Thread: THE NAU: IT'S THE ELEVENTH HOUR - GET BUSY

I've been scanning these posts and think it is time I stepped in to point out a few things.

One, Judy is no troll and certainly does not deserve the accusation. She has been one of ALIPAC most loyal, active, and intense supporters. She has been a member here since April 17,2006. She is the third most active user of our boards of all time, with over 8,000 posts, and deserves proper respect.

1 Brian503a May 03, 2005 16181
2 ALIPAC Nov 10, 2004 13534
3 Judy Apr 17, 2005 8369
4 jp_48504 Apr 26, 2005 8317
5 2ndamendsis Apr 12, 2005 7181
6 LegalUSCitizen Apr 27, 2005 6908
7 JuniusJnr Apr 14, 2005 5491
8 Dixie Apr 10, 2006 4996
9 Charlesoakisland Dec 31, 2004 4799

Two, Crocketsghost... many of your comments towards Judy are too agressive and very close to violating Rule #2. ALIPAC Board users should not insult or attack other users. We have some very strong willed people on our boards that need to get along and exercise a lot of respect for each other even when we disagree. Please keep it clean and keep your gloves on with each other.

Three, after the break ALIPAC will be making a BIG announcements dealing with the Bush administration. It will not be the full fledged call for impeachment many of you want, but I think you will like it.

Many of us are sick of the criminal behaviour of this administration and the gloves are coming off. This has been in the works for quite a while. We will lose some supporters that still hold out hope that Bush will turn on this issue, but for most of us that are looking at this closely we know that will not happen.

So you folks keep your barrels pointed in the right direction and not at each other please.

We do not need some of our most fervent fighters clashing armor during the breaks between fights.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

W


PS: Your joke about Judy and Crocket getting married almost made me fall out of my chair! That was a good one and I appreciate you trying to get these two to lighten up a bit.

PSS: Don't worry about the character codes in Judy's post. It happens to all of us. It is a code compatibility problem that happens between sites sometimes.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

JUDY
what the heck is all this stuff scattered throughout your post?

I’ll

Please, leave it out so that the reader isn't distracted.
Personally, I couldn't continue reading as that stuff cluttered up and distracted me from your words so I'm almost positive it would have the same effect on other readers.

CROCKET
Now you've got me confused. CAFTA? Did you mean to infer it's a "minor" agreement as an extension of GATT?

.

No, CAFTA is an extension of NAFTA, which is another pre-existing agreement.

Again, I think my point is being misunderstood. I am not saying that Bush hasn't turned out to be a rabid globalist. He is selling out our country with as much gusto as any of his predecessors have. What I am trying to get through Judy's one-track mind is that none of this crap started with Bush. The serious damage was done with NAFTA and GATT. Once we were committed to GATT in particular, all these other trade agreements were just ancillary window dressing. It seems to be her contention that the country was fine and dandy until Bush came along and sold us out. We had been sold out before he even considered running for the office, so her idea that getting him out with her fantasy-scenario impeachment (presumably to make, horror of horrors, Nacy Pelosi president, given that her impeachment rant begins and ends with Bush and Cheney) will change anything is just a ludicrous diversion. Does the woman believe that President Pelosi, President Gore, President Kerry, or President Hitlery Clinton would be less globalist or less inclined to sell us out by one iota? Does she not understand that in addition to selling us out, they would also have us disarmed and taxed into poverty? See, I don't think she cares because I think that she's a phony. I think that she's another political operative here masquerading as a concerned citizen for an ulterior motive, and the longer this exchange goes on the more I am convinced of it.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

I've been scanning these posts and think it is time I stepped in to point out a few things.

One, Judy is no troll and certainly does not deserve the accusation. She has been one of ALIPAC most loyal, active, and intense supporters. She has been a member here since April 17,2006. She is the third most active user of our boards of all time, with over 8,000 posts, and deserves proper respect.

