Thursday, August 30, 2007

Not Saying This Is The Right Thing, (But I Can Understand)

With many people losing confidence in the justice system - be it police non-response or judicial activism in favor of criminal rights over victims' rights - could this be a sign of things to come?

In Belfast, Northern Ireland, that is exactly what happened:
Locals had accused the victim, who is in his thirties, of being a drug dealer. And when police allegedly did not act, they took the law into their own hands.

Two masked men tied up the accused victim, poured tar over his head and then covered him in white feathers, apparently from a pillow case.

A small crowd including women and children looked on as the men then adorned their victim with a placard reading: "I'm a drug dealing scumbag".

Now, I'm not saying this is the way to go, but it does send a very clear message to would-be drug dealers (and other criminals) in the area: "Don't do it here." Perhaps if this was one of the tools that the judiciary had in their toolbox of punishments and were willing - and eager - to use it, I guarantee that crime would go down. But I think we have just become too soft.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

The State Knows Best (And It Will Take Your Children At Birth To Prove It)

I couldn't believe it when I read this story (hat-tip: Jay D, my UK resident insider):
Threat to take new-born over emotional abuse
By David Harrison, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:42am BST 26/08/2007

A pregnant woman has been told that her baby will be taken from her at birth because she is deemed capable of "emotional abuse", even though psychiatrists treating her say there is no evidence to suggest that she will harm her child in any way.

Social services' recommendation that the baby should be taken from Fran Lyon, a 22-year-old charity worker who has five A-levels and a degree in neuroscience, was based in part on a letter from a paediatrician she has never met.

Hexham children's services, part of Northumberland County Council, said the decision had been made because Miss Lyon was likely to suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy, a condition unproven by science in which a mother will make up an illness in her child, or harm it, to draw attention to herself.

Under the plan, a doctor will hand the newborn to a social worker, provided there are no medical complications. Social services' request for an emergency protection order - these are usually granted - will be heard in secret in the family court at Hexham magistrates on the same day.

From then on, anyone discussing the case, including Miss Lyon, will be deemed to be in contempt of the court.
Words escape me - I can't make this up. This goes waaaaaaayyyyy beyond the perverse collectivist, socialist concept of the Nanny State. Secret "Star Chamber"-type court proceedings, supression orders...Is this just a horrible, unthinkable nightmare? I had to read further to find the "justification" for such egregious confiscatory government pro-action:
Miss Lyon came under scrutiny because she had a mental health problem when she was 16 after being physically and emotionally abused by her father and raped by a stranger.

She suffered eating disorders and self-harm but, after therapy, graduated from Edinburgh University and now works for two mental health charities, Borderline and Personality Plus.

Dr Stella Newrith, a consultant psychiatrist, who treated Miss Lyon for her childhood trauma for a year, wrote to Northumberland social services stating: "There has never been any clinical evidence to suggest that Fran would put herself or others at risk, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that she would put a child at risk of emotional, physical or sexual harm."

Despite this support, endorsed by other psychiatrists and Miss Lyon's GP, social services based their recommendation partly on a letter from Dr Martin Ward Platt, a consultant paediatrician, who was unable to attend the meeting.

He wrote: "Even in the absence of a psychological assessment, if the professionals were concerned on the evidence available that Miss Holton (as Miss Lyon was briefly known), probably does fabricate or induce illness, there would be no option but the precautionary principle of taking the baby into foster care at birth, pending a post-natal forensic psychological assessment."

The council said the recommendation would be subject to further assessment and review. "When making such difficult decisions, safeguarding children is our foremost priority," a spokesman said.
We, as free people, now have to worry about a government punishing us prior to a perceived threat (in this case, taking our unborn children because of what we might do or may be likely to do) based on vague and possibly erroneous information (but, hey, as long as it comes from "professionals," who are we to question?) having to prove our innocence, unable to face our accuser(s) and challenge a decision before the fact? (Lefties, spare me any analogies to Guantanamo Bay; it's neither similar nor relevant). I never saw it, but isn't that what the Tom Cruise film, "Minority Report," was about? What is wrong with us as human beings, specifically, in this case, the people of the UK? They should be storming the ivory towers of these elitist autocrats, Bastille Day-style, dragging the verminous slime on their bellies to Picadilly Circus to be hung, drawn, and quartered! We have, as a people, become so desensitized that we will put up with this type of perverted, upside-down legislation and abdicate our freewill with smiles on our faces. We are a sad lot, my friends, and we deserve nothing better than that which we tolerate - which is, apparently, just about anything as long as The State does what it tells us is best for us. Afterall, The State knows best.

This is Big Brother coming of age. Books that I read as a teen and a young man - Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four," Huxley's "Brave New World," and Burgess's "A Clockwork Orange" - are coming true right before my eyes. Those men, modern-day prophets and visionaries, really could see the future. Their novels, intended as warnings of totalitarian control by central government and authority in direct conflict with - and indeed, in violation of - individual self-determination and the freewill of the human spirit, have, it seems to me, become a guidebook for those who rule with impunity.

And this leads perfectly right into the post below...

Video MUST SEE: The History Of Political Correctness

Have you ever wondered what makes the left "tick;" where all this political correctness came from? Look no further than the following video for the answers. This explains everything. Contrary to what many believe, political correctness was not born in the 1960's radical movements; those movements were merely the ideas of "cultural Marxism" born in the aftermath of WWI having come to fruition and which have been blooming ever since. Pay attention to the part about studies in "critical theory" which are taught at almost every major university in the West. I had classes on the subject during my years at university back in the mid-1980s. Pay attention to the references to Freud and psychoanalysis (also part of critical theory studies) which expanded Marxism from an economic ideoology to include a cultural component. And if you put two and two together, you will see a partial motivation for the rise of Hitler and anti-Semitism, which, although Hitler used the Jews as scapegoats, was as much of an attemtpt to rid Germany of the Communist influence that had a major effect on the culture of the Weimar Republic (many of Germany's Communists happened, also, to be Jewish) as it was an attempt to re-establish the traditional paganism of Germanic culture to which Hitler saw the Jews and their monotheism as a direct threat. But I digress. Watch the video. It's just over 20 minutes long and will explain how political correctness came to be and why modern liberalism is, indeed, as I have defined it previously - "a mental disorder, characterized by symptoms of ethnocentric masochism, narcissism, and Western guilt which manifest in the liberals' projections of their own inadequacy and weakness which they often try to compensate for with bravado, hubris, and an over-inflated sense of self-importance" - an attempt to destroy Western civilization as we know it.

Hat-tips: Pamela at Atlas Shrugged and Vilmar.

Now playing on Winamp: Foghat - Midnight Madness
via FoxyTunes

Friday, August 24, 2007

Ahhhhh, The Memories

This is just a sample of what a recruit endures several times a day, nearly every day, for three months in United States Marine Corps Boot Camp. It was one of the most challenging experiences of my life and some of my most cherished memories (although not necessarily at the time). So many of these soft, pansy asses and wannabe bad-ass kids today really need this kind of treatment.

