Republicrats and our push for globalism

ruger45

Moderator
The spotlight www.spotlight.org

Pat Takes on Republicrats Over Sovereignty

Globalism has become the defining issue of the '90s that's going to make or break the United States. Republicans and Democrats fear that if they debate the Reform Party and Green Party candidates, their true globalist masters—the corporate and plutocratic elite—will be exposed.

Exclusive to The SPOTLIGHT

By James P. Tucker Jr.

Republican George Bush and Democrat Al Gore are afraid to debate him, says Reform candidate Pat Buchanan, because they want to ignore national sovereignty as an issue.

But America's ongoing loss of sovereignty to international institutions ought to be the biggest issue in the presidential campaign, Buchanan told The SPOTLIGHT July 20.

If the national televised debates exclude him, as now planned, the "Re publicrats" will succeed in muzzling sovereignty as an issue, Buchanan said.

Buchanan is suing to force the Com mission on Presidential Debates to include him in the debates. Green Party nominee Ralph Nader is bringing a similar action. A win for either is probably a win for both, setting up a four-way de bate.

Gore and Bush have long family and personal histories of being close to such groups as Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission and have echoed their positions supporting world government over the years. Their safest political position is to keep sovereignty from becoming an issue—thus their fear of confronting Buchanan, a sharp, quick-witted de bater.

In his campaigns as a Republican candidate in 1992 and 1996, and again as a Reform candidate this year, Buchanan has assured The SPOTLIGHT that he would never appoint Trilaterals, Bilder berg participants or members of the Council on Foreign Relations to any post in his administration, acknowledging that U.S. foreign policy has been under their control for decades.

"I can't think of any of them who would support me," Buchanan grinned, when asked again this year.

But Bush, whose father was a member of the Trilateral Commission while in federal service and also as President Ronald Reagan's vice president, follows the line of the world shadow government.

Young Bush's top foreign policy adviser said July 20—the same day Buchan an was calling for making sovereignty the biggest issue of the campaign—that he would revive efforts to extend "free trade" throughout the Western Hemi sphere.

One of the Texas governor's first acts as president, said Condoleezza Rice, Bush's spokesperson, would be to ask Congress for "fast-track" power to negotiate a "Free Trade Area of the Ameri cas," or FTAA. Extending NAFTA to in clude the entire Western Hemisphere and evolve into an "American Union" sim i lar to the European Union has long been a Bilderberg-Trilateral goal.

Earlier, Bush had said directly, on a visit to Mexico, "I will work to create an entire hemisphere in free trade."

The FTAA effort, supported by 34 na tions, has been stalled since 1998 when Congress denied fast-track authority to President Clinton.

Many Trilateral and Bilderberg leaders are among the close advisers of Gore and Bush.

Gore's boss, President Clinton, was a long-time Trilateral member. When he appeared at the 1991 Bilderberg meeting at Baden-Baden, Germany, the ob scure Arkansas governor's star began rising.

Buchanan has a convincing case in asking a federal court to order the Com mission on Presidential Debates to in clude him in the televised confrontations in October.

Buchanan argues that he has met the qualifications set by Congress by polling 8 percent when a level of 5 percent is required and by being on the ballot in states with enough electoral votes to win the election. The commission exceeded its authority in raising the threshold, Buchanan said.

Sixty-four percent of Americans be lieve Buchanan should be included in the debate, according to several polls.

Calls for his inclusion come from across the political spectrum, including Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) and the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Syndicated columnist Nat Hentoff called for their inclusion because "the debates would be a lot livelier with Pat and Ralph." Buchanan and Nader "could affect the outcome, pollsters and analysts say."

Other issues the two major parties want to leave out of the public debate include bringing American troops home from Kosovo, opposition to NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, and protecting America's borders, Buchanan said.

Buchanan dismissed criticism from "kennel-fed conservatives inside the Beltway" because they refuse to confront these issues.

Buchanan said he would debate his sole challenger for the Reform Party nomination, John Hagelin, if he promises to support the nominee and not to run in November. Hagelin is the nominee of the little-known Natural Law Party.

Buchanan won an overwhelming num ber of delegates in state campaigning. He expressed cynicism about the national mail-in primary. He told of people receiving unsolicited ballots. Ballots are available on request but are not to be distributed by mass mailings.>>
www.jbs.org
only lobby working to get us out of UN
and your not a member..