1 Brian503a May 03, 2005 16181
2 ALIPAC Nov 10, 2004 13534
3 Judy Apr 17, 2005 8369
4 jp_48504 Apr 26, 2005 8317
5 2ndamendsis Apr 12, 2005 7181
6 LegalUSCitizen Apr 27, 2005 6908
7 JuniusJnr Apr 14, 2005 5491
8 Dixie Apr 10, 2006 4996
9 Charlesoakisland Dec 31, 2004 4799

Two, Crocketsghost... many of your comments towards Judy are too agressive and very close to violating Rule #2. ALIPAC Board users should not insult or attack other users. We have some very strong willed people on our boards that need to get along and exercise a lot of respect for each other even when we disagree. Please keep it clean and keep your gloves on with each other.

Three, after the break ALIPAC will be making a BIG announcements dealing with the Bush administration. It will not be the full fledged call for impeachment many of you want, but I think you will like it.

Many of us are sick of the criminal behaviour of this administration and the gloves are coming off. This has been in the works for quite a while. We will lose some supporters that still hold out hope that Bush will turn on this issue, but for most of us that are looking at this closely we know that will not happen.

So you folks keep your barrels pointed in the right direction and not at each other please.

We do not need some of our most fervent fighters clashing armor during the breaks between fights.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

W


PS: Your joke about Judy and Crocket getting married almost made me fall out of my chair! That was a good one and I appreciate you trying to get these two to lighten up a bit.

PSS: Don't worry about the character codes in Judy's post. It happens to all of us. It is a code compatibility problem that happens between sites sometimes.

I certainly believe that someone needs to put a collar on this administration. My entire point is that endless harping on impeachment is a fools game and waste of breath and of page space, because IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. The Republicans are never going to go along with it, and they are still almost 50% of a Senate that requires 67% to convict. Furthermore, the Democrats have already announced that they have no intention of pursuing impeachment. Again, that's because most of them are supporters of the same programs that Judy calls impeachable offenses.

As for "criminal behavior" of the administration, what's new about this administration? I've been complaining about criminal behavior in one after another administration since my childhood. IT'S NOTHING NEW, and complaining will get you exactly where it has gotten every other complainer about every other administration in this nation's history.

It looks to me as though about the only thing you guys are primed to accomplish is putting Hillary Rodham Clinton or Nancy Pelosi in the White House. Look at what all the railing against the administration did to "help" the fight against illegal immigration in this last election, in which the executive was not even part of the election. It tossed the friendly Republican majority that held amnesty at bay and replaced it with an amnesty friendly Dem majority. If that wasn't a case of cutting off one's nose to spite his face, I don't know what was. Unless you have a solid and viable idea for getting us a friendly Congress again or getting a real anti-illegal in the White House, you're probably going to cause more problems than you're going to solve, but that's just one fighter's opinion.

BTW - My point about the garbled characters is that they iindicate a cut 'n paste. It is generally accepted board etiquette to post a source of you are cutting and pasting commentary in its entirety. It's an important rule because it gives readers a good idea as to what sort of sites the person in question is being influenced by.

Sorry about this JUDY........I had no idea it was a glich and thought you were hitting the keys.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDY
what the heck is all this stuff scattered throughout your post?
Quote:
I’ll

OK GUYS........let's back up a few steps and take a breath, ok?
We're on the same team.

If you guys want to hurry, LEGAL will perform the ceremony

It's THANKSGIVING and I, for one, am thankful for BOTH of YOU.

.

2amendsis ... the odd character has somehow imbedded. It's in the archives version so as William just stated this apparently appears when they change websites. I don't know if they can be deleted or not. I don't have the time right now because I'm on my way out of town. I'll check into it when I return.

William ... thank you. I'm going away for Thanksgiving ... already running late due to this ... but I think it's important that those who don't know what they're talking about get up to speed. I look forward to your plan and will see it as soon as I return. Not full impeachment, huh? Well ... it might develop a life of its own ...

CrocketsGhost ... if you want to continue to make a pattooie out of yourself on this forum with people who already have forgotten more about this subject than you ever knew which was disclosed beyond any doubt by your absurd statement concerning Free Trade Agreements ...... be my guest. ALIPAC fought like hell to defeat CAFTA ... and missed it by 2 votes due to the treasonous tactics of the President and Vice President.

