<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Surrendering our Sovereignty</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/</link>
	<description>US Troop Support and Conservative Banter</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:12:41 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Richard Brodie</title>
		<link>http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/comment-page-1/#comment-13659</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Brodie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:51:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/#comment-13659</guid>
		<description>We need to get our definitions straight:

treaÂ·ty (n) - a formal agreement between two or more States in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.

Is the SPP an agreement between two or more States in reference to commerce? Yes. It is an agreement between three States regarding matters of international trade, among other things. And I donâ€™t know how much more formal you can get than having dozens of trilateral groups that have been working, albeit clandestinely, for nearly two years now, fleshing out this grandiose agreement by establishing every parameter necessary to merge (or to use a favorite EU term, &quot;harmonize&quot;) all aspects of (illusive) North American joint Security (peace) and Prosperity (commerce).

So the SPP most certainly is a treaty, even if there is not some â€œgoddamn piece of paperâ€? (to borrow a phrase from Mr. Bush) that says â€œTreatyâ€? at the top and has some signatures at the bottom. One could say that it is a de facto treaty, if not a de jure one, about which the vast majority of the American people have been kept in total ignorance.

If the SPP says such ludicrous things as &quot;The SPP is not an agreement&quot; then not even the village idiot is going to give any credence to their pathetic &quot;Myth&quot; debunking spin. Again, back to the dictionary:

agreement(n) -  1. the act of agreeing or of coming to a mutual arrangement.  2. the state of being in accord.  

Have the leaders of Mexico, Canada, and the United States &quot;agreed&quot; to go forward with implementation of the SPP? Yes. Is the SPP a &quot;mutual arrangement&quot; between the three countries? Yes. Are the leaders of the tree countries &quot;in accord&quot; about proceeding with the SPP? Yes. So is the SPP an agreement? Yes. 

Gosh, bureucratese language corruption use to involve at least some slight amount of obfuscatory finessing. But now, through either arrogance or laziness, they think it&#039;s sufficient to simply state that what is by definition clearly an agreement, is a non-agreement!

What the SPP really is, is an Executive coup â€¦ totally without the requisite Congressional approval â€¦ let alone discussion with the American people.

Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution states:

â€œHe [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concurâ€?

Until very recently, I doubt that two thirds of them had ever even heard of it, let alone been asked their opinion by the Oval Office! Not only has our Imperial Leader failed to obtain the Consent of the Senate, he has deemed their Advice not even worthy of seeking! The man is a total failure at honoring his oath of office to uphold the Constitution. He is the equivalent of the arrogant and careless little leaders, like Valens, who presided over the demise of the Roman Empire - the only difference being that while they welcomed in the Visigoths, he welcomes in the Hispanic hordes.

And as to discussing such a profoundly significant initiative with the people, I challenge anyone to find a single reference to the SPP in any of his public speeches. Less than 3 months ago in his State of the Union address he said, ominously: â€œWe enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underwayâ€?. Yeah, and the largest such endeavor, the one having the most profound potential for radically changing the fundamental nature of this country, is the SPP. But he refrains from mentioning it by name anywhere in his speech!

If it is such a great thing why is he trying to hide it? Iâ€™ll tell you why. Heâ€™s afraid most of us wouldnâ€™t think it was such a hot idea, and so he wants to get it going with as much momentum as possible, so that when the people finally discover what heâ€™s been up to he will have been able to sneak it in as a fait accompli.

