The redundancy of Brown's outrageous semantics was oppressive. His speech used the word global 69 times, globalization 7 times, and interdependence 13 times. He referred to Kennedy 19 times, lavishing fulsome praise on John F. ("his influence abides everywhere"), Robert (he sent forth "ripples of hope"), and Ted ("one of the greatest Senators in more than two centuries").

Brown rejected the traditional concept of national sovereignty, which means an independent nation not subservient to any outside control, telling us to replace it with "responsible sovereignty," which he defined as accepting what he calls our global "obligations." Hold on to your pocketbook.

Brown admitted that his "main argument" is that we must accept "new global rules," "new global institutions," and "global networks." Brown's global rules include massive U.S. cash handouts and opening U.S. borders to the world.

Brown's use of well-known American political phrases was tacky. He tried to morph FDR's New Deal into a "New Global Deal," and JFK's New Frontier into "the New Frontier is that there is no frontier."

Brown even slipped in an attempt at thought control: "Americans must learn to think inter-continentally." He declaimed, "We are all internationalists now."

Using the rhetorical device of inevitability, Brown warned us that his vision of the globalist future is "irreversible transformation." He wants to "transcend states" and "transcend borders" as he builds the "architecture of a global society."

Brown peddled the nonsense that the peoples of the world "subscribe to similar ideals." He tried to tell us that all religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists) have "common values" and "similar ideals." No, they certainly do not.

Brown wants to increase the power of the United Nations to become the source of "an international stand-by capacity of trained civilian experts, ready to go anywhere at any time," and even be able to exercise "military force." Americans do not intend to cede such authority to the corrupt UN.

The silliest part of Brown's ponderous speech was his claim that "a global society" is "advancing democracy widely across the world." In fact, he doesn't even practice democracy in his own country.

Brown refused to allow the British people to vote on whether or not they want to accept the European Union (EU) constitution. He acquiesced in the plot of the constitution's author, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, to put the EU constitution into effect by calling it a treaty so it did not have to be voted on by the people.

Brown was chicken about the treaty subterfuge and did not permit a photographic record of his participation. He sent his Foreign Secretary to perform the official treaty signing in front of cameras.

The EU constitution, now called the Treaty of Lisbon, requires all signers to surrender their sovereignty and democracy to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and judges in Strasbourg. The EU constitution takes away England's right to pass its own laws, forces England to surrender more than 60 UK vetoes of EU decisions, and gives the EU bureaucracy and tribunals total control over England's immigration policy.

Instead of a self-governing nation whose democratic system was developed over centuries, England is now ruled by what Margaret Thatcher called "the paper pushers in Brussels."

Brown made his globalism speech emphatic by repeatedly invoking the words "New World Order." The New World Order Brown tries to con the United States into accepting would mean taxing Americans for foreign handouts so immense they would make the Marshall Plan look puny, global warming rules to drastically reduce our standard of living, and putting American workers in a common labor pool with the world's billions who subsist on less than $2 a day.

Gordon Brown invited us to march forward to globalism "where there is no path." He's correct that there is no path on which we can expect globalism to lead us to a better world; in fact every path toward global government is a surrender of our liberty and our prosperity.

Gordon Brown should go back home and study up on how Americans refused to accept orders from King George III.

by Phyllis Schlafly
April 30, 2008

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/apr08/08-04-30.html

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

REMEMBERING SEPTEMBER 11th, 2007

Consider two alternative scenarios for the first fourteen days following September 11th:

1. What if the FBI or the President had announced that they were going to immediately begin screening all aviation travelers (get over it or don’t travel), screen libraries for people checking out books on bomb-making (for the safety of families and children in schools), develop an intelligence dossier on every Muslim in America, and follow every possible terrorist lead regardless of any possible offense to any artificial subset of society? What if the President announced that pilots would hereafter be armed for the defense of the aircraft and protection of their passengers (no choice), and all cockpit doors would be fortified (get over it or don’t fly)? What if the President had announced that soft targets throughout the country vulnerable to terrorism, such as water systems, harbors, airports and nuclear plants, would be dramatically hardened with additional security? What if the President had announced that valid passports would be required to enter the United States of America at any Port of Entry? What if the President promulgated an Executive Order that anyone entering the USA illegally after September 11, 2001 would be considered a terrorist until such suspicions could be proven unfounded? What if the President announced that all Islamic males who were in America legally, and who were not U.S. citizens, must register within 30 days? Those that did not register would be considered terrorists. What if the FBI rounded up all non-citizen Islamic males illegally in the United States and deported them without recourse due to a proclaimed national emergency?