The only thing worse in an organization than someone who doesn't know something is the person who thinks they do and doesn't. You mislead new members; you distort the truth about our situation; you attempt to intimidate others posters; you discourage and dissuade them. I wasn't on the boards all summer because I was out of town. That is about the time you came on so when I got back and saw your posts ... I thought ... "whew, oooh boy". But I stayed out of it and relied upon the Moderators to handle it.

Now, from this point forward, be on notice ... that any time you post dishonest and inaccurate information about any subject relating to immigration, impeachment, free trade, SPP, NAU, international law, World Trade Organization, sovereignty or any subject relating thereto ... I'm going to be all over you like a hungry fly on a pile of fresh West Texas cow dung.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!

Crockett,

You can make your points without accusing people of having a "one-track mind" and playing a "Fools Game" thus insinuating they are fools.

I really need you to drop these overly combative terms on our boards. You need to respect our rules about insults and Judy does too.

Last warning on that topic.

As for Bush, yes of course these problems with Globalism and illegal immigration started before Bush.

It is also clear that illegal immigration skyrocketed after Bush took office. This issue was a non issue in all but the border states. That has changed because the other states have been flooded, predominantly in the last six years, under Bush.

Clinton was an enforcement god compared to Bush even though Clinton was a low level enforcer.

While the passage of NAFTA was a clear marker on the road to these problems, I believe our problems today span back to the time Bush Sr. was director of the CIA and Vice President of the US.

When factions within our own government started working with drug cartels to import cocaine to pay for the Contra war efforts after Congress cut off funds with the bolin amendment in the 80's is when the deal between the black markets and the industrialists were cut.

If you look at violent crime in our country, it really took off when drugs became a big part of our culture. Those levels reached a fever pitch in the US In the 1980's when the crack wave hit the inner city areas.

Violent crime levels started to drop in America almost immediately after Bush Sr. left office. The trend continued downward under Clinton. Now that Bush Jr is in place it is like the pipelines of cocaine are back with a vengeance and this time they are hauling in the illegals with impunity.

I am privy to some information that is not readily available from the 1993, 1994 efforts of the NSA with a cover up project called Green Ice.

It might shock you to discover that NSA resources were deployed covering up a program where Federal US Authorities worked with hundreds of Hispanic business owners in the SW US to launder hundreds of millions of dollars of drug money in an effort to identify the big Colombian drug lords.

The problem here is since when is our law enforcement allowed to engage in illegal activities in order to prosecute illegal activities? Does anyone's real world experiences expect businesses and government agents and officials to become involved with millions of dollars of drug money and then suddenly just shut down the project and walk away when completed?

I doubt that.

I see the problem that we are having with criminal immigration and inaction from the Executive Branch as being clearly related. Sources from the Texas GOP tell us half the damn political party in that state is eat up with the smuggler money.

Yes there are people that need to be removed from office over this and yes there are people that need to go to prison over this. Yes they have ties deep into the military industrial complex. Yes, they have traded drugs, money, and illicit arms before, and Yes they are willing to kill and assassinate people to protect themselves.

So don't be so eager to fly all these complaints about needing to take "Serious action" around at our activists Crocket.

You are one voice using just one facet of our organization and if you want your ideas to be heard, you will gain more traction by being less confrontational and critical with people that share your goals.

Now, Im done with this and hope there will be peace for the break.

W

CrocksGhost Wrote:

No, CAFTA is an extension of NAFTA, which is another pre-existing agreement.

CAFTA is the Central American Free Trade Agreement, a 3000 page nightmare separate nightmare passed by Congress in 2005 (apparently before you got involved in the effort to stop free trade agreements since you didn't know Bush was pushing any). It is not an "extension" of NAFTA. It is much more heinous than NAFTA.

Why don't you just stop and get up to speed so you don't embarass yourself or ALIPAC further by misleading the thousands of people coming to this site for information?