CAIR Is A Group Of Islamofascists

They have gone too far. They must be stopped.

Imagine you're at home with your family, and there's a knock at the door. You go to the door and find two men and a woman wearing a hijab who say they're from the Coucil on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and that they want to talk to you about a bumper sticker on your truck that they say is offensive to muslims. Well, that is exactly what happened to a former United States Marine in Ohio.
Three officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Ohio admit to going unannounced to a man’s home to confront him over a bumper sticker on his car – a testament, they claim, of their tolerance and moderation. The incident occurred last year, but the CAIR trio involved – Ahmad Al-Akhras, CAIR national vice chairman, Asma Mobin-Uddin, CAIR-Ohio president, and Abukar Arman, CAIR-OH board member – have recently recounted this incident to the local establishment media as an example of how they “invite dialogue”.
Here's how the incident went down according to Abukar Arman, one of the practitioners of the "religion of peace:"
"Several months ago, a non-Muslim fellow in the inter-faith community brought to the attention of CAIR-Ohio a picture of his neighbor’s truck with a bumper sticker that read “Jesus loves you, and Allah wants you dead”.

Some of us thought that the appropriate thing to do was to get media involved and use this truck owner as a poster-child of the prevalent assertive ignorance that is widening the post 9/11 political divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. Others, on the other hand, saw this as an opportunity for human contact, discourse, and to build bridges of understanding.

Therefore, I had the privilege of being one of three Muslims (2 male and a female with Islamic veil) who paid a neighborly visit to the truck owner.

"What ensued was an interesting discourse that I found to be very educational (its final outcome notwithstanding).
The truck owner was a former Marine officer who served in Somalia and Iraq. Initially, as he opened the door, he was visibly apprehensive (and rightfully so).
Notice the language used: "neighborly visit;" "visibly apprehensive (and rightfully so)." Why "rightfully so" if it was just a "neighborly visit?" Do they think they appeared (or were trying to appear) intimidating such that he had good reason to be "visibly apprehensive?" I think they flatter themselves.
We greeted him and introduced ourselves. We reassured him that we were only interested to get to know him, address any questions or perhaps grievance that he may have, and to give him a chance to meet and dialogue with ordinary Muslims.
What would you do?
Long story short: in a conversation that took place right outside his door and lasted for over an hour, the former Marine talked about how he was very suspicious of Muslims and how, both in Somalia and in Iraq, he and other Americans who “came to help these two countries had their hands bitten…” He talked about how he did not believe there were any moderate Muslims and how organizations such as CAIR were deliberately silent about condemning terrorism. He also talked about being alarmed by the growing Muslim population in Central Ohio and how they may be hiding a terrorist who has in his possession a “briefcase nuke”. He said, “I don’t want to see a giant mushroom in Columbus”
Can you believe the nerve of these people going to a man's house using Waffen SS-style intimidation tactics and confronting him about a bumper sticker he has on his vehicle? Who the hell do they think they are? I can't believe that Marine gave them the time of day let alone had a "dialogue" with the muslim swine. They're lucky they didn't get their asses kicked - or shot - but, then again, he was an officer, not an enlisted guy. I can tell you that it's good for them that it wasn't this former enlisted Marine because those muslim ass-hats would have received a much less kind fate. Intimidation tactics don't work with me; I cannot be intimidated. I fight back, and I am more than likely to strike the first blow when faced with a would-be intimidator; and I don't stop until one of us isn't moving. Either way, I play for keeps. CAIR and their fellow camel-jockey followers of the pedophile prophet can go to hell, and a good way to get there is to come to my house.

Hat-tip: Vilmar


ON SECOND THOUGHT.....Perhaps the best way to get rid of them would be to whip out the old trouser snake and begin masturbating. I'll bet they'd leave real quick, never to return! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Thursday, August 23, 2007

My New Lexus

I bought a new Lexus 350 and returned to the dealer the next day because I couldn't get the radio to work. The salesman explained that the radio was voice activated.
"Nelson," the salesman said to the radio.
The radio replied, "Ricky or Willie?"
"Willie!" he continued, and "On The Road Again" came from the speakers.
Then he said, "Ray Charles!" and in an instant "Georgia On My Mind" replaced Willie Nelson.

I drove away happy, and for the next few days, every time I'd say, "Beethoven," I'd get beautiful classical music. If I said, "Beatles," I'd get one of their awesome songs.

Yesterday, a couple ran a red light and nearly creamed my new car, but I swerved in time to avoid them. I yelled, "Ass Holes!"
Immediately the French National Anthem began to play, sung by Jane Fonda and Barbara Streisand, backed up by Michael Moore and The Dixie Chicks, with John Kerry on guitar, Al Gore on drums, Dan Rather on harmonica, Nancy Pelosi on tambourine, Harry Reid on spoons, Bill Clinton on sax and Ted Kennedy on scotch.

Damn, I LOVE this car!

Hat-tip: Raybo


Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Israelis And Palestinians: A Tale Of Two Cultures

What intrigues me about the whole Palestine as "confiscated land" mantra is that it was a multi-lateral decision to do so; one of the first (if not the first) mandates of the then-newly formed UN. Prior to Palestinian land being Israeli land, it belonged to the British who wrested it from the Ottoman Turks in the aftermath of WWI. Today's Palestinians always speak of "their land" when it never was a sovereign nation. It was always owned by somebody else, and the people who call themselves Palestinians were the subjects of those foreign occupiers. And here's the big rub: The Palestinians for over a thousand years never seemed to care. It's only when that land was allocated to the Jews that they got their kababs in a twist. And to be certain, if the Palestinians had tried with the Turks the same militant terror tactics they now use in an attempt to establish their own autonomy, the Turks would have slaughtered them with nary a wink's loss of sleep over it. The British had their hands full and were probably happy to leave the area due to escalating fighting between the Jews and Arab Palestinians and attacks by both on the British with regard to each side's interpretation of the League of Nations Mandate, the McMahon Agreement, and the Balfour Declaration.

The Palestinian hatred of the Jews is not blind, ideological, or religious; it's because the Jews are productive. As Jewish settlers moved into the area during the 1920's from Europe and elsewhere, they immediately made the land work for them, cultivating the soil using age-old irrigation techniques, transforming desert into productive olive and fig groves; while the shiftless Palestinians sat by and watched, knowing that all along they could have done the same thing, but for some reason didn't - or couldn't. Now many will say that is because the Palestinians never had the financial backing to do so, unlike the Jews who received financing from Zionists in the US and elsewhere. While that is true to some extent, most Jews came to Palestine with nothing and received little, if any, help from outside Zionist sources. One can go into any "poor" neighborhood in any city in any nation and see that not all the poor people living there live in squalor. Many take pride in what they have and keep a clean house and tidy garden, their children clean and well-mannered. And let's not forget about rich nations like Saudi Arabia who could just have easily aided their Palestinian cousins but didn't; the same wealthy House of Saud that funds global terror and has spawned many of today's terrorists. Surely they cannot claim that they were economically deprived or disenfranchised in any way. So, contrary to the prevailing Marxist "wisdom" of the modern liberal that socio-economic conditions dictate behavior and is the main driver of terrorist and other criminal activity, money has little to do with the two contrasting views of life. It has to do with the values of two different cultures - one that is industrious and productive, having contributed greatly to the advancement of every society in which it has assimilated; that has pride enough in whatever it has to turn lemons into lemonade - the other self-pitying, bitter, and resentful, having contributed nothing to even their own society for over a thousand years since it became the product of a death cult known as islam.