In the State of the Union speech, the word â€œsecurityâ€? is mentioned ten times, twice with a capital S when talking about Social Security, and eight times when talking about Iraq. The word â€œprosperityâ€? is mentioned once in a very general and platitudinous context. And the word â€œpartnersâ€? is mentioned once in connection with North Korea. But never do these three words come together to finally lift the veil of secrecy from the darkened eyes of the citizenry and let the vast majority of them learn for the first time of the existence and nature of this truly â€œlarge endeavorâ€? that is well â€œunderwayâ€? - one whose dire consequences will reverberate into our Nation&#039;s future long after his Iraq fiasco is relegated to the same dustbin of history as Vietnam.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We need to get our definitions straight:</p>
<p>treaÂ·ty (n) &#8211; a formal agreement between two or more States in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.</p>
<p>Is the SPP an agreement between two or more States in reference to commerce? Yes. It is an agreement between three States regarding matters of international trade, among other things. And I donâ€™t know how much more formal you can get than having dozens of trilateral groups that have been working, albeit clandestinely, for nearly two years now, fleshing out this grandiose agreement by establishing every parameter necessary to merge (or to use a favorite EU term, &#8220;harmonize&#8221;) all aspects of (illusive) North American joint Security (peace) and Prosperity (commerce).</p>
<p>So the SPP most certainly is a treaty, even if there is not some â€œgoddamn piece of paperâ€? (to borrow a phrase from Mr. Bush) that says â€œTreatyâ€? at the top and has some signatures at the bottom. One could say that it is a de facto treaty, if not a de jure one, about which the vast majority of the American people have been kept in total ignorance.</p>
<p>If the SPP says such ludicrous things as &#8220;The SPP is not an agreement&#8221; then not even the village idiot is going to give any credence to their pathetic &#8220;Myth&#8221; debunking spin. Again, back to the dictionary:</p>
<p>agreement(n) &#8211;  1. the act of agreeing or of coming to a mutual arrangement.  2. the state of being in accord.  </p>
<p>Have the leaders of Mexico, Canada, and the United States &#8220;agreed&#8221; to go forward with implementation of the SPP? Yes. Is the SPP a &#8220;mutual arrangement&#8221; between the three countries? Yes. Are the leaders of the tree countries &#8220;in accord&#8221; about proceeding with the SPP? Yes. So is the SPP an agreement? Yes. </p>
<p>Gosh, bureucratese language corruption use to involve at least some slight amount of obfuscatory finessing. But now, through either arrogance or laziness, they think it&#8217;s sufficient to simply state that what is by definition clearly an agreement, is a non-agreement!</p>
<p>What the SPP really is, is an Executive coup â€¦ totally without the requisite Congressional approval â€¦ let alone discussion with the American people.</p>
<p>Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution states:</p>
<p>â€œHe [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concurâ€?</p>
<p>Until very recently, I doubt that two thirds of them had ever even heard of it, let alone been asked their opinion by the Oval Office! Not only has our Imperial Leader failed to obtain the Consent of the Senate, he has deemed their Advice not even worthy of seeking! The man is a total failure at honoring his oath of office to uphold the Constitution. He is the equivalent of the arrogant and careless little leaders, like Valens, who presided over the demise of the Roman Empire &#8211; the only difference being that while they welcomed in the Visigoths, he welcomes in the Hispanic hordes.</p>
<p>And as to discussing such a profoundly significant initiative with the people, I challenge anyone to find a single reference to the SPP in any of his public speeches. Less than 3 months ago in his State of the Union address he said, ominously: â€œWe enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underwayâ€?. Yeah, and the largest such endeavor, the one having the most profound potential for radically changing the fundamental nature of this country, is the SPP. But he refrains from mentioning it by name anywhere in his speech!</p>
<p>If it is such a great thing why is he trying to hide it? Iâ€™ll tell you why. Heâ€™s afraid most of us wouldnâ€™t think it was such a hot idea, and so he wants to get it going with as much momentum as possible, so that when the people finally discover what heâ€™s been up to he will have been able to sneak it in as a fait accompli.</p>
<p>In the State of the Union speech, the word â€œsecurityâ€? is mentioned ten times, twice with a capital S when talking about Social Security, and eight times when talking about Iraq. The word â€œprosperityâ€? is mentioned once in a very general and platitudinous context. And the word â€œpartnersâ€? is mentioned once in connection with North Korea. But never do these three words come together to finally lift the veil of secrecy from the darkened eyes of the citizenry and let the vast majority of them learn for the first time of the existence and nature of this truly â€œlarge endeavorâ€? that is well â€œunderwayâ€? &#8211; one whose dire consequences will reverberate into our Nation&#8217;s future long after his Iraq fiasco is relegated to the same dustbin of history as Vietnam.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doris Treat</title>
		<link>http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/comment-page-1/#comment-10637</link>
		<dc:creator>Doris Treat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:48:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/#comment-10637</guid>
		<description>About 15 yrs ago,during George Bush Sr&#039;s presidentcy, former Sen.Allen 
Cranston was quoted as saying the &quot;new World Order&quot; would mean &quot;economic,
political &amp; religous slavery &quot; for the United States.

Regardless of the label,SPP, North American Union, etc., it is still the
New World Order George,Sr. referred to numerous times until he was told
not to use the phrase, that it was scaring the people &amp;  That this would have
to be done quietly. 