2. Alternatively, what if the President or the FBI announced that there was no serious threat of terrorism and no policies would change?

Which alternative would have been rational or irrational in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001? Which choice would have angered you?

Now consider the Hurricane Katrina, Rita and Wilma alternatives:

1. What if FEMA or the President announced that they were going to staff, operate, supply, coordinate, fund, rescue, rebuild and transport everyone and everything associated with the relief effort, beginning at the instant devastation was certain, as rapidly as they could respond, even if it meant bypassing federal law, state law and elected local governments, and all relief organizations?

2. Alternatively, what if FEMA or the President announced authoritatively that disaster recovery and the welfare of the citizens of every state was, by law, the primary responsibility of individual states, and only secondarily would the federal government assist? What if the President announced that he would respect the inherent sovereignty of state governments first, and would only respond upon written request of State Governors, working in cooperation with civilian relief agencies, after a comprehensive damage assessment had been completed, relief needs were known, and a state-level relief infrastructure was implemented?

Which of those choices would have angered you in the weeks following the hurricanes?

Now ask yourself, why is national defense (our lives, our families, our children, our jobs, our culture and our value systems) somehow less important to Democrats and liberal Republicans, and the Main Stream Media than hurricane-related property damage on the Gulf Coast of Mexico?

Why is the defense of our nation from another terrorist event, protection of our economy, preservation of our manufacturing and technological advantage, safeguarding other forms of industry and particularly jobs, and protecting our sovereignty at the border somehow evil in the eyes of liberals – all of whom hide behind various labels of Party affiliation? You know who they are.

Why is anything pro-American viewed by Democrats and liberal Republicans as unfair, conceived in lies? Why are Congressmen and the media so willing to divulge classified information and give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States? Why do many politicians think that people of other nations are unworthy of freedom and United States citizens are unworthy of liberty?

Why are the deaths of American servicemen and women greeted with media celebration of milestones? How could liberals in Congress willingly vote to send our young men and women into war and then work tirelessly to insure their defeat, accusing the young soldiers of war crimes at every opportunity?

Why are strategic American military bases foolishly being closed across the country in the guise of cost-cutting? Liberals in Congress view their base-closure actions as a form of political sport, however future generations of Americans will come to realize that it was a cruel hoax, based on liberal anti-military sentiment, that caused whole geographic areas of the United States to become unprotected and vunerable to terrorism.

Why are advanced weapon systems and desperately needed troop equipment somehow unworthy of funding by Congress, but NO amount of money and speed of response would have been sufficient in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

Why are modern nuclear energy facilities, oil exploration and new oil refineries STILL blocked by Congress when new capacity would reduce United States dependency on foreign oil from such places as Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia?

How many contradictions can be numbly ignored? Is it probable to surmise, even probable to conclude, that United States Congressmen are on the ‘take’ and so pervasively corrupt and consumed with self-interest that they are willing to sell out their own nation for campaign contributions that originate from foreign sources - from Mexico, China and Saudi Arabia - buying their votes to act against the national interests of the United States?

Why are the lives of “Joe 6-pack” and his family, and the lives of our servicemen and women worth so little? Why do Democrats and liberal Republicans see no need for a strong national defense, energy self-sufficiency, effective and inviolable border control that complies with existing laws, and competent foreign intelligence?

Why have the lives of 50,000 United States citizens been literally sacrificed to illegal aliens, with no end in sight? How many American families who have lost a son or daughter, husband or wife in the War on Terror would proudly proclaim that their family's sacrifice was for "open borders," which is the number one oxymoron of the 21st Century?