Dubai Ports ... major deal in the United States ... terrorist sponsoring nation desiring to control several of our major ports. This deal arose from a Free Trade Agreement authorizing such investment and foreign handling of publicly-issued contracts. That's why Bush said if Congress tried to stop it, he would VETO it. His loyalty was to his new Free Trade friends above the security of the United States. Dubai Ports had the good political sense to back off and slither away when Dennis Hastert and the US House of Representatives ... and then the US Senate came along and said ... NO WAY JOSE!!

Now, I've not further time. I'm already over an hour late. But my advice to ALIPAC is to help this poster, CrocketsGhost to get up to speed on this issue or ... perhaps unearth why he isn't already.



Again, Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!

CAFTA is the Central American Free Trade Agreement, a 3000 page nightmare separate nightmare passed by Congress in 2005 (apparently before you got involved in the effort to stop free trade agreements since you didn't know Bush was pushing any). It is not an "extension" of NAFTA. It is much more heinous than NAFTA.

NAFTA & CAFTA are linked in that they were/are part of the overall plan to -piece by piece- create the SPP / NAU.

And yes, it is a nightmare. Which is why I wouldn't put my support behind ANYONE who voted for it.

Dubai Ports ... major deal in the United States ... terrorist sponsoring nation desiring to control several of our major ports. This deal arose from a Free Trade Agreement authorizing such investment and foreign handling of publicly-issued contracts. That's why Bush said if Congress tried to stop it, he would VETO it. His loyalty was to his new Free Trade friends above the security of the United States. Dubai Ports had the good political sense to back off and slither away when Dennis Hastert and the US House of Representatives ... and then the US Senate came along and said ... NO WAY JOSE!!

Dennis Hastert ONLY stood up to this because he was boxed into a corner by a great number of congress due to the outrage of their constituents.
HE WAS GOING TO PUSH IT THROUGH. Hastert is a weak, spineless man who also has some credibility problems. He's no golden boy. Should he ever get into the oval office, he'd go by way of the biggest threat or the greatest bribe. We'd be in the same damned boat especially since he can't think himself out of a paper bag. The powers that be would run over him like a sherman tank and we might just be in a worse pot of dung.

He carried bush's water whenever he was told to. EXCEPT the very rare few times when Congress backed him into the proverbial corner. I wouldn't trust him for a second.

BTW, Dubai Ports STILL controls the ports in the deal. So......what the hell has Hastert done? He never came out and told the Americans that although the "deal" wasn't struck, another deal was and Dubais is still in the picture. No change of hands has been made!

/

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Crockett,

You can make your points without accusing people of having a "one-track mind" and playing a "Fools Game" thus insinuating they are fools.

William, a "fool's game" is an unwinnable scenario. Giving me grief for using that term is like thta college professaor who was fired for "racism" because he used the term "niggardly."

As for the "one-track mind" comment, that was totally justified once she chose to persist with the claim that the ONLY option is to impeach Bush even after being unable in any wise to answer the challenge of expalining HOW that was supposed to happen.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

In that respect, I stand by my comments.

I really need you to drop these overly combative terms on our boards. You need to respect our rules about insults and Judy does too.

Last warning on that topic.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

As for Bush, yes of course these problems with Globalism and illegal immigration started before Bush.

It is also clear that illegal immigration skyrocketed after Bush took office. This issue was a non issue in all but the border states. That has changed because the other states have been flooded, predominantly in the last six years, under Bush.

Clinton was an enforcement god compared to Bush even though Clinton was a low level enforcer.

That statement is absurd. The immigration explosion began and was widely reported just before the 1996 elections, when the Clinton administration SPECIFICALLY changed the operating procedures for immigration officials and began implementing programs that drastically raised the threshhold for deportation. I can't imagine that you are not aware of that fact, or that the immigration crisis has merely continued to follow a predictable progression when the Bush administration refused to rescind the rules changes made by Clinton.

Again, this is not a partisan issue. BOTH parties have played their roles in creating this mess. The only thing that can be said for either of them is that the GOP-controlled House drew the line at the point of guest workers and amnesty.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

While the passage of NAFTA was a clear marker on the road to these problems, I believe our problems today span back to the time Bush Sr. was director of the CIA and Vice President of the US.