Yes, the Palestinian is bitter and resentful and understandably so. It must be hard to look at a fellow Semite - the Jew, the Israeli cut from the same ethnic cloth being so productive and positive about life - and then looking in the mirror and seeing a miserable failure.


Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Who Says Terrorism Doesn't Work?

Certainly not the BBC.
The BBC has dropped plans to show a fictional terror attack in an episode of Casualty to avoid offending Muslims.

The first show of the hospital drama's new series was to have featured a storyline about an explosion caused by Islamic extremists.
The funniest thing is how they changed the story line:
Now the bomb will be set off by animal rights campaigners instead.
The hypocricy is farsical. Apparently, it's OK to offend animal rights activists but not muslims. Why is that? John from Davenport, a commenter on the article, sums it up quite nicely:
This proves that terrorism works. The BBC is terrified of Muslims.
Of course, the BBC denies any such claims:
A BBC spokesman dismissed as "ludicrous" suggestions that the corporation was too frightened to deal with an Islamic plotline.

"Discussions were held about this plotline at a very early stage with our editorial policy department," she said. "With any storyline process there are lots of ideas that get put forward but don't make the series.
Remember that the BBC is publicly funded through a 135 pound TV licensing fee charged to each television set in the nation. Perhaps the good people of the UK could refuse to pay the fee, and then we'll see how well the Beeb fares on its own as a private enterprise. I'll wager that they fall on their collectivist, socialist faces in rather short order.

It looks like the sun has finally set on the British Empire. Today's British government exemplifies dhimmitude. Aloha Snack Bar.

Hat-tip: Jay D

Friday, August 17, 2007

It Doesn't Get Any Better Than This, Folks!

WOW!!! I just stumbled across a great site while looking into some background links to a story about more faux-tography perpetrated by the lame-stream media in their attempts to portray our soldiers in Iraq as blood-thirsty baby killers...and now, apparently attempted murderers of ugly old Iraqi women, too. I mean, they aren't even trying to cover-up their bias anymore. How can they not think they wouldn't get caught? We're talking about Agence France-Presse, afterall, so I guess that, since the French wouldn't know anything about shooting at anything, they expect that the rest of us wouldn't know a spent round from an unspent one. What am I talking about? Well, dear readers, the AFP published some fauxtographs showing an old Iraqi woman who is holding some bullets that she claims were fired at and hit her home in Sadr City during a raid by US and Iraqi forces. There's only one problem: The bullets are unspent, never been fired (they actually look polished). Urban Grind has the story and faux-tos with lots of links; it's all over the blogosphere so just go there and chase links to your hearts' content.

Hat-tip: Lisa

Oh, the great site I found? It's called the People's Cube Pay them a visit! Here's a sample of what you'll find:

Courtesy of the People's Cube

"I Don't Wanna Eeeeeeat!"

This is a piece of what is known as (but seemingly forgotten in these politically correct times in which we live) SATIRE. It contains raw, adult language, so if you're overly-sensitive or easily offended, skip this one, and don't get pissy with me. I'm trying to make a point; see if you can figure it out.
It seems almost every day that some doctor or other "expert" with a PhD comes up with a new disease, attaching a fancy name to it, usually ending with a "phobia," "syndrome," or just the plain old "disease." For example, having alternating diorreah and constipation is now called "Irritable Bowel Syndrome," which implies that one's bowels are angry at something. Why are they mad? What are they mad at, and how can we make them happier bowels? If you just don't like or disagree with something, well, you must be scared of it, right? So it's a phobia - "homophobia" which implies that one hates homo sapiens, more commonly known as humans; or "xenophobia" which implies one has a bone to pick with xenon, an inert, naturally occurring gas that tolerates and mixes well with everything, great for inviting to your next party. But there are two inter-related "diseases" that really get on my nerves: Bulemia and Anorexia, and I'm going to channel a bit of George Carlin here to make my point.

Bulemia. WTF? When there are millions of people in the world who are starving enough to be grateful for a grain of rice or are willing to dive in the rubbish bin behind the local Pizza Hut, here we have a group of people, known as bulemics, who will pay for and eat a perfectly good meal and then....puke it back up!!! I heard they have their own restaurant now. It's called the "Scarf and Barf." Whatever.

And then there's my favorite: Anorexia. "I don't wanna eeeeeat!" Ever notice how it's never people in the ghettos who "suffer" from this? In fact, many of those people are among the most overweight or obese people around. Yeah, it always seems to be upper middle class white women from Beverly Hills who "suffer" from "I don't wanna eeeeeeat." Rich cunt doesn't want to eat? Fuck her. Like I give a shit. Where do we come up with this crap?

A week or two ago I was watching a program on TV; it may have been 60 Minutes...I don't know. Anyway, there was this woman from New Zealand in her early 20' and bones, looked like death having a bad day. I mean turn her sideways and stick out her tongue and it looks like a zipper skinny. Apparently she's been this way since she was 10 or 11 when some of the other kids made fun of her for being fat. We were shown pictures of her at that age, and she was a bit chunky - baby fat is what we used to call it - but certainly not what I would call fat (like so many of these rotund, obese kids I see these days who sit on their lazy asses playing X-Box, watching 15 hours of TV a day, and eating McDonald's 10 times a week.) Well, this apparently really stuck with the girl, and she's been a basket case ever since, eating nothing but tiny portions of mushrooms. Her parents have spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to fix her, sending her to shrink after shrink and even to a camp for anorexics in Malibu, California. She seems to get better for a while, but then it's back to, "I don't wanna eeeeeeeeat!" She said she just can't see any purpose to living and apparently wants to die. Bullshit. If she really wants to die, why drag it out for years and years, making her parents, who obviously love her and will do anything they can to help her - including re-mortgaging their house - spend their life savings? She is crying for attention, plain and simple. So I have a radical treatment for her and those like her. You sit her down and ask her, "Do you really want to die?" When she says, "Yes," hand her a loaded gun and say, "Go on, then. Kill yourself. End it now. Stop wasting everybody's time and money and just get on with it." I guarantee that will wake her ass up and snap her back into some semblance of reality. Or she'll shoot herself. Either way, problem solved. How did we get to this weak, namby-pamby bullshit state of existence where we indulge this kind of nonsense and take it seriously?

