Look at what Bush has been laboring in secret for. After reading the whole article, please tell me how Bush actually respects American sovereignty in a way that is actually different from how a Democrat would:
The CFR task force report called for establishment of a common security border perimeter around North America by 2010, along with free movement of people, commerce and capital within North America, facilitated by the development of a North American Border Pass that would replace a U.S. passport for travel between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.
Also envisioned by the CFR task force report were a North American court, a North American inter-parliamentary group, a North American executive commission, a North American military defense command, a North American customs office and a North American development bank.
The President has been pushing an agenda that can only be described as the equivalent of the first stages of the establishment of the European Union. It all began innocently enough, it was just an "economic cooperation pact" with some political components to smooth out the process. Then, the system evolved into the European superstate that is becoming more and more of a reality. Read this and tell me that there is nothing to worry about with Bush:
The first full customs union was originally known as the European Economic Community (informally called the Common Market in the UK), established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and implemented on 1 January 1958. This later changed to the European Community which is now the "first pillar" of the European Union. The EU has evolved from a trade body into an economic and political partnership. For more details, please see History of the European Union. As president of the Convention on the Future of Europe, the former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing proposed to change the name of the European Union to United Europe but it was not adopted.
Say what you will about Vox, but he has been prophetic about the Bush Administration and the future of government in North America. He predicted a while ago that this would happen, calling it the embryonic "American Union." This is nothing short of an end-run around the elected government of the United States of America. It's a way to make meaningless basic civil liberties. If this goes through, and it probably will, eventually we won't be able to control our own government because a supranational court will able to invalidate a ruling of unconstitutionality by our own Supreme Court as well as legislation passed within the framework of the United States Constitution by Congress.
if the Republic had any life left, it is surely in its death throes...further to this pact is the implementation of the "Nation Crusher"
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005859.html
No surprise here whatsoever, Mike. I've said for years that the only substantial difference between Bush (pick one) and Klinton is which idiots idolize them.
One bone to pick:
"basic civil liberties" ARE "meaningless"!!!!
This cannot be emphasized too strongly!
"God-given Rights" are PROTECTED by the Bill of Rights (not granted by it); the principle is that they come from a Higher Power than government, which has NO authority whatsoever to regulate, tax, infringe, fold, spindle, or mutilate them.
"Civil liberties" are a farce. They are defined by government, granted by government, and thus completely "void where prohibited by law". They are nothing more than mere privileges; easy come, easy go.
Don't get attached to 'em. And don't, even for a second, think they have any real relation to Rights -- other than as a piss-poor substitute for the ignorant.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."
Well, even most conservatives who get all hot under the color about "under God" being taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance don't believe that they come from God. It's just some sort of cultural thing. The only way to keep them is to appeal to them as both natural rights and civil rights, IMO.
Perhaps, Mike - but the distinction is legal, and key. If you ask for your "civil liberties" when you should mean "Rights", you'll get 'em - good and hard.
It's more subtle, and ultimately even more important, than thinking "democracy" and a Constitutional Republic are the same thing.
I think the distinction is more intellectual in practice. The government can and will take what it wants. There is no way around that nasty little fact. The process of choosing leaders isn't one way. The people don't just push them, they push the people and the people have little control over that until it's too late in most cases.
jonny516