Sure sure I know we all see Bush as more conservative than Gore.
What do you think your supposed to see.
But hes also a nice poster boy for the press in my opinoin and thats scary as hell.
Now in your flames in reply to me lets count the ways besides gunrights (mandatory trigger lock sales,continued enforcement of
'assault weapons import ban)
that our so conservative Bush disagree's with
Clinton.
Does he not feel minorities should be 'taken care of ' through tax dollars.
Does he oppose illegal immigration of people who dont care about and have no reason to care about how elected officials vote.(especially when using fake ID they pay no taxes)
I know its a controversial thread but someone had to ask it and I have no problem being the unpopular one.
Not to mention stating the fact that we are headed no where near a 'right wing extreme'
and VERY WELL SHOULD BE.
Oh and tweedlebush just like tweedlegore
wants to send 20 billion of your tax dollars to communist china.
Course you wont think much about that one till you see the jobs that go with it.

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ruger45:
Now in your flames in reply to me lets count the ways besides gunrights (mandatory trigger lock sales, continued enforcement of 'assault weapons import ban) that our so conservative Bush disagree's with Clinton.[/b[/quote]

Sorry, but flaming is not allowed on this board. Of course, just because people may disagree with you and present evidence to refute your argument doesn’t mean that you are being flamed.

From the GOP Platform:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> In the last eight years the administration has squandered the opportunity granted to the United States by the courage and sacrifice of previous generations:

The administration has run America's defenses down over the decade through inadequate resources, promiscuous commitments, and the absence of a forward-looking military strategy.
The ballistic missile threat to the United States has been persistently dismissed, delaying for years the day when America will have the capability to defend itself against this growing danger.
The arrogance, inconsistency, and unreliability of the administration's diplomacy have undermined American alliances, alienated friends, and emboldened our adversaries.
World trade talks in Seattle that the current administration had sponsored collapsed in spectacular failure. Authority to negotiate new fast-track trade agreements was slapped down by the administration's own party in the Congress. An initiative to establish free trade throughout the Americas has stalled because of this lack of Presidential leadership.
The problems of Mexico have been ignored, as our indispensable neighbor to the south struggled with too little American help to deal with its formidable challenges.
The tide of democracy in Latin America has begun to ebb with a sharp rise in corruption and narco-trafficking.
A misguided policy toward China was exemplified by President Clinton's trip to Beijing that produced an embarrassing presidential kowtow and a public insult to our longstanding ally, Japan.
With weak and wavering policies toward Russia, the administration has diverted its gaze from corruption at the top of the Russian government, the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians in Chechnya, and the export of dangerous Russian technologies to Iran and elsewhere.
A chorus of empty threats destroyed America's credibility in the Balkans, so that promised safe havens became killing fields.
The administration prolonged the war in Kosovo by publicly limiting America's military options - something no Commander-in-Chief should ever do.
A generation of American efforts to slow proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has unraveled as first India and Pakistan set off their nuclear bombs, then Iraq defied the international community. Token air strikes against Iraq could not long mask the collapse of an inspection regime that had - until then - at least kept an ambitious, murderous tyrant from acquiring additional nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
A humanitarian intervention in Somalia was escalated thoughtlessly into nation-building at the cost of the lives of courageous Americans.
A military intervention in Haiti displayed administration indecision and incoherence and, after billions of dollars had been spent, accomplished nothing of lasting value

Reacting belatedly to inevitable crises, the administration constantly enlarges the reach of its rhetoric - most recently in Vice President Gore's "new security agenda" that adds disease, climate, and all the world's ethnic or religious conflicts to an undiminished set of existing American responsibilities. If there is some limit to candidate Gore's new agenda for America as global social worker, he has yet to define it.[/quote]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> China is a strategic competitor of the United States, not a strategic partner. We will deal with China without ill will - but also without illusions. A new Republican government will understand the importance of China but not place China at the center of its Asia policy.[/quote]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>For American agriculture, prosperity depends in large measure on expansion of global markets. Our farmers already export some $54 billion in products and commodities every year. For them, for the aspirations of their families and the dreams of their children, the opening of foreign markets is essential. Governor Bush understands that. That's why he has asked for restoration of presidential fast-track negotiating authority, the key to forceful trade negotiations abroad. And it's why he's determined to open the China market for America's farmers and ranchers. It's why he's called for the U.S. to demand, in the next round of global trade talks, the complete elimination of agricultural export subsidies and tariffs. It's why he will fight the European Community's outrageous restrictions against imports of U.S. crops and livestock. And it's why he has pledged to exempt food exports from any new trade sanctions.[/quote]

Sounds exactly like what the Democrats will roll out as their party’s platform later this month.
:rolleyes: NOT!