Look, kids can be cruel, no doubt. They make fun of another's teeth, looks, height, weight - you name it. But that is part of growing up. You have to learn to take it on the chin and not give a fuck what other people say about you. It's called toughening up, getting a thick skin. If those qualitites don't develop, you're fucked later in life. No matter how "nice" we try to make the world, the world is always going to be a rough place, and those that can't cope are fucked, doomed to dysfunctional behavior. We all have our bad days, but most of us manage to crawl out of bed, plaster on a fake smile, and plough through the shit one more time. So, to end on a happy note, I'll leave you with these words of encouragement that sum-up life as we know it:
And on a good day -
it's not every day -
We can part the sea.
And on a bad day -
it's not every day -
Glory beyond our reach.

words and music by Chris and Rich Robinson
from the song "Wiser Time" on the Black Crowes' album "Amorica"


Thursday, August 16, 2007

Savage vs. Sandoval: Round One To Savage

Scum-bag San Fransicko City Supervisor, Gerardo Sandoval, has been on a witch hunt against popular and controversial radio talk host and author, Michael Savage after Savage made some comments about "a group of students who had announced they were fasting in support of changes in immigration policy." I happened to be listening to Michael's radio show, "The Savage Nation," the day he said the following:
"I would say, let them fast until they starve to death, then that solves the problem."
That was what got little Gerardo's (wasn't he some half-assed, Tejano hip-hop wannabe back in the 90's?) tacos in a twist.

This Sandoval is a real piece of shit, and he's in the perfect city for him and his kind (socialist, Marxist fuckwits - not Hispanics). Back in 2002 he, along with other city supervisors, including now-mayor Newsom, passed a symbolic Resolution commending the administration of President Hugo Chavez for its commitment to democracy (#021415, toward the bottom of the page). Recently, in another resolution, he tried (and failed) to stop the Blue Angels from flying in the city's airshow and blocked the permanent mooring of the USS Iowa at the Maritime Museum in San Francisco Harbor. He is also part of the "sanctuary city" cabal of local leaders across the US who refuse to investigate whether or not an arrested suspect is legally in the US or notify the DHS (Department of Homeland Security)if the suspect is a known illegal alien. This nonsense is in direct conflict with federal law, and the son-of-a-bitch and the others like him should be charged with treason. I am sick of these leftists and their bullshit, and that is as mild as I can put it.

Good news though. Sandoval's resolution to silence Savage failed to get unanimous approval, losing in a council vote of 9-1, but it's also a sad statement of affairs that 9 of them were in favor of silencing free speech. Micheal nailed it on the head with this comment:
"This is a dry run against free speech in America by the Islamists and the illegal aliens who are now becoming one and the same," he said. "It's the same organizational structure. … I am the target of this dry run. They want to see how far they can get in silencing a voice of freedom in the United States of America. They want to see which, if any, governmental agencies will stop them."
Listen (watch? - I couldn't see any video) to this interview with Michael and his attorney on SF's local TV 2, and then listen to the clown they had on in response, one Mr. Gutierrez. These open borders ass-cracks ALWAYS evade the FACT that these immigrants in question are ILLEGAL and as such have NO RIGHTS to privacy or anything else when it comes to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) "breaking down their doors" and "harrassing them." Instead, these apologist scum always turn it into an issue of racism and hate speech, ignoring the fact that most Hispanics who are in the US legally or are citizens can't stand the illegal ones any more than the rest of us. Notice how, because of overwhelming support for Savage, Gutierrez makes the reference to Hitler, implying that Savage is whipping the rest of us into a frenzy when it is Savage who is merely echoing and giving a voice to what most Americans are already thinking. Message to Mr. Gutierrez: Go fuck yourself. The whole thing makes me sick.

Savage is considering a lawsuit against the city, and has a good attorney in his corner. Savage is fiery and dedicated, and at the very least he will make life miserable for the ass-clowns that run the City by the Bay. I wish him luck and success.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Think The US Economy Is In Good Shape? Think Again

I am no economist, but for quite some time I have held the position that the US economy is essentially fake, built on deferred debt, and a currency backed by essentially...nothing. It's a house of cards, ready to tumble at any time. We measure economic strength on consumer spending (most of which is on credit/deferred debt), low interest rates leading to "an all time high of new home ownership from first-time buyers" (again, deferred debt with mortgages most cannot afford), and an active stock market. I think it is all an illusion - and a very short-sighted one at that.

I have been loosely (until now) paying attention to what China is up to, buying large amounts of T-Bills and US currency while every Western nation is cozying-up to them to get a free-trade agreement, cheap goods, and cheap labor, but the following article, presented in its entirety, really clarifies the situation. Before you think that the author is just some nut-case, think again. The author used to work as, among other positions held, Asst. Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. Check his credentials at the bottom:
Uncle Sam, Your Banker Will See You Now

By Paul Craig Roberts

08/08/07 "ICH" --- - Early this morning China let the idiots in Washington, and on Wall Street, know that it has them by the short hairs. Two senior spokesmen for the Chinese government observed that China’s considerable holdings of US dollars and Treasury bonds “contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency.”

Should the US proceed with sanctions intended to cause the Chinese currency to appreciate, “the Chinese central bank will be forced to sell dollars, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the dollar.”

If Western financial markets are sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the message, US interest rates will rise regardless of any further action by China. At this point, China does not need to sell a single bond. In an instant, China has made it clear that US interest rates depend on China, not on the Federal Reserve.

The precarious position of the US dollar as reserve currency has been thoroughly ignored and denied. The delusion that the US is “the world’s sole superpower,” whose currency is desirable regardless of its excess supply, reflects American hubris, not reality. This hubris is so extreme that only 6 weeks ago McKinsey Global Institute published a study that concluded that even a doubling of the US current account deficit to $1.6 trillion would pose no problem.

Strategic thinkers, if any remain who have not been purged by neocons, will quickly conclude that China’s power over the value of the dollar and US interest rates also gives China power over US foreign policy. The US was able to attack Afghanistan and Iraq only because China provided the largest part of the financing for Bush’s wars.

If China ceased to buy US Treasuries, Bush’s wars would end. The savings rate of US consumers is essentially zero, and several million are afflicted with mortgages that they cannot afford. With Bush’s budget in deficit and with no room in the US consumer’s budget for a tax increase, Bush’s wars can only be financed by foreigners.

No country on earth, except for Israel, supports the Bush regimes’ desire to attack Iran. It is China’s decision whether it calls in the US ambassador, and delivers the message that there will be no attack on Iran or further war unless the US is prepared to buy back $900 billion in US Treasury bonds and other dollar assets.

The US, of course, has no foreign reserves with which to make the purchase. The impact of such a large sale on US interest rates would wreck the US economy and effectively end Bush’s war-making capability. Moreover, other governments would likely follow the Chinese lead, as the main support for the US dollar has been China’s willingness to accumulate them. If the largest holder dumped the dollar, other countries would dump dollars, too.

