian and American tax dollars. This will further facilitate the flow of cheap goods from China and benefit multinational corporations. All across America, already paid for roads and freeways are being converted into toll roads. Charging tolls for roads that have already been paid for is criminal, and furthermore the selling and leasing of key infrastructure to foreign interests threatens our sovereignty and security.
|
| |
We are witnessing the destruction of a sovereign independent America as well as the transfer of power from our elected government to unelected, accountable bureaucrats. In many cases we are already powerless and bound by international treaties, which in some cases take precedence over our own laws. Any move towards a North American Union represents a betrayal of the American people, the Constitution, self-government, freedom, independence, sovereignty, our culture, and our values. Ron Paul said of the North American Union, “The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution.” The attack on our democracy continues, and the raping of American sovereignty has left it a shadow of its former self. We are losing our ability to control our own destiny.
|
| | |