Almost seven years later and counting; why does ‘Who is an American?’ mean nothing to those who with authority to protect our borders, and particularly Congress and the Bush Administration? It would appear self-interst is stronger than a politician's sense of duty.

Is anybody listening?

Prominent politicians and media elites have refused to listen to a huge majority of United States citizens, choosing instead to rule rather than govern. Liberal state governors, legislatures and politicians in Congress steadfastly refuse to embrace their own responsibilities of United States citizenship, which should include a defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

For decades, these same liberal luminaries have been intent on demonstrating that allegiance to the United States is not important and a world government would be preferrable. However, they fail to understand that it is the American "heart" which has made the United States great. The American heart is that individual nucleus of loyalty to a faith of personal choosing, country and family. It is the American heart that forms the core of our nation's excellence, initiative, integrity, moral character, voluntary charity, duty and responsibility of citizenship.

Why, then, is it not reasonable to compare politicians with a large, ugly and odiferous snail, going nowhere slowly, doing nothing constructive, serving no useful purpose, feeding off the fruits of fellow citizens, pathologically seeking power, and leaving behind an unmistakable trail of corruption and slime so plainly visible that every legal United States voter should be able to trace them in November, 2008.

Only one question remains. How many registered voters really have an aberrant fetish for slime? Voters face some difficult decisions in 2008. The choices seem limited to two choices, a liberal Republican or an extreme socialist Democrat? Neither choice will return conservative "citizen legislators" or sanity to Congress anytime soon. Neither choice will seal the nation's borders, develop domestic energy resources, return excellence to education, protect citizens from crime and terrorism, resurrect manufacturing in the United States and create jobs, and put an end to the incessant taxation and growth of government.

Being an equal opportunity offender, it appears to be a ‘given’ that either Senator Hillary R. Clinton (the Queen of corruption) or Barrack Hussein Obama (the closet Muslim) may become the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008. This comes on the heels of such patriots as presidential candidate Senator John Kerry in 2004 and ex-Vice President Al Gore in 2000. Given the narrow outcome of recent elections, it would appear that too many United States voters have demonstrated their penchant for collectivism, or too many ineligible people are voting.

Not to be outdone on the Republican side, Mayor Rudy Guiliani, a closet advocate of amnesty for illegal aliens, has said he will secure our nation's borders but at the same time renounced enforcement of immigrations laws as they apply to illegal aliens currently in the United States. Governor Mitt Romney has a bicoastal reputation for changing his position on important issues on each tidal change and lunar cycle. While either Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney would be excellent administrators in the Office of the President, and Hillary Clinton would be an excellent Czar with all that implies, and John Mccain would be a formidable Caesar, and Senator Obama would be an outstanding advocate of all things racial and Muslim, at this point in history the United States needs a conservative leader. Where are the viable alternatives of Newt Gingrich, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo when we sorely need them? And what about Fred Thompson who spent a year "gaming" the system saying he couldn't make up his mind? If it takes that long for Fred to make a decision, to light his own fuse, we are left wondering if Fred is a conservative firecracker, as he wants to portray himself, or a "dud."

Why does, ‘Who is an American?’ still mean nothing to the 'front runners' in both political parties? Why do liberals in general, and politicians and academicians in particular, all of whom feed at the public trough (in elected office, or whose life is taxpayer funded), think of themselves as elite emmisaries of a world- or hemispheric-government without personal allegiance to the United States of America? As Ann Coulter observed, if liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. Neither are good choices for the White House.

As the real United States citizens begin to focus on the merits of the candidates for the presidency of the United States in 2008, maybe we should avoid those candidates with an emphasis of, “Who am I?” (front runners) and focus instead on the words and actions of the second tier of candidates, those who emphasize, “Who are we?”

We are Americans.

We are Americans and we will never forget.

We are not Mexicans. Nor are we members of the Cult of Islam dedicated to the annihilation of Christians and Jews. Nor do we advocate for one race at the expense of all other Americans.

We are Americans, not the North American Union.