The value and purchasing power of the US dollar would fall. When hard-pressed Americans went to Wal-Mart to make their purchases, the new prices would make them think they had wandered into Nieman Marcus. Americans would not be able to maintain their current living standard.

Simultaneously, Americans would be hit either with tax increases in order to close a budget deficit that foreigners will no longer finance or with large cuts in income security programs. The only other source of budgetary finance would be for the government to print money to pay its bills. In this event, Americans would experience inflation in addition to higher prices from dollar devaluation.

This is a grim outlook. We got in this position because our leaders are ignorant fools. So are our economists, many of whom are paid shills for some interest group. So are our corporate leaders whose greed gave China power over the US by offshoring the US production of goods and services to China. It was the corporate fat cats who turned US Gross Domestic Product into Chinese imports, and it was the “free trade, free market economists” who egged it on.

How did a people as stupid as Americans get so full of hubris?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
So, go ahead, poo-poo that. Give it your best shot, but you better cite some real information from somebody with at least the credentials of that author.

Note: I will, in good faith, submit that, while Mr. Roberts might be a brilliant economist, he over-steps his boundaries when making commentary on matters of engineering, particularly concerning the collapse of the Twin Towers. He seems to subscribe to the "melting steel impossibility" theory that attempts to discount the official account of events of 9/11, which numerous engineers and physicists and the structures' architect himself report was not that the columns themselves melted, but rather their support joints. While he may apparently suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, that does not discount the compelling argument he made in the article above.

Hat-tip: American Daughter

Friday, August 10, 2007

Welfare Is For The Birds

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: With very few exceptions - like being seriously physically or mentally handicapped - public welfare should be abolished. Like all forms of socialism, it is degrading to the concept of free-will and to the human spirit in general. It encourages laziness and discourages people from taking responsibility for their actions and their own well-being. It rewards the least productive members of a society and forces without choice the productive ones to pick-up their slack. So here's a bedtime story for your children...or for liberals who need a good smack upside their thick skulls with the good ol' clue bat.
I bought a bird feeder.

I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed.

Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.

But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.

Then came the poop. It was everywhere - on the patio tile, the chairs, the table - everywhere.

Then some of the birds turned mean: They would dive bomb me and try to peck me, even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.

And others birds were boisterous and loud: They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.

After a while I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore.

I took down the bird feeder, and in three days the birds were gone.

I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.

Soon the back yard was like it used to be... quiet, serene, and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.
Hat-tip: Vilmar

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Remember The Lobster: An Addendum To "US Sovereignty No More?"

Most of the reaction at It's a Matter of Opinion to the cross-post of the original article by Nancy Matthis thusfar is pretty much what I expected - doubt, shock, horror, disbelief, and denial - so let me put a few things in context.

I looked at the links posted that discount the documented proposal of a North American Union as a conspiracy theory. The first one cites mostly pieces written in the following ones, and they offer no refutation, per se. They attempt to marginalize ad nauseum this notion of the NAU as conspiracy theory from right-wing nutters. Any refutation comes from the sources of the architects of the alleged conspiracies. It's like asking the guy who is set to rob your house if that is, in fact, what he is going to do, and he replies, "No, of course not." And then you just believe him? Many of the authors and the sources they cite, such as Michael Medved, are no more than what I would call shills for the Bush administration or the Republican Party. It is not in their best interest to admit anything. As stated in many of the comments on Medved's article, he offers no counter facts, just "Nothing to see here...move along...."

Regarding conspiracy theories, to view the North American Union as such (if that is how one chooses to look at it) through the same lens as, say, the 9/11 or JFK assassination conspiracies is a bit fallacious for two reasons. First, 9/11 and JFK already happened, and, second, they were single, instantaneous (for the most part) events. This current situation is evolving, and, if it happens to come to fruition, it will not be in one single, felled swoop. It falls into the category of creeping incrementalism, for which I often use the analogy of the lobster in the pot of water to illustrate the concept. If one places a lobster immediately into pot of boiling water, it screams in pain; it is aware (as much as a lobster can be "aware" of anything) that its survival is in immediate peril. However, if the lobster is placed into a pot of room-temperature water, and the heat is increased ever so slowly, the lobster will cook gradually - and it will die having hardly ever been "aware" of what actually happened. That is exactly how creeping incrementalism works in the real world of social and political change. Keep this analogy in mind as you read further.

For example, we all bleat on and thump our chests at the flacid criminal justice system, and wonder how it got to the state of impotence it's apparently in, but do we stop and ask ourselves how it got to the point to which it has gotten? These ridiculous sentences for violent/repeat offenders seem contrary to our common sense, yet here we sit staring at it right before our eyes. It didn't just happen overnight. It took years of gradual change (for now I'll set aside my interpretaion of the specific mechanisms and ideologies at play), and we can't believe it's happening even while it's happening. It can't all be attributed to apathy, for surely a lot of people still vote; and not many (if any at all) voted specifically for these changes to occur or the legislation that made the situation possible. And I don't think (I could be wrong, though) that the legislators who created the situation ran on a platform of "more lenient sentences for violent and repeat offenders." Nevertheless, here we are. Remember the lobster...

And here's another idea to ponder when considering conspiracy theories: Global Warming/Anthropogenic Climate Change/whatever you want to call it. Many of us, myself included, find it completely plausible - "connecting the dots" doesn't seem that difficult - to think that it is a wealth re-distribution swindle on an international level to further advance globalized socialism; and the lefties who promote the man-made climate change paradigm think that we are promoting a conspiracy of denial. While there is enough rhetoric emanating from both camps - much of it, I submit, attributable to the "politics of personality," the people involved - both sides of the debate offer facts (as each side sees fit to admit as to what are and are not facts) to support their arguments, and the debate continues. With NAU, however, the side that sees it as a possiblity or even a probability (not necessarily a foregone outcome) is really the only side that has any documentation to support its arguments. The "deniers" can only marginalize the other side as nutters. They offer nothing other than rhetoric stating that it can't/won't happen or, "I'll believe it when I see it." Well, by the time that happens it will be a little late. Of course, one could argue that is exactly what the "climate-changers" say about the "deniers" - by the time it happens it will be too late, that there is no "down side" to reducing carbon emmissions, etc. The same, however, could also be argued by the "deniers" in opposition: If we accept and implement all the proposed mandates of the "climate changers," and none of the proposed catastrophies eventuate (which even the most respected members of the "climate changer" camp admit cannot be totally eliminated, regardless, only minimized), it will be too late for any of the economic and social damage to be reversed, and that is a definite "down side." Then again, the "climate changers" could argue in the future that nothing did eventuate because their mandates were imposed...but I digress. The point is two-fold: First, those who are quick to posit themselves with facts to argue against the "climate changers" are as quick to argue against the NAU using only rhetoric, again, motivated substantially by the politics of personality- in this case, they seem unwilling or unable to "connect the dots." Second, there is no "down side" to acknowledging, which simply requires not much more than vigilance and a willingness to act accordingly, the possibility of such an "alliance" being formed. The founding fathers who wrote our Constitution reminded us to be ever vigilant and to maintain a healthy distrust of government; for to do otherwise is surely to consign oneself to the tyrrany of dictatorship. Remember the lobster...