When factions within our own government started working with drug cartels to import cocaine to pay for the Contra war efforts after Congress cut off funds with the bolin amendment in the 80's is when the deal between the black markets and the industrialists were cut.

If you look at violent crime in our country, it really took off when drugs became a big part of our culture. Those levels reached a fever pitch in the US In the 1980's when the crack wave hit the inner city areas.

Violent crime levels started to drop in America almost immediately after Bush Sr. left office. The trend continued downward under Clinton. Now that Bush Jr is in place it is like the pipelines of cocaine are back with a vengeance and this time they are hauling in the illegals with impunity.

The drug issue goes back MUCH farther than that, but you seem to be cherry-picking your history. As a matter of fact, the serious importation of narcotics first exploded under LBJ when Air America and other CIA elements were doing business with SE Asian and then Central and South American producers. Furthermore, none other than William Jefferson Clinton was HIMSELF involved in moving the narcotics that came up through Mena, Arkansas as part of the exchange for weapons to the Contras as attested to by the only surviving pilot who flew those operations. His own brother was convicted of moving some of the cocaine, and his advisor Dan Lasater pled down to lesser charges when he was implicated in a massive money laundering scheme that was exposed when a SINGLE of the many bearer bonds being laundered using SSNs pilfered from low-level contractors to the Governor's office was inadvertently traced back to the real owner of the SSN it was purchased under. That single bearer bond was worth $98 million. The invetigation, which was cut short under Bush (Sr.) administration pressure after a number of plea deals such as Lasater's were cut, also implicated Dan Rostenkowsky's bank in the laundering chain and was the real reason behind his resignation.

What I'm saying is that ALL of these clowns are dirty with narcotics because it was long the international medium of exchange favored by the CIA.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

I am privy to some information that is not readily available from the 1993, 1994 efforts of the NSA with a cover up project called Green Ice.

It might shock you to discover that NSA resources were deployed covering up a program where Federal US Authorities worked with hundreds of Hispanic business owners in the SW US to launder hundreds of millions of dollars of drug money in an effort to identify the big Colombian drug lords.

The problem here is since when is our law enforcement allowed to engage in illegal activities in order to prosecute illegal activities? Does anyone's real world experiences expect businesses and government agents and officials to become involved with millions of dollars of drug money and then suddenly just shut down the project and walk away when completed?

I doubt that.

Yeah, I'm familiar with that one. It's not that I don't know as much about how dirty the system is, William, it's that I know A LOT MORE and have been working with this material for about 20 years. I also know what trying the change the system from the outside is worth, and that's precious little. There are plenty of people who have died early deaths trying, including some members of my own family, and no, I don't want to elaborate on that.

What I am saying is that knowing what's going on is not enough, and that publicizing what's going on is not enough. There is a tight-knit group of people who run this country and who are in a position to blunt any direct attack. Do you think that it's idle chatter when Dubya refers to Clinton as his "fourth brother"? Eyewitnesses place Ollie North, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton all at meeting in Mena and relating to the drugs for guns for money portion of the Iran-Contra affair. Terry Reed was one of the guys flying the missions. Eugene Hasenfus (who you may remember being shot down and captured) was another. Not only that, but I had a major narcotics dealer who I was in a position to know back in the '80s tell me point blank during a conversation about the possible future of Bill Clinton, who the Dems were just starting to push in '88, that Clinton was unelectable because he was neck deep in CIA narcotics. When I asked how he knew, he told me flat out that Clinton was HIS OWN cocaine supplier.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

I see the problem that we are having with criminal immigration and inaction from the Executive Branch as being clearly related. Sources from the Texas GOP tell us half the damn political party in that state is eat up with the smuggler money.

Yes there are people that need to be removed from office over this and yes there are people that need to go to prison over this. Yes they have ties deep into the military industrial complex. Yes, they have traded drugs, money, and illicit arms before, and Yes they are willing to kill and assassinate people to protect themselves.

So don't be so eager to fly all these complaints about needing to take "Serious action" around at our activists Crocket.