------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
I don't see the difference between bush and gore, maybe a little but what's this thing with bush giving tax dollars to immigrants? I don't agree with everything Pat says but according to the AOL test I took Pat matches my stands on issues better than bush!!! Food for thought.
 
TBM,

The platform means less to the elected Pubbies than the Constitution does, and you know it.

And it's a sham to take shots at Clinton alone over military downsizing when Bush the Elder is the originator of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC). He started the hoop rolling, and passed of to Bubba.

The defining statement on the "platform" came from Bob Dole in 1996. Remember what he said?

"I haven't read the platform, and I don't feel constrained by it in any way."

Verbatim.

The differences are very, VERY minor between the Dem's and Pub's. Once you get past abortion, which I will cede to the Pubbies 'cause they're a LOT better, there just isn't much room for wiggling amongst them.
 
I don't see a lot of differance between Bush and gore either. But the Rebublicans are at least a little more in favor of our right to bear arms.

The gun rights issue is the SINGLE most important issue and I will vote against anyone who seeks to deny me that right. I used to be a Democrate but with their anti-gun stand all other issues become second in importance. I will vote Republican until such time as as the Democrats are destroyed or they give up their anti-gun stand. I will again vote Democrat the instant they give up their anti-gun stand but I will vote against Democrats every time as long as they are anti-gun even if that means voting for Republicans! What never ceases to amaze me is that Democrats could literally sweep the house, senate and presidency were they to get off of their stupid fucXing anti-gun stand. When are they gonna learn or are they really that stupid?

I'll vote the lesser of two evils and vote Republican until the Democrats GET OFF OF THEIR STUPID ANTI-GUN STAND.

By-the-way, a third party vote is just pissin in the wind until there is a constitutional amendment allowing for a "runnoff vote" in the event that no one individual gets a clear majority of the vote.

THIRD PARTIES ARE A FOOLS PARADISE UNTIL THEN!!!

[This message has been edited by crossbones (edited August 03, 2000).]
 
Would rather see Keyes debating any of these candidates then Pat.

My plan, all Americans fall back out of foriegn counties laying down suppressing fire on the way out, get home, seal all the borders, tax the hell outta imported goods (those not showing a necessity, guns would be exempt as they are necesary)issue reloaders to all Citizens and tell them to start a chrunin out the rounds.

Hey maybe the chinese are on our side for when they turn LA,AND FRISCO into 30 million degrees centigrade it will clean out a lot of antis :) Could this be king willies secret pro-gun side?
 
THIRD PARTIES ARE A FOOLS PARADISE UNTIL THEN!!!

With all due respect, Abraham Lincoln won as the standard bearer of a "third party".

Everyone talks about how our "system" is set up for two parties, while ignoring the fact that the two parties in question are who developed it. There used to be multiple parties vying at every election for all national offices. Now, with the FEC being controlled equally by Democrats and Republicans, it is nearly impossible for new parties to get on the stage, so to speak.

My analogy: We have two mafia families battling for control while simultaneously working together to keep everyone else out of the "business".

Unless or until that choke hold is loosened, the status quo will be just that.
 