As another example regarding creeping incrementalism, the need for public vigilance, the Constitution, and the ammendment process necessary to formally approve such an alliance as the NAU, one has to assume that using the Constitutional Ammendment process is how the government would attempt such an act. Placed in plain view, on its face, of course, it would appear almost self-evident that such an abomination would never see the light of day. However, a near-event last year illustrates that, without mass public awareness and subsequent pressure on the US Congress, a deal under the auspices of the Executive branch can slide right through, and nobody would have been the wiser until after the fact. I am referring to the controversial attempted takeover of operations of six (and up to 22) of the most sensitive shipping ports in the US by the United Arab Emirates government-owned company, Dubai Ports World (DPW), after its buy-out of the British firm, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O).

Here is a look at:
PSA has operations in 11 countries and is the world’s second-largest ports group. By contrast, DPW was formed as recently as September (2005) with the amalgamation of the Dubai Ports Authority and DPI Terminals.
Remember, this was in February 2006.

  • Security issues raised concerning a nation that, although seems fairly "progressive" as far as Middle Eastern Arab states are concerned, has a checkered past and questionable motives. From Alex Alexiev, vice president for research at the Center for Security Policy:
Washington claims that the United Arab Emirates is a reliable friend and ally of the United States in the war on terror. To the extent that Dubai Ports World is a UAE state-owned company, this may in fact be the key question to ask. The answer is not hard to find if you start looking at the role played by the UAE as an eager financier of the huge worldwide infrastructure of radical Islam built over the past three decades by Saudi Arabia. An infrastructure that’s the main breeding ground of extremism and terrorism.

From the very beginning in the 1970s, the UAE has been a key source of financial support for Saudi-controlled organizations like the Islamic Solidarity Fund, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), World Council of Mosques, and the Muslim World League (MWL) as documented in The Muslim World League Journal, an English-language monthly. The IDB alone, for instance, spent $10 billion between 1977 and 1990 for “Islamic activities” and at least $1 billion more recently to support terrorist activities by the Palestinian Al Aqsa and Intifada Funds.

One of the most successful Islamist operations in the U.S. early on involved the Wahhabi ideological takeover of the Nation of Islam after the death of its founder Elijah Muhammad. Of the $4.8 million “presented” to W. D. Muhammad, Elijah’s son and successor, in 1980 alone, one million came from UAE’s president Sheikh Zayad, according to the August 1980 issue of the MWL Journal. Zayad continued his “philanthropic” activities by donating $2.5 million for a Zayad Islamic Center at Harvard University’s divinity school of all places. The donation had to be returned after it became known that a similar Zayad Center in the UAE was closed because it had become a hotbed of Islamic extremism. And this is likely just the tip of the iceberg. A reliable friend and ally? Perhaps, but hardly one of ours.
and Frank Gaffney, Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy:
...implications include the prospect that a country from whose territory most of the operational planning and financing of the 9/11 attacks occurred will be able to make decisions concerning personnel and cargo that could permit further — and possibly even more deadly — terrorist assaults on this country. At the very least, the company will have to be read-in on these ports' security plans as it will have some role in their implementation. Unless DP World is willing to start from scratch as far as their port deals with us go, these considerations constitute potential security problems.

While we're on the subject of DPW, their sister company, Dubais Aerospace Enterprises (also state-owned and newly "formed")...
DAE was formed in February last year but has already turned its gaze to the other side of the world and Auckland Airport. bidding for 51%-60% of the shares in ownership of Auckland International Airport, right here in little ol' New Zealand, and none of this information on the backgraound of DPW has been discussed in any public forum that I am aware of. To do so, would be xenophobic, don't you know...Remember the lobster...

Aside from creeping incrementalism, obfuscation, and circumventing the Constituional Ammendment process, one cannot discount the possibility of an NAU being passed formally through the Constitutional Ammendment process. Given the constantly shifting demographics of the US population, with Hispanics being the fastest growing minority (Hispanics are already the largest minority in California, so much so that there is no longer any single ethnic group that constitutes a majority), the voting trends are sure to shift as well. Remember, also, that any person born on US soil is automatically a citizen, regardless of whether or not the parents entered the country legally or illegally; these children are known as "anchor babies." There is also a movement known as requonquista (re-conquest), seeking to reclaim the southwest United States (Azatlan), which they believe was "stolen" from Mexico in the 19th century (although they fail to acknowledge that these territories were either won as a result of the spoils of war or were legally purchased). This movement is embraced by radical groups like La Raza (translated, "The Race"), whose motto is, "For those in The Race, everything. For those outside The Race, nothing." I am not saying that all Hispanics are in favor of open borders or requonquista and would vote for any such legislation that would permit such, but given that many Latin American immigrants, legal and illegal, are in favor of requonquista, 20-30 years down the line this could be a major political issue, making the possibility of an NAU not seem so far-fetched.

In summation, the idea of a North American Union, even in a mild, watered-down form cannot be completely dismissed as folly. On the contrary, it is sheer folly to fall into the politics of personality. I have given examples of chicanery, deceit, and obfuscation to show that at the very least one should be skeptical of any government, and especially the current US administration given its track record on such controversies as the above-mentioned Dubais port scandal and the nebulous, unresponsive stance on illegal immigration which I submit is tightly intertwined with the possibility of a proposed NAU. I am not trying to convince you, dear reader, that it is a done deal, only a possibility, and to encourage all to look beyond the surface; recognize that what might be sold to you will not necessarily be what you eventually buy; and repsect the law of unintended consequences. More often than not grand schemes don't happen in just one shot; they happen piecemeal, bit-by-bit. The way for anything to eventuate is to sit back and say to yourself that it can't happen. Remember the lobster...

Just Because

I love the band Tool, especially their older stuff. And I really love this song, another one that "says it all." CAUTION: Adult language follows.

Tool - Ænima
Lyrics by Maynard James Keenan
Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will.
I sure could use a vacation from this

Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of

Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.

Fret for your figure and
Fret for your latte and
Fret for your hairpiece and
Fret for your lawsuit and
Fret for your prozac and
Fret for your pilot and
Fret for your contract and
Fret for your car.

It's a
Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of

Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.

Some say a comet will fall from the sky.
Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves.
Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still.
Followed by millions of dumbfounded dipshits.

Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will cuz
I sure could use a vacation from this

Silly shit, stupid shit...

One great big festering neon distraction,
I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.

Learn to swim.

Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it ought to be.

Learn to swim.

Fuck L Ron Hubbard and
Fuck all his clones.
Fuck all those gun-toting
Hip gangster wannabes.

Learn to swim.

Fuck retro anything.
Fuck your tattoos.
Fuck all you junkies and
Fuck your short memory.

Learn to swim.

