Thursday, June 01, 2006

Dhimmi Carter Loves Traitor Bush's Open Borders "Destroy America" Plan

Do Republicans need any further proof that our President has gone DemocRATic on us? Let's see, who are Bush's superbest friends? Kennedy? Love him! Reid? Super best friends! McCain/Spectre/Frist? They love riding Bush's tilt-a-whirl? Again, why be a Republican when you dream like a Democrat? Leave the Republican Party, Traitor Bush. Leave. Just declare yourself a Democrat tomorrow and stop the pretense. Stop the lies. You know you have a liberal in the White House when he starts stating bold faced lies and saying everyone else is lying. Take 'amnesty.' All those other words and phrases the White House dreamed up - 'path to citizenship", earned citizenship. When the President plots to deceive the public, you know he is a liar, a deceptive man. Everyone in the Republican party is looking for the reason for the 'diaarray' and lack of unity? They only need to look down the street at the White House at that backstabbing RINO we voted for.

The Carter Center:
Carter praises Bush's immigration stance By DOUG GROSS, Associated Press Writer
Wed May 24, 11:29 PM ET

ATLANTA - Former president Carter, a Democrat and frequent critic of President Bush, sees eye-to-eye with him on immigration.

Carter on Wednesday called the Republican president's commitment to immigration reform "quite admirable," saying he agrees with Bush's support of a system that would eventually grant citizenship to some illegals.

The Senate is set to vote as early as Thursday on a bill that calls for tougher border security as well as an eventual chance at citizenship for millions of men and women in the country illegally.

The law should secure the nation's borders while "at the same time treating those who are here with respect and giving them some hope for the future," Carter said.

The Senate plan, which closely mirrors Bush's own proposal, faces an uncertain fate in the House, where representatives have passed legislation that would expose all illegal immigrants to felony charges.

Carter spoke at the close of a three-day forum of international human rights workers at The Carter Center in Atlanta. Human rights activists from 22 countries attended the forum.



Cubed © said...


I have been fighting the thought that Bush might not have the best interests of the United States at heart for quite some time; all I could seem to remember was the image of him standing on the rubble of the Twin Towers, talking through the bullhorn about how "they" would hear us soon. SURELY such a man could not pull the plug on our beloved country!

My confidence started to sag with the whole border issue. SURELY he could not be in favor of the plan of the mythical - surely it was a myth - Trilateral Commission to create a North American political-economic-military regional union... SURELY he was not in favor of the One World Federation of States like the rest of the Council on Foreign Relations... None of that could be true - SURELY.

Well, the more I looked around, and the less evasion I allowed myself to indulge in, the more I have to admit, our president intends to ditch our sovereignty in precisely the same way the European leaders ditched theirs, and for the same reason.

The idea of a single global "Federation of States" goes back a long way, even before WWI.

Here's a quote (1970s) from Richard A. Falk, a professor of international law with connections to the Council on Foreign Relations - it states the goal with enormous economy of expression:

"...regionalism (e.g., the European Union and the North American bloc currently under development by Bush) has considerable appeal as a world order 'half-way house.' It seems more feasible in the near term as a step beyond state sovereignty that can be used to dilute nationalist sentiments during a period when global loyalties need to grown stronger."

I'm working on something about it now - it might be ready by next week.

It appears that we are beginning to wake up to this nightmare in much the same way we awakened to the reality of Islam.

It's time - quick - for a Third Party. The clock is ticking.

John Sobieski said...

Cubed, I have seen several writings and blog articles about this "North American Union." NO WAY. The EU is a disaster in everyway. See, Bush has that liberal disease where American culture should be laid waste by a 'bigger picture' of the world and North America.

Like Islam, it is another important issue, another liberal disease we must fight.

I have been tearing into Bush the last few days, but he has betrayed me, the Republican party, and America. This man is totally against the conservative core of the Republican Party. If he had come out for the House bill with Enforcement only, the Republican Party would be heading for a landslide this fall, and this disastrous Senate bill would never have risen from that stinking bog we call a Senate. On the other hand, we know now clearly who are the RINOs with their democRAT anarchist ideas. Here are the Senators Vote by State. Did your Senator vote YES for SB2611 "Destroy America with Immigration, Legal and Illegal"? Neither of mine did and they heard loud and clear from me.:

Roll Call Vote Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, S. 2611
U.S. Senate ^ | May 25, 2006 | NA
Posted on 05/25/2006 6:03:24 PM PDT by neverdem
S. 2611
Vote Summary
Grouped By Vote Position
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Nay Salazar (D-CO), Not Voting
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Dayton (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Lott (R-MS), Nay
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Nay Talent (R-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Burns (R-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Nay Dole (R-NC), Nay
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Nay Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Nay Frist (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Nay Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Nay Thomas (R-WY), Nay

Brooke said...

"It's time - quick - for a Third Party. The clock is ticking."

It's coming. True conservatives have lost faith in our current Republican Party.

friendlysaviour said...

