Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Protecting borders?

Posted By: va on 2005-07-09
In Reply to: Please explain to me what we are not - vs

We went to Iraq to protect our borders?  That is a new one!  Why did we go to Iraq?  WMD?  There werent any.  Getting Saddam (heaven knows why..there are terrible leaders in other countries that are much more threatening..i.e., N. Korea, Iran).   Well, we got him.  So, why are we still there?  We are there because our goal has always been to control the Middle East and it's oil.  Of course, the American people would not have sacrificed their children in war for those reasons, so Bush had to scare the American people into war.  We walked right into the terrorists web by invading Iraq.  Gave them a reason to fight us.  We are in a country where we dont belong.  We need to leave.  Set a time table, train the Iraqis to take care of their own country and leave.  Protect our borders?  How about protecting the border from USA to Mexico.  Or USA to Canada.  Those are borders that will affect us right here on our soil.  The Iraq invasion was a major mistake.  This murderous administration knows it but, of course, Bush never backs down on anything, even when he is dead wrong and forget about ever admitting he made a mistake about anything or apologize for something.  This war is wrong and history will show this and Bushs legacy will not be kind.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

    The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
    To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


    Other related messages found in our database

    You don't need military at our borders.....
    that's against our constitution. That's what our National Guard is for, to protect OUR borders. Combat military is not supposed to be involved in this country. I do not want our troops on the borders of my country; I want our national guard sent down to do what they are supposed to do, protect our country against foreign invasion.

    I am sick to death of paying for illegals and their anchor babies by the thousands and thousands....

    Good question.....why is our country allowing this and then punishing our agents to shoot one of them. Maybe more shooting would stop a lot of their illegal trespassing into our country if they knew they would be shot.
    Your animosity borders on psychosis.

    This explains why Bush won't secure our *borders.*
    src=http://www.humaneventsonline.com/images/header-print.gif

    The Plan to Replace the Dollar With the 'Amero'


    by Jerome R. Corsi
    Posted May 22, 2006


    *If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero,” we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election.*


    The idea to form the North American Union as a super-NAFTA knitting together Canada, the United States and Mexico into a super-regional political and economic entity was a key agreement resulting from the March 2005 meeting held at Baylor University in Waco, Tex., between President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin.

    A joint statement published by the three presidents following their Baylor University summit announced the formation of an initial entity called, “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The joint statement termed the SPP a “trilateral partnership” that was aimed at producing a North American security plan as well as providing free market movement of people, capital, and trade across the borders between the three NAFTA partners:



    We will establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our borders.


    A working agenda was established:



    We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals.


    The U.S. Department of Commerce has produced a SPP website, which documents how the U.S. has implemented the SPP directive into an extensive working agenda.

    Following the March 2005 meeting in Waco, Tex., the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published in May 2005 a task force report titled “Building a North American Community.” We have already documented that this CFR task force report calls for a plan to create by 2010 a redefinition of boundaries such that the primary immigration control will be around the three countries of the North American Union, not between the three countries. We have argued that a likely reason President Bush has not secured our border with Mexico is that the administration is pushing for the establishment of the North American Union.

    The North American Union is envisioned to create a super-regional political authority that could override the sovereignty of the United States on immigration policy and trade issues. In his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Pastor, the Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, stated clearly the view that the North American Union would need a super-regional governance board to make sure the United States does not dominate the proposed North American Union once it is formed:



    NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual bilateralism, driven by U.S. power, continue to govern and irritate. Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance that rules, not power, will resolve problems.

    This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new North American Advisory Council. Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European Commission, the Commission or Council should be lean, independent, and advisory, composed of 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation. Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the implementation of the resulting agreements.


    Pastor was a vice chairman of the CFR task force that produced the report “Building a North American Union.”

    Pastor also proposed the creation of a Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment with the view that “a permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” The intent is for this North American Union Tribunal would have supremacy over the U.S. Supreme Court on issues affecting the North American Union, to prevent U.S. power from “irritating” and retarding the progress of uniting Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. into a new 21st century super-regional governing body.

    Robert Pastor also advises the creation of a North American Parliamentary Group to make sure the U.S. Congress does not impede progress in the envisioned North American Union. He has also called for the creation of a North American Customs and Immigration Service which would have authority over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security.

    Pastor’s 2001 book “Toward a North American Community” called for the creation of a North American Union that would perfect the defects Pastor believes limit the progress of the European Union. Much of Pastor’s thinking appears aimed at limiting the power and sovereignty of the United States as we enter this new super-regional entity. Pastor has also called for the creation of a new currency which he has coined the “Amero,” a currency that is proposed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso.

    If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero,” we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election. Pursuing any plan that would legalize the conservatively estimated 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States could well spell election disaster for the Republican Party in 2006, especially for the House of Representative where every seat is up for grabs.