Fuck smiley glad-hands
With hidden agendas.
Fuck these dysfunctional,
Insecure actresses.

Learn to swim.

Cuz I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.
I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.
I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in.
Watch you flush it all away.

Time to bring it down again.
Don't just call me pessimist.
Try and read between the lines.

I can't imagine why you wouldn't
Welcome any change, my friend.

I wanna see it all come down.
suck it down.
flush it down.

US Border Security Out To Lunch and Muslim "Students" With Pipe Bombs

Here we go again. While we're all busy with Iraq, the wide-open backdoor to America along its border with Mexico continues to be left virtually unattended. I just can't comprehend that, folks.
Islamic extremists embedded in the United States — posing as Hispanic nationals — are partnering with violent Mexican drug gangs to finance terror networks in the Middle East, according to a Drug Enforcement Administration report...

...The 2005 report outlines an ongoing scheme in which multiple Middle Eastern drug-trafficking and terrorist cells operating in the U.S. fund terror networks overseas, aided by established Mexican cartels with highly sophisticated trafficking routes.

These terrorist groups, or sleeper cells, include people who speak Arabic, Spanish and Hebrew and, for the most part, arouse no suspicion in their communities.
Read the entire article.

While I lived in Southern California for over a decade numerous reports surfaced of US Border Patrol agents finding along the US-Mexico border Arabic and Farsi language newspapers and other items peculiar to Middle Eastern/muslim culture. Here is only one of many such reports:
Illegals from terrorist nations are crossing the border into Arizona.

Tom McNamara and the Eyewitness News 4 Investigators have spent the last three months talking to experts and eyewitnesses.

The stories are compelling and the evidence is frightening, and just this week, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo released a report showing that the problem is worse than anyone thought.

Here's what the Eyewitness News 4 Investigators uncovered.

"It's a Muslim prayer blanket. It was found about a mile and a half west from the Douglas port of entry in 2001."

Larry Vance is a rancher who lives near the U.S.-Mexico border in Douglas, Arizona.

For years, he says he's watched - and documented - thousands of illegals crossing the border and running away to eventual arrest... or freedom and anonymity somewhere in this country.

And in just one hour, during this stake-out along the border between Douglas and b\Bisbee, The Investigators count 198 illegals in five different groups crossing into the U.S. with no resistance.

Watch as they huddle in the bushes, then climb thru a few strands of barbed wire and run for freedom.

We called Border Patrol and waited another full hour, but no one ever came.

And clear across the nation two muslim "students" from the University of South Florida in Tampa were apprehended last weekend near a naval base in South Carolina with what they say were only "fireworks" but have now been confirmed as pipe bombs made from materials purchased at a Wal-Mart.
MONCKS CORNER, S.C. - Two men found with several pipe bombs in their car near a Navy base were charged Monday with possession of an explosive device, authorities said.

A joint state-federal investigation was under way to see whether there was any terrorism connection, said FBI spokeswoman Denise Taiste, but no link had been found. The Navy base is the site of a brig where enemy combatants have been held.

Ahmed Abda Sherf Mohamed, 24, and Yousef Samir Megahed, 21, both students at the University of South Florida in Tampa, were driving through the area on Saturday to vacation at a North Carolina beach for Mohamed's birthday, their defense attorney said...

...The executive director of a civil rights organization for Muslims in Tampa criticized the arrest as racial profiling, an accusation South Carolina police denied. It's not clear if the item found in the vehicle is actually a bomb, said Ahmed Bedier of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
***As a side note, a blogging friend of mine for whom I used to contribute, had his blog shut down by his web hosting service because of pressure from the above-mentioned Ahmed Bedier, executive director of the Tampa chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), due to, specifically, a link to a piece of satire which appeared on another web-site, which Bedier deemed as "hate speech." The article continues:
...The two men were stopped for speeding Saturday night on U.S. Highway 176 near Goose Creek, which is the site of the Naval Weapons Station and houses the U.S. Naval Consolidated Brig, a military prison where enemy combatants have been held.

They were heading west, away from Goose Creek, when they were pulled over about seven miles from the sprawling Navy facility, police said.

Officers became suspicious because the men quickly put away a laptop computer and couldn't immediately say what they were doing in the area or where they were going, DeWitt said.

A deputy then found what he thought were explosives in the 2000 Toyota Camry and called the bomb squad. Technicians confirmed the devices were pipe bombs and destroyed them, according to sworn statements in the arrest warrants.
I'm sorry, I was born and raised in Florida and lived briefly in Tampa about two miles from USF, and it's only an hour over to Clearwater or St. Petersburg, both of which have nicer beaches than anything North Carolina has to offer; AND they couldn't immediately tell the officers where they were going when they were questioned? Keep an eye on this one, folks. It could be a big screw-up, but then again...

Sunday, August 05, 2007

US Soveriegnty No More?

If you are like me and can't figure out why the US Federal Government seemingly turns a blind eye to the illegal immigrant invasion from Mexico, makes excuses for it when they do address the issue, and offers a bill that amounts to amnesty for those who break our immigration laws - look no further. Our good friend, Nancy at American Daughter, has put together a well researched and documented piece that explains it all. Basically, later this month a plan will be finalized that makes a European Union style arrangement for North America.

North American Union

by Nancy Matthis at ADMC.

It's almost a done deal. While most patriotic Americans have been preoccupied this summer with the invasion of illegal aliens across our southern border with Mexico, President Bush has been quietly finalizing plans with Stephen Harper and Felipe Calderon to eradicate our national sovereignty. They'll wrap it up on August 20 at a meeting in Montebello, Quebec.

Soon the United States will be subsumed into a North American Union, just as the nations in Europe have been gobbled up by the European Union. Boundaries will melt away and our dollar will be replaced with the amero, giving the "globalistas" an opportunity to get rid of that pesky phrase In God we trust which reminds us of our rapidly vanishing heritage.

Judging from reports we receive from our friends across the pond, this is not a good thing for nations with successful economies. What it does is bring all the participants into the same business climate, a sort of socialism at the national level -- an advantage for the less robust nations and a huge disadvantage for the vibrant economies.

One of the worst results of such a union is the migration of people within the union that results. In the European Union, for example, poor Romanians are pouring into the United Kingdom and dumping themselves onto the overburdened social services system. Currently in the United States, illegal immigration across our southern border is overtaxing our schools, hospitals, law enforcement and welfare systems. Within the North American Union, the fiscal penalties to our citizens would be greatly multiplied, and it would be legal.

As this calamity bears down on us, the mainstream media are strangely silent. One has to look to Canada to find anyone sounding the alarm. We want to call our readers' attention to this copyrighted article by Global Research. We excerpt a portion here under the principle of "fair use," but we urge everyone to visit their website and read all of it:
Canadians Completely Unaware of Looming North American Union
Bush and Calderon to Visit Canada
By Kevin Parkinson | Global Research, July 17, 2007

In just over a month’s time, on August 20, the most powerful president in the world will be arriving in Montebello, Quebec for a two-day conference. President George W. Bush will be meeting with Stephen Harper and their Mexican counterpart, Felipe Calderon. So far, the silence from the Canadian and American media has been deafening.