All this regionalisation seems to be an echo of the conglomeration of big business in the takeover mode.
It has only been possible with the advent of computing and global communication satellites.
It seems a logical "progression" to most people and inevitable at that.
Conveniently, Nationalism as a necessary motivation for the public,is disposed of and after a generation or so, the populace find themselves naturally accepting the changed parameters of the State.
This suits global business and global military control, as the world is carved into larger areas of political control.
This seems to be following Orwell's vision of the future of the World as carved into a small number of major blocs.

What one has to ask is, how long can the globalisation continue?
It is dependant on many factors, some of them technological, which cannot be guaranteed to not fail, or be damaged through natural disaster or war.
In Europe, we have a population that mostly likes the idea of cheap travel and the right to buy property and live in any part of EU. This relies on the ability to travel accross borders and has necessitated the building of high speed rail connections and motorways, and the vast increase in short hop airtravel.
All of that relies on oil sources being available.
So have deals been done at high level, to dilute national identity and allow greater arab influence?
So to continue the Euopean dream, we have seen our governments relaxing border controls and allowing increased movement of both European and non legal migration/immigration. We then have to live with the acceptance of a dilution of national identity as a consequence.
The dilution of national identity is continued with regionalisation at a lower level, with the UK government introducing regional government to replace the "Shires" system of old.
Even the police forces are being amalgamated accross County borders, against the wishes of most forces.
So who has decided that these globalising plans are the only way forward?
Why is this the modus op at all levels of government?
Are these changes being developed at a world level and by whom?
Or is it all just a "natural" progression?
I find the answers hard to plumb, and the Conspiracy theorists seem to propose answers that involve hard to believe Builderburger/skull and bones ideas.
Is globalisation a contrived "conspiracy?"
Or are politicians at the mercy of forces they can at best corall, not control?
Sorry about these questions, I wish I had answers.

Cubed © said...


The first dream of the globalists (which, as I have found out, goes back a very long way) began with an intention to unify at the level of politics. That just didn't work; citizens of individual nations saw through the goals far too easily, and their pride-of-country defeated this initial effort at the establishment of a Word Federation.

They then decided to use the economic route as a foot in the door to world political-military-economic unification. This was far more palatable to the despised "nationalists" of the various countries, since it disguised the political-military sides of the triangle. This is where business began to be drawn into the picture, guided by legislative force that drove them in the directions desired by the One World people. There was a period here (you could tell me if it happened in Europe too) where the term "military-industrial complex" was common. It was a relationship that was forcefully driven not by business, but by governments favoring a World Federation. It's amazing how taxation etc. can be used as a powerful weapon, one side being a carrot and the other being a stick, to force people into behaving as governments wish. Businesses are not immune from such pressures; in fact, as the source of all government wealth (since government produces nothing on its own), they are the special targets of these pressures.

Business per se has no desire to "dominate," in the sense of legislative use of force; however, governments, the repository of legislative force, are not only willing, but eager, to use business to achieve their goals. They bring business to heel, cajoling and threatening at every turn, to force business to do their bidding.

Does business want to expand? Does it influence our lives? "Yes" on both counts. Does it point a gun at our heads, threaten us with jail time, or tax us in order to achieve its goals? No; only government does that.

It's so easy to villify business, but we must always look at the motives of the man behind the curtain.

I'll try to do a better (if somewhat longer) job of explaining why I have finally given up the idea that Bush is one of the good guys in a future blog. Right now, I'm up to my ears in researching it; I will really try to make it short enough so that folks can actually read it!

Cubed © said...


I hope that there is enough spunk left in enough of us to say "NO WAY" to the One World people.

The postmodernists have achieved their goal of dumbing down so many of our citizens, and filling their heads with collectivist-prone thinking, that I worry about that.

On the other hand, I am very encouraged by the response to the whole border thing. Even though it's a small piece of the puzzle, it has really gotten through to people, and reached the Great American Subconscious. People hate the idea of becoming fused with Mexico, and even with Canada.

Canada is less alarming than Mexico because as is the case with the entire Anglo-American world, we come from a common heritage of values that had their origin with the Enlightenment, born in England. It was with people like English philosopher Locke that concepts like the Rights of Man were first derived. They are part of Canada's heritage too, despite their current socialist state of affairs.

I'm becoming progressively impressed with the idea that the primary division between Mexico and the United States comes from our different value set.

Mexico's primary influence is from Spain, and when Spain conquered Mexico, it was still newly freed from its 700-year occupation by Islam. During those 700 years, a lot of Islamic attitudes and values had been absorbed. These were then taken with them to Mexico and the rest of Hispanic America with the Spanish conquests.

In the 500 years since Spain kicked out the Muslims, Spain itself, as a free and integral part of Europe during the Renaissance, was able to shed enough of the values and attitudes it absorbed from Islam (although by no means all of them) to progress with the rest of the West.

Hispanic America, unfortunately, was not in close, frequent, easy contact/communication with the rest of Europe and the philosophic growth taking place there. As a result, more of the Islamic influence on the culture was retained.