    I want secure borders to keep out terrorists and illegals...
    Having lived in a border state and, now, even further north, it is evident that illegal immigrants are taking over our country. We are in a financial crisis and yet, much of a social service money goes to those who do not even pay taxes on the money they earn. They sure as heck spend our taxes, though. I am not against immigrants, just those who do not do it legally. There are certain hoops that need to be jumped through and, I bleieve, are well worth it to live in this great country.
    Bush wanted borders secured, congress did not.

    I know Gov. Napolitano wanted to secure Arizona borders years ago.  She was Attorney General back then and US attorney.  She went to congress and fought for border control several times, but was ignored by Clinton.  Finally Bush came into office and he signed (article below) Border Fence Act. 


    As for Obama, well he picked Gov. Napolitano to be in his office. 


    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6388548


    'over there', everything is interwovn, intermingled, intertwined, no borders!..nm
    nm
    Protecting America?
    Invading Iraq was not protecting America.  Invading Iraq has caused America to be less safe and has started a world wide terrorist movement against America. 
    This bird is not protecting the
    constitution.  But then maybe he'll succeed and Hillary will be the candidate to replace Obama..........could that have anything to do with the case doyathink?  Come to think of it, might not be such a bad idea, I doubt McCain would have a snowball's chance againt her.
    At that time there was no law protecting them...
    or why would hospitals be allowing them to die? Nice dodge, but not true, and he knew it.
    Yes, and protecting American should be O's first
    nm
    Man being sued for protecting

    his private proverty from illegal immigrants.  Why is our country allowing this?  Illegal aliens do nothing but cost us money that we don't have.  Arizona now has the highest rate of kidnapping because of Mexico.  We need to protect our border!!!  Bring our troops home and put them on the border. 


    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/


    I'm all for protecting people but here

    is my issue.  When someone murders someone, it isn't because they love them.  Aren't most crimes like assault and murder basically out of hate?  I guess I don't mind protecting certain groups but to me if you kill a homosexual you shouldn't get more time in the slammer than if you killed a heterosexual.  You killed a person and to me that is that regardless of their sexual orientation....but whatever.


    Some of those things listed on there is just downright wrong.  Personally, I feel that we should have the right to beat the crap out of people who get their jollies off of exposing themselves to others.  Strangers, especially children, shouldn't have to put up with that.  Ya know.  Sick sick people.


    I heard that someone suggested pedophiles be added to the list.  I'm sorry but anyone who wants pedophiles to be protected ought to be smacked around themself.  JMO though.  We need to protect our children from them....not protect pedophiles from us.


    The DNC has been protecting Obama for 18 months....
    they have not let him do an interview with anyone who didn't either get a thrill up their leg talking to him or were so enraptured with him they softballed every question. When he went on O'Reilly was the first time he went into an interview with someone who was not going to softball him, and he did not do much better than she did...and that is with 18 months surrounded by hundreds of advisors.

    I have no doubt she will be fine talking to world leaders. We will never see the side of the person that talks to world leaders behind closed doors. I have as much faith in her as #2 talking to world leaders than I have with the #1 on the other ticket who wants to pander to them and frankly sell us down the river. He shows weakness...and her words were prophetic. When you face those guys, you don't blink. She made that case to Charlie Gibson, and she didn't blink. She kept eye contact way more than he did. And he had notes...she didn't. lol.
    Laws protecting from murder

    Yes, this country does have laws that protect citizens from being murdered.


    A "citizen" is defined someone who "is born or naturalized in the United States."


    Fetuses, embryos, etc. aren't born or naturalized.  The issue of when life begins is akin to the "chicken/egg" question and will never be answered to the satisfaction of everyone.  It relies mostly on religious views, and one's religious views shouldn't be forced on someone else who may not believe the same.


    Again, I believe in minding my own business and NOT judging someone who may have or has had an abortion because it's none of my business.


    If you don't believe in abortion, then I guess the simplest answer is:  Don't have one.


    Thank you President Bush for protecting and
    nm
    Santa protecting children from a terrorist

    what's wrong with that?


    and just where is the terrorist going to put that TNT--in the manager? 


    I guess if you were Santa you'd just try to give the terrorist a big ole hug...


    You know it's pretty darn sad that Christmas is so darn political this year.  This is a neutral statement because it's happening on both sides, liberal and conservative


     


    Darn right - we must ALWAYS err on the side of protecting the INNOCENT.
    xx
    Nope. -was protecting the country instead of talking
    nm
    Bush is a president who cares about protecting America
    not building a legacy, like Clinton.  It is a crying shame that those in the left circle of the Democratic party have become so embittered they actually put us all at risk.