Talk to 90% of people on the street and they won’t know about this upcoming conference, and if by a slim chance they do, they won’t know the purpose of the meeting or why the leaders of Canada, United States and Mexico are meeting in the dog days of summer under what amounts to a veil of secrecy.

So, what’s this upcoming conference all about, and why are the newspapers, radio and television keeping silent about it?

The purpose of the upcoming conference is to ratify the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which was initiated by Bush, Martin and Fox in 2005 in Waco, Texas. Essentially, this so-called ‘partnership’ will result in what the politicians refer to as ‘continental integration’-newspeak for a North American Union- and basically a harmonization of 100’s of regulations, policies and laws.

In layman’s terms, it means that once this ‘partnership’ has been ratified which is a fait accompli; we will be following in the footsteps of the European Union. It will mean that Canada will become part of the North American Union by 2010, and that our resources, agricultural, health and environment issues, to name a few, will be controlled not by Canada, but by the government of the North American Union.

A huge ‘NAFTA’ highway, one quarter of a mile wide, is already being built in Texas, where private land is being expropriated, and will eventually reach the Manitoba border....

The NAFTA superhighway is being developed by the North
America Supercorridor Coalition (NASCO)
. [You can read their mission statement here in PDF format.] The road, already under construction, will be four football fields wide. It follows the US Interstate 35 corridor from the Mexican border at Laredo, Texas to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minnesota. Americans who think that the use of eminent domain in Kelo vs. New London (summary) was egregious have not seen anything yet! What is worse, the resources of the original I-35 corridor, originally mapped, graded and developed by the American taxpayers, will be operated as a for-profit toll road by a private Spanish company, Cintra Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A..

The initial plan for the unification of Canada, the United States, and Mexico was developed by a multinational task force of the Council on Foreign Relations. [You can read their entire report here in PDF format.] The report recommends "the creation by 2010 of a North American community" asserting that
North America is different from other regions of the world and must find its own cooperative route forward. A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes....
Translation: The grand schemes of the patriots who created the United States are no longer relevant. It is more important to preserve wealth than to cherish the principles that created the greatest society in human experience. Included in the details of the report:

  • "...once unloaded from ships, containers may cross land borders within the region without the need for further inspections." This puts US safety in the hands of inspectors in Mexico, who have a history of accepting bribes.

  • "...a common security perimeter for North America.... a common security perimeter for North America ... will require specific policy, statutory, and procedural changes in all three nations." We will have completely sacrificed our sovereignty to set our own standards to the union. All a terrorist will have to do is get into Mexico and he is home free.

  • "...common approaches toward international negotiations on the global movement of people, cargo, and vessels..." This would include common external trade tariffs set by the union, not by the member countries.

  • "NORAD should evolve into a multiservice Defense Command that would expand the principle of Canadian-U.S. joint command to land and naval as well as air forces engaged in defending the approaches to North America." So Canada and the United States would assume the defense burden, and include Mexico under the umbrella.

  • ",,,a ... North American Border Passwith biometric identifiers. This document would allow its bearers expedited passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the region." Free migration throughout the union with a biometric identification card -- what a bonanza for terrorists and drug smugglers!

  • "...increase labor mobility within North America..." What was that battle we just fought in the Senate?

  • "...Implement the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States andMexico..."

An article in Human Events published last year warned of the consequences:
Once complete, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the United States through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union in the process. The Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union, will drive on what will be the nation’s most modern highway straight into the heart of America. The Mexican trucks will cross border in FAST lanes, checked only electronically by the new “SENTRI” system. The first customs stop will be a Mexican customs office in Kansas City, their new Smart Port complex, a facility being built for Mexico at a cost of $3 million to the U.S. taxpayers in Kansas City....
The article continues:
The details of the NAFTA Super Highway are hidden in plain 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.
The dire consequences are endless. Our failing Food and Drug Administration, for example, cannot even protect us now from imported poisons from China. What will happen when there is no boundary inspection at all? Our bureaucratically moribund Immigration and Naturalization Service cannot even find and deport 600,000 criminal aliens who have already been convicted. How in heaven's name do they expect to handle the biometric identification card? Our senior citizens cannot count on social security to hold up over time, even without including hordes of Mexicans in the plan. We have not even proved ourselves capable of managing our own national affairs, and now we are to be exposed to the even worse problems that plague Mexico.

The consequences for Canada are negative as well. Not only is it exposed to the spillover from Mexico that does not stop in the United States, but it will be forcibly deprived of oil and natural gas reserves, for the common good.
Canada’s vast oilsands ... now provide a viable new source of energy.... North America is blessed with an abundant resource base. Exploiting these resources on a long-term, sustainable basis requires that the three governments work together to resolve issues and ensure responsible use of scarce resources and the free flow of both resources and capital across all three borders."
Political activist Jerome Corsi sums it up:
North American Union to Replace USA?

President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union was formed.
Here's another steadfast source of research on the "global elite" -- The August Review. If you have any hope left for the United States, read as many articles on their website as possible. Here are some paragraphs from just one:
The global elite, through the direct operations of President George Bush and his Administration, are creating a North American Union that will combine Canada, Mexico and the U.S. into a superstate called the North American Union (NAU). The NAU is roughly patterned after the European Union (EU). There is no political or economic mandate for creating the NAU, and unofficial polls of a cross-section of Americans indicate that they are overwhelmingly against this end-run around national sovereignty....

Modern day globalization was launched with the creation of the Trilateral Commission in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Its membership consisted of just over 300 powerful elitists from North America, Europe and Japan. The clearly stated goal of the Trilateral Commission was to foster a "New International Economic Order" that would supplant the historical economic order.

In spite of its non-political rhetoric, The Trilateral Commission nonetheless established a headlock on the Executive Branch of the U.S. government with the election of James Earl Carter in 1976. Hand-picked as a presidential candidate by Brzezinski, Carter was personally tutored in globalist philosophy and foreign policy by Brzezinski himself. Subsequently, when Carter was sworn in as President, he appointed no less than one-third of the U.S. members of the Commission to his Cabinet and other high-level posts in his Administration. Such was the genesis of the
Trilateral Commission's domination of the Executive Branch that continues to the present day....

Why would the Trilateral Commission seek to dominate the Executive Branch? Quite simply - Power! That is, power to get things done directly which would have been impossible to accomplish through the only moderately successful lobbying efforts of the past; power to use the government as a bully platform to modify political behavior throughout the world.

Of course, the obvious corollary to this hegemony is that the influence and impact of the citizenry is virtually eliminated....

....To look into the face of these global elites is to look into the face of unmitigated greed, avarice and treachery.
For more reading on this subject, visit an excellent resource list maintained by the Eagle Forum.

If all of this has left you feeling depressed, dear readers, visit The Onion for a very clever and detailed spoof of the subject.