We see many similarities between the problems of the modern Hispanic and Islamic cultures as a result. There are more exaggerated differences between the elite and the poor, with a far smaller middle class than we see in non-Hispanic cultures; we see an entrenched, oppressive ruling class; we see an institutionalized poor underclass, with what amounts to a caste system where upward mobility is very, very sluggish; there is still a lower level of productivity than seen in non-Hispanic America; there are relatively poor educational opportunities, and problems with employment. The are far more open to collectivist-style societies such as socialism, fascism and communism than we are. We also see among many of the illegals in our country a "culture of victimhood" where the problems they experience are blamed on us - and this also closely resembles the culture of conspiracy and victimhood seen in Islam.

These are problems that will not go away without pressure on the governments of these countries by their own populations, and a strong educational effort to allow them to "catch up" to the progress made by the Continental Spanish.

In the meantime, it appears that there may be enough people in our country who are stubborn enough to protect our national sovereignty and "just say 'no'" to the sacrifice of our national sovereignty and the principles embraced in our Constitution on the Altar of the Federation of World States and the springboard to it that is the North American "bloc."

Oh, BTW, the proposed monetary unit is to be called the "Amero."

How do you like that?

friendlysaviour said...

cubed,.. your comment about the "Amero" made me think of the old Mexican? song
Seriously though, I heard today, on the bbc radio4, that it seems that George actually, really, like Mexicans!
He's from Texas and he's always had a liking for their food and music!
He just plain likes 'em. Apparrently.
Thats interesting about the Spanish islamic influence. Do you base that on accepted facts or more on your own analysis?
Didn't the key Kindoms of the North instigate the Reconquista. weren'they relatively unaffectd?
Your call for a third patrty sounds realistic, across all the old teritories of the West and North. We have so much in common though we are diverse as Peoples.
Our history lies in the soil we stand on.
If we fail to protect and defend that soil, we are not worthy of it. It will be taken from us through our own stupidity and lack of belief.
A new party could address the concerns of many. It could maintain the priciples of State with a mandate that forever protects the rights of our fellows upon the soil of our European/American homelands.
A crisis of confidence has taken hold of the reigns of office.
Blinded by their expression of crafted emotions, the puppet masters tell the tales that will entertain us. The puppet masters believe in their own omniscience, and so the stage is set for conquest.

Cubed © said...


Yeah, I think Bush really has a soft spot in his heart for all things Mexican - one of his relatives (by marriage) is Mexican. Or of Mexican extraction, anyway.

I've wondered about the Islamic influence on Spain, and via Spain on the Hispanic American countries pretty much ever since I started educating myself about Islam.

Since then, I've found someone whose spouse is from one of those countries, and who is well acquainted in the history of the region. The information that this person has begun to pass on to me supports the idea that there does linger on some attitudes derived from Islam. When these attitudes are grafted on to the cultures of the Aztec, Maya, and Inca, you have to start wondering where these folks are headed.

I don't know if it's more than a sort of cultural curiosity, or if it is responsible for a lot of the hostility we are seeing now - is this another "culture clash," a fundamental clash of values like the one we experiencing with Islam itself?

I don't know; maybe it just causes them to lean in the direction of those who do not wish us well, or maybe it has more influence than that.

Maybe, if we get through all the rest of this crap OK, there'll be time to do a sort of "historical archeological investigation" of the cultural ties between Islam, Old Spain, and current Hispanic America.

Maybe someone's already done the definitive work and I'm not a scholar in the field, and just don't know about it.

friendlysaviour said...

Cubed, ..thanks for your comments.
I think you are on to something.
We hear of the residual yearning of moslims to reverse the Spanish Reconquista, and indeed, the descendants of those that resisded for so long as conquerors of Iberia, are called by there own special name. (slips my mind at this moment.)
Possibly the resentment has been passed through tradition and indoctrination through succesive generations of Moorish-Spanish. You could say it is at the genetic level.
Kinda like the yearning of the emigrant Irish, for their roots at home?
Or even the Jewish people for the land of Israel?
The difference is of course, that the origins of the Moorish-Spanish is superficial in that it was recent in comparitive time-scale, and a product of their ancestors supplanting the Visigoths. (I think,.. sorry, its's early!)
So maybe there is a genetic thing with the Hispanics, that they are convince they will reinherit the territory lost to America, at least on a symbolic level.
I wonder if they are a much lesser threat than the islamic one Europe is facing?
I also wonder if the Majority control of the Catholic faith on Hispanics, will make them more immune from any mass capitulation to islam?

Anonymous said...

Hi my friends! I'm writing to you because I just came across a business that I think has great potential. It lets you save money on almost everything. Make money from almost everything, Including home loans- plus... help lower your taxes--best of all--it requires absolutely no investment. I thought you might be interested and like to check it out...

Here I have a money making site/blog. It successfully covers money making related stuff and almost everything else!

Come and check it out if you get time, Scott.