Flaming as in -'pissing in the wind' 'a fools choice' and the other comments above is what I meant.
I should have been more specific so sorry.
Because of the gun issue I also plan to vote for Bush but feel as the post brings out that betweent the two major crime syndicates
important issues are being 'dog wagged'away.
Its rather obvious that you agree with the
GOP platform stated above.
I could have done a worse job of defending them,no really I could have...
Communist China is a stratec competitor??
OH is that why a republican house voted to send them 20 billion of our tax dollars and that this program was endorsed by boy Bush.
'Deal with China without any ill will', you dont think thats the same light that Comrade
Clinton and his socialist heavy party have tried to put china in??
'Prosperity depends on expansion of global markets'
Um yeah we know that the problem is who receives the prosperity what kind of government it supports and at who's loss.
For example try finding a pair of shoes at wal-mart not made in china,or more than half of the clothes.
Yet this has done what for the 'rights' of the people in China?
Ya know sending out tax dollars and jobs to
china 'will help support democracy in china'.
You actually buy that baloney?
You simply affirmed my supspicions that the republicans are as pro-globalist as the democrats they simply claim to be more right wing about it.
I will never call myself a republican again.
I cant think of a smoother way to move towrd a one world order.
Theirs plenty more information on this one that will be helpful later when I can access
my database.
IN the meantime pherphaps you could help me in my youth and inexperience.
Show me some of those republican sponsored bills they sent to Clinton to get our millitary strenthened.
Besides ofcourse the missle defense program.
Hmm
'Well show the people two parties,one socialist lite and the other socialist heavy and if anyone else pops up well simply maks sure your networks dont give them any coverage theyll be following our lead by the reins the entire time thinking their voting for freedom, whatever that is'
Nahhhh couldnt happen,just because the richest men in the world are behind the UN.
Ill keep following the masses.

OBERKOMMONDO--is their anyway I could vote for you.I still need to learn to reload but considering I buy the good stuff in bulk at all the gunshow I dont think Ill ever be short on ammo.
It was Buchanen who said we should bring out troops home form 'policing the world for the UN' and have them patrol our borders.
NO Im not gonna vote for him but it would show us just how conservative Bush is if a extreme right winger like Pat were able to debate with him a little.
www.jbs.org
not world government keep us indendent
NO international criminal court



------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Actually, ruger45, I don’t agree completely with the Republican platform. You asked for someone to state the differences (other than gun control) between Gore and Bush. I found many such examples within the platform of the Republican party. Of course, Bob Locke is completely correct, I don’t really believe that the platform means anything to the Republicans. Obviously, any party that seeks to limit the RKBA in any way at the federal level does not believe in the Constitution.

I think a party’s platform is much like a movie trailer. They’re gonna show you the best parts to get you interested. Once you’ve paid your money (voted for them) then they can show you a bunch of garbage, interspersed with the good parts from the trailer, and basically do what they want.

There *is* little difference between the Reps and the Dems, but enough of a difference that one may choose which better represents one’s beliefs and vote accordingly. The one major difference that I intentionally omitted previously was the party’s stance on abortion. (I really don’t want to open that can of worms!) The differences between the Libertarian and Constitution parties are equally slight. Then, of course you could compare the Communist party with the Libs or the Green party with the Reps, and you’ll see a much bigger difference.

My counter point is that there is *enough* dissimilarity between the Reps and Dems that you will see a difference in your life depending on which one is victorious in November. Discounting "gun control" isn’t really fair since so many of us on this board tend to be somewhat monomaniacal in regard to that issue. That and abortion are where the two parties disagree the most, IMHO.

BTW, ruger45, I would have never figured that you had ever called yourself a Republican. ;)
 
If the pubs are not anti gun then why did they vote against the hostletter bill. All that would have done was nullify the S&W agreement. They couldn't even do that. If you look at your voting record for your representative you will find they are not as pro-gun as you may think. But I guess if you keep telling a lie long enough people will believe it. Case in point, all repub representatives in Alabama voted for ALL recent gun control laws, including ban on gun shows.
 
Hmmm, the Republicans and the Democrats are the same, sounds like 3rd party propaganda to me:

1. Gun control--Bush passes CCW in Texas. Dick Cheney VP. Gore wants national registration with photo ID=confiscation. Next topic...

2. Welfare--Bush wants faith-based contributions (churches, etc) to replace government handouts. A hand up from a church in one's community is far better than a "handout" from big brother, who now becomes your master (=new slavery).

3. Economy--reduce the highest tax rates since WWII by returning people's money to them. Reduce the marginal tax rate that hurts the poorest the most. Encourage entrepreneurship, don't discourage it. Gore=socialist, redistribution of wealth, wealth serves government, not the wealth creator.

4. Abortion--Repub platform is prolife, anti-abortion. Dems other way around.

5. Gay and minority rights are not superior to the majority. Dems other way around.

Sorry folks, they are NOT the same.

------------------
NRA Life Member
GOA
GSSF
 
Back
Top