Both political parties are on the bandwagon...I am now an Independent voter,
for all the good it will do,unless the people begin to speak loudly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>About 15 yrs ago,during George Bush Sr&#8217;s presidentcy, former Sen.Allen<br />
Cranston was quoted as saying the &#8220;new World Order&#8221; would mean &#8220;economic,<br />
political &amp; religous slavery &#8221; for the United States.</p>
<p>Regardless of the label,SPP, North American Union, etc., it is still the<br />
New World Order George,Sr. referred to numerous times until he was told<br />
not to use the phrase, that it was scaring the people &amp;  That this would have<br />
to be done quietly. </p>
<p>Both political parties are on the bandwagon&#8230;I am now an Independent voter,<br />
for all the good it will do,unless the people begin to speak loudly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Guard the Borders Blogburst 2/26/07 at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source.</title>
		<link>http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/comment-page-1/#comment-10508</link>
		<dc:creator>Guard the Borders Blogburst 2/26/07 at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/#comment-10508</guid>
		<description>[...] ___________________________________________________Others posting on illegal immigration: Mexican Wives Tell U.S. To Close Border, Common Sense AmericaImaginary Friend,Real Credit at Bank of America Liberally Conservative and  Mexico Condemns U.S. TrespassingSurrendering our Sovereignty , Bear Creek Ledger, also Don&#8217;t Need to Stinkin&#8217; Social Security Card [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] ___________________________________________________Others posting on illegal immigration: Mexican Wives Tell U.S. To Close Border, Common Sense AmericaImaginary Friend,Real Credit at Bank of America Liberally Conservative and  Mexico Condemns U.S. TrespassingSurrendering our Sovereignty , Bear Creek Ledger, also Don&#8217;t Need to Stinkin&#8217; Social Security Card [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stikNstein....has no mercy</title>
		<link>http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/comment-page-1/#comment-10506</link>
		<dc:creator>stikNstein....has no mercy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:09:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/#comment-10506</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Mexico angry over US &#8216;trespass&#8217; may contact Johnny Sutton&lt;/strong&gt;

Mexico&#8217;s Congress has condemned what it says is a border violation by US workers building a controversial barrier between the two countries.
&#8221; This violation of Mexican soverignty cannot be tolerated, a Mexican Congressman was quoted.
This ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Mexico angry over US &#8216;trespass&#8217; may contact Johnny Sutton</strong></p>
<p>Mexico&#8217;s Congress has condemned what it says is a border violation by US workers building a controversial barrier between the two countries.<br />
&#8221; This violation of Mexican soverignty cannot be tolerated, a Mexican Congressman was quoted.<br />
This &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DeMediacratic Nation</title>
		<link>http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/comment-page-1/#comment-10499</link>
		<dc:creator>DeMediacratic Nation</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:03:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/#comment-10499</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;The&lt;/strong&gt;

&quot;Hopefully, at the end of it all, we&#039;ll have comprehensive immigration reform that gives illegal immigrants a path to legal residency. Until that happens, the popular view is that towns, cities, and states will take it upon themselves to try to end i...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>The</strong></p>
<p>&#8220;Hopefully, at the end of it all, we&#8217;ll have comprehensive immigration reform that gives illegal immigrants a path to legal residency. Until that happens, the popular view is that towns, cities, and states will take it upon themselves to try to end i&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Right Truth</title>
		<link>http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/comment-page-1/#comment-10497</link>
		<dc:creator>Right Truth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:58:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/#comment-10497</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Guard the Borders Blogburst 2/26/07&lt;/strong&gt;

By Darnell McGavock of Independent Conservative As far as major finds in how badly the case of former US Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean was not only messed up, but intentionally tipped towards their conviction, legal experts</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Guard the Borders Blogburst 2/26/07</strong></p>
<p>By Darnell McGavock of Independent Conservative As far as major finds in how badly the case of former US Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean was not only messed up, but intentionally tipped towards their conviction, legal experts</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Sell-Out of America to Mexico at The TIW Blog</title>
		<link>http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/comment-page-1/#comment-10491</link>
		<dc:creator>The Sell-Out of America to Mexico at The TIW Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:56:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/#comment-10491</guid>
		<description>[...] http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a href="http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/" rel="nofollow">http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CommonSenseAmerica - Illegal Immigration, America, Freedom, News and Opinion &#187; Mexican Wives Tell U.S. To Close Border</title>
		<link>http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/comment-page-1/#comment-10488</link>
		<dc:creator>CommonSenseAmerica - Illegal Immigration, America, Freedom, News and Opinion &#187; Mexican Wives Tell U.S. To Close Border</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:31:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/02/26/surrendering-our-sovereignty/#comment-10488</guid>
		<description>[...] Surrendering our Sovereignty, Add BP Agent Gary Brugman to Suttons list, and Don&#8217;t need no stinkin&#8217; Social Security Number from Bear Creek Ledger [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Surrendering our Sovereignty, Add BP Agent Gary Brugman to Suttons list, and Don&#8217;t need no stinkin&#8217; Social Security Number from Bear Creek Ledger [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
