Post by JohnSmiles on May 22, 2007 17:34:22 GMT -5
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Tonight, amendments threaten the immigration deal; Democrats
try to push legislation that would grant amnesty to the
millions of illegal aliens living in this country.
Several provisions written into the Kennedy - Specter amnesty
legislation provide outrageous provisions to illegal aliens
seeking amnesty. One provision would make taxpayers foot the
bill for the legal costs of illegal aliens seeking citizenship
by providing illegal aliens with federally funded lawyers.
Other terms of the legislation would force the government to
grant a Z-visa to gang members. We’ll have full coverage.
Buried in the comprehensive immigration reform compromise is a
provision that would “accelerate” the implementation of the
Security and Prosperity Partnership. We’ll have a full report
on the continuing effort to push what critics call a
sovereignty giveaway behind closed doors.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Tonight, amendments threaten the immigration deal; Democrats
try to push legislation that would grant amnesty to the
millions of illegal aliens living in this country.
Several provisions written into the Kennedy - Specter amnesty
legislation provide outrageous provisions to illegal aliens
seeking amnesty. One provision would make taxpayers foot the
bill for the legal costs of illegal aliens seeking citizenship
by providing illegal aliens with federally funded lawyers.
Other terms of the legislation would force the government to
grant a Z-visa to gang members. We’ll have full coverage.
Buried in the comprehensive immigration reform compromise is a
provision that would “accelerate” the implementation of the
Security and Prosperity Partnership. We’ll have a full report
on the continuing effort to push what critics call a
sovereignty giveaway behind closed doors.
Bad enough as reported, but seems its even worse as it holds other measures not even being discussed.
No wonder Bush Inc. wants it passed so fast.
Security and Prosperity Partnership
www.sierratimes.com/06/10/30/Metcalf.htm
"This is totally outside the U.S. Constitution, virtually an executive branch coup d'etat..."--Dr. Jerome Corsi
“The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing.” Or so says the web page. It is really the inevitable and promised expansion of NAFTA.
A treaty (and NAFTA, GATT and SPP are really treaties) requires a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate to be approved.
Here's a quickie Readers Digest version of the key dangers of our "trade agreement":
1. It isn't a treaty per se. A treaty requires a two-thirds majority vote of the U.S. Senate. So although it walked like a duck, and quacked like a duck, and flew like a duck, and defecated like a duck, they called it "an agreement." An international "agreement" only requires a simple majority of both houses. With NAFTA the vote was so close in the Senate that Vice President Al Gore had to cast the deciding vote. That alone should be ample reason not to run from the @#$%& thing.
2. TA was literally the camel's nose in the tent.It planted the seed for its illegitimate offspring-on-steroids that followed. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) had been percolating in the shadows for years. However, the addition of the World Trade Organization as the "dispute resolution" arm was the coup de grace.
3. NAFTA is a trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico. When conflicts occur (which are inevitable), NAFTA created a mechanism for resolving disputes. Any dispute could be brought to an executive committee, which is comprised of representatives from each of the signatory countries. However, the adjudication of the dispute is held in secret executive session, and the decision of the judges is final. No appeal, no review of the proceedings, no recourse other than to eat excrement and try not to develop a taste for it.
4. The biggie is the cruel reality that local, state, and yes, even federal law can and will be abrogated by a secret trade star chamber.
1. It isn't a treaty per se. A treaty requires a two-thirds majority vote of the U.S. Senate. So although it walked like a duck, and quacked like a duck, and flew like a duck, and defecated like a duck, they called it "an agreement." An international "agreement" only requires a simple majority of both houses. With NAFTA the vote was so close in the Senate that Vice President Al Gore had to cast the deciding vote. That alone should be ample reason not to run from the @#$%& thing.
2. TA was literally the camel's nose in the tent.It planted the seed for its illegitimate offspring-on-steroids that followed. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) had been percolating in the shadows for years. However, the addition of the World Trade Organization as the "dispute resolution" arm was the coup de grace.
3. NAFTA is a trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico. When conflicts occur (which are inevitable), NAFTA created a mechanism for resolving disputes. Any dispute could be brought to an executive committee, which is comprised of representatives from each of the signatory countries. However, the adjudication of the dispute is held in secret executive session, and the decision of the judges is final. No appeal, no review of the proceedings, no recourse other than to eat excrement and try not to develop a taste for it.
4. The biggie is the cruel reality that local, state, and yes, even federal law can and will be abrogated by a secret trade star chamber.
But it gets worse…If you lose a dispute with either the NAFTA Star Chamber tribunal or the GATT World Trade Organization, you cannot appeal.
*State or federal legislation cannot mitigate a bad decision.
*It cannot be overruled through a judicial procedure.
*It cannot be expunged by executive order.
In other words, the three branches of government established by the framers and codified by the Constitution have been neutered by a treaty that really isn't a treaty but has the force of treaty but we agree not to call it a treaty. Get it? Wink/wink ... nod/nod.
Even California Democrat George Miller acknowledged, "Local legislation can be nullified because a secret trade tribunal says so. ... It doesn't matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, a conservative or liberal." And he is right!
*State or federal legislation cannot mitigate a bad decision.
*It cannot be overruled through a judicial procedure.
*It cannot be expunged by executive order.
In other words, the three branches of government established by the framers and codified by the Constitution have been neutered by a treaty that really isn't a treaty but has the force of treaty but we agree not to call it a treaty. Get it? Wink/wink ... nod/nod.
Even California Democrat George Miller acknowledged, "Local legislation can be nullified because a secret trade tribunal says so. ... It doesn't matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, a conservative or liberal." And he is right!
Further reading:
www.conservativeusa.org/northamericanunion.htm
"The NAFTA Super Corridor plan is ultimately to reduce the transportation costs of using cheap labor in China, South Korea and Indonesia to produce goods for American markets. Bypassing West Coast ports in the U.S. means bypassing U.S. union wages. Mexican port and rail transport are expected to keep the shipping costs low. Also, allowing free access to the U.S. [by] Mexican trucks means that the containers can be moved through the U.S. by Mexican nationals, again bypassing Teamster union wages and benefits typically paid U.S. truck drivers."
In other words, hundreds of thousands MORE Americans will lose good jobs so the corporations, stockholders and those they have paid to put(and keep) in office can make even more. . .
Anyway, I know some of you here think these are all just the rantings of those who 'need' a conspiracy of some type to believe in, and is not actually happening.
And I know nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.
But for those who feel as I do, the last link has collected lots of intersting little articles to take a look at.
If nothing else, check out Lou Dobbs once in awhile.
He is on at 6.
What would it take to get Lou Dobbs, Dr. Phil and Rush Limbaugh to get together and compare thoughts?
While I do not agree with every single word they utter, I find myself in agreement with a very large portion of it.
More so than anyone else that comes to mind.