No fence, no campaign contributions, no votes. Yes, that's my final answer.

Too subtle?

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

As incredible as this plan may seem to some readers, the first Trans-Texas Corridor segment of the NAFTA Super Highway is ready to begin construction next year. Various U.S. government agencies, dozens of state agencies, and scores of private NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have been working behind the scenes to create the NAFTA Super Highway, despite the lack of comment on the plan by President Bush. The American public is largely asleep to this key piece of the coming “North American Union” that government planners in the new trilateral region of United States, Canada and Mexico are about to drive into reality.

Just examine the following websites to get a feel for the magnitude of NAFTA Super Highway planning that has been going on without any new congressional legislation directly authorizing the construction of the planned international corridor through the center of the country.

NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition Inc., is a “non-profit organization dedicated to developing the world’s first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America.” Where does that sentence say anything about the USA? Still, NASCO has received $2.5 million in earmarks from the U.S. Department of Transportation to plan the NAFTA Super Highway as a 10-lane limited-access road (five lanes in each direction) plus passenger and freight rail lines running alongside pipelines laid for oil and natural gas. One glance at the map of the NAFTA Super Highway on the front page of the NASCO website will make clear that the design is to connect Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. into one transportation system.

Kansas City SmartPort Inc. is an “investor based organization supported by the public and private sector” to create the key hub on the NAFTA Super Highway. At the Kansas City SmartPort, the containers from the Far East can be transferred to trucks going east and west, dramatically reducing the ground transportation time dropping the containers off in Los Angeles or Long Beach involves for most of the country. A brochure on the SmartPort website describes the plan in glowing terms: “For those who live in Kansas City, the idea of receiving containers nonstop from the Far East by way of Mexico may sound unlikely, but later this month that seemingly far-fetched notion will become a reality.”

The U.S. government has housed within the Department of Commerce (DOC) an “SPP office” that is dedicated to organizing the many working groups laboring within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada to create the regulatory reality for the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The SPP agreement was signed by Bush, President Vicente Fox, and then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005. According to the DOC website, a U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning has finalized a plan such that “(m)ethods for detecting bottlenecks on the U.S.-Mexico border will be developed and low cost/high impact projects identified in bottleneck studies will be constructed or implemented.” The report notes that new SENTRI travel lanes on the Mexican border will be constructed this year. The border at Laredo should be reduced to an electronic speed bump for the Mexican trucks containing goods from the Far East to enter the U.S. on their way to the Kansas City SmartPort.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is overseeing the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) as the first leg of the NAFTA Super Highway. A 4,000-page environmental impact statement has already been completed and public hearings are scheduled for five weeks, beginning next month, in July 2006. The billions involved will be provided by a foreign company, Cintra Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A. of Spain. As a consequence, the TTC will be privately operated, leased to the Cintra consortium to be operated as a toll-road.

The details of the NAFTA Super Highway are hidden in plan view. Still, Bush has not given speeches to bring the NAFTA Super Highway plans to the full attention of the American public. Missing in the move toward creating a North American Union is the robust public debate that preceded the decision to form the European Union. All this may be for calculated political reasons on the part of the Bush Administration.

A good reason Bush does not want to secure the border with Mexico may be that the administration is trying to create express lanes for Mexican trucks to bring containers with cheap Far East goods into the heart of the U.S., all without the involvement of any U.S. union workers on the docks or in the trucks.

Link to the above article: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15497

------------------------------------
Red State Patriot commentary: It makes you wonder what happened to the Constitution? Where does Congress fit into all of this? What legislation or treaty specifically authorized this action? What do the state governments have to say? What do the labor unions have to say? Who consulted with the American people to see if they wanted to become part of a North American Union? Any guess who is paying for all of this?

The best thing you can do now is become informed by reviewing each of the following linked articles:

Texas Segment of NAFTA Super Highway Nears Construction http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15682

North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15233

President Quietly Creating 'NAFTA Plus' http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15059

The Plan to Replace the Dollar With the 'Amero' http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15017

North American Union to Replace USA?http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965

« Close It