William, serious action refers to action that has a reasonable chance of success. If you are looking to the justice system or to the impeachment power of Congress for redress of these grievances, then you really have no idea how this system works or who is protecting whom.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

You are one voice using just one facet of our organization and if you want your ideas to be heard, you will gain more traction by being less confrontational and critical with people that share your goals.

Now, Im done with this and hope there will be peace for the break.

W

William, if you will review the germinus of this "confrontation," you will see that I responded to a confrontational post and that it proceeded from there. I have repeatedly tried to steer this discussion back to reason by asking specific pointed and entirely reasonable questions, none of which have been answered with anything other than additional attacks on my position or my person. If you and Judy are comrades in arms in trying to pin this all on the Bushes, best of luck to you, but I would suggest in that case that you review what I have written and that you answer, for your own benefit, the questions I posed that Judy refuses to address.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

CAFTA is the Central American Free Trade Agreement, a 3000 page nightmare separate nightmare passed by Congress in 2005 (apparently before you got involved in the effort to stop free trade agreements since you didn't know Bush was pushing any). It is not an "extension" of NAFTA. It is much more heinous than NAFTA.

NAFTA & CAFTA are linked in that they were/are part of the overall plan to -piece by piece- create the SPP / NAU.

And yes, it is a nightmare. Which is why I wouldn't put my support behind ANYONE who voted for it.

[quote:1rv7ny9h]Dubai Ports ... major deal in the United States ... terrorist sponsoring nation desiring to control several of our major ports. This deal arose from a Free Trade Agreement authorizing such investment and foreign handling of publicly-issued contracts. That's why Bush said if Congress tried to stop it, he would VETO it. His loyalty was to his new Free Trade friends above the security of the United States. Dubai Ports had the good political sense to back off and slither away when Dennis Hastert and the US House of Representatives ... and then the US Senate came along and said ... NO WAY JOSE!!

Dennis Hastert ONLY stood up to this because he was boxed into a corner by a great number of congress due to the outrage of their constituents.
HE WAS GOING TO PUSH IT THROUGH. Hastert is a weak, spineless man who also has some credibility problems. He's no golden boy. Should he ever get into the oval office, he'd go by way of the biggest threat or the greatest bribe. We'd be in the same damned boat especially since he can't think himself out of a paper bag. The powers that be would run over him like a sherman tank and we might just be in a worse pot of dung.

He carried bush's water whenever he was told to. EXCEPT the very rare few times when Congress backed him into the proverbial corner. I wouldn't trust him for a second.

BTW, Dubai Ports STILL controls the ports in the deal. So......what the hell has Hastert done? He never came out and told the Americans that although the "deal" wasn't struck, another deal was and Dubais is still in the picture. No change of hands has been made!

/[/quote:1rv7ny9h]

First off, you are correct in your characterization of CAFTA. When I refer to it as an extension of NAFTA, I mean that in a geographical sense. It is essentially a carbon copy of NAFTA extended southward. The reason that I cite NAFTA and GATT as the real problems is that after those agreements set the precedent, the rest of this is just following the policy to its logical conclusion. It's not that a serial killer's third, fourth or fifth murders are not important, it's merely that after the first he is already a murderer. This government had already made a mockery of our sovereignty and abdicated its responsibility for regulating trade and tariffs imposed upon it by the Constitution that created it when it passed NAFTA and GATT.

As for the Dubai Ports deal, yeah, that's an abomination. But Judy seems to forget (conveniently) that under Clinton we already had some of our West Coast ports being operated by Communist China and that the ports being taken over by Dubai were already being operated by another foreign country (Britain). So it's nothing new, it just gets more press because of the media slant. I was involved in protests over Chinese operation of the Panama Canal and some of our ports ten years ago. I wonder what Judy was doing then? Amybe she wasn't also aware that at least nine of our ports are controlled by the Saudis. THIS CRAP IS NOT NEW TO THIS ADMINISTRATION. Some people need to wrap their heads around that fact and stop looking for bogeymen. A more prudent approach is to consider EVERYONE in office to be a villain until he or she proves otherwise.