|
|
|
|
|
Jay152
|
Joined: 10/11/2006
Msg: 1 | |
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 10/20/2006 2:39:52 AM | For those of you who have read my thread about the United states southern border problem; you may have seen more than one person talk about North American Union. Basicly both borders will be eliminated making all of north America one big country; like the EU.
What would all three nations have to gain by forming this North American Union? Would our governments retain their sovereignty?
Bush said "we're not in the nation building business".....What do you call making this NAU? If true; why would he do this in a time of war? Is the "war on terror", just a distraction? I know his father always talked about building a "new world order". I also know Bush belongs to an international secret society.
I want to pass this off as some crazy conspiracy theory, but should I? Should you? If Canada willingly joins in this NAU, and all countries surrender their sovereignty it. Would this war on terror be over, or would Canada be at war too?
I have to say; I'm very much against the idea of creating a new country in north America. I like the United States as the founding fathers intended it to be. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2 | |
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 10/20/2006 2:45:27 AM | Free trade onley benefits corporations, not populations.
Scrap NAFTA while we're at it..... it's a scam.
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/staticpages/index.php/ribbon | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 3 | |
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 10/20/2006 10:58:33 PM | Why? Canada has the oil and water resources...Mexico has the cheap
labour. What's not to love?
I don't like it either.
What's also interesting is how this administration is talking about tightening
border security along Mexico to protect American jobs yet at the
same time he's working towards having this union in place by
the year 2010.
If my nightmare happens, I hope we have a prime ministerial type of
politics in place...and it'll be more socialist for the Americans considering that
both Mexico and Canada are more left leaning than the Americans.
Don't feel too badly...you got the better end of the deal, COMRADES. LOL | |
|
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 10/21/2006 11:19:36 PM | Here is a news item I found that may cause more interest in this thread, since there have been some on the forums who doubt this is ever going to happen, or that its not as bad as we think. Documents were released by a freedom of information act request that may lend some extra credibility to all this. Here's the link
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52164
I don't really like the WND site because of some of the anti-liberal ads they run there, but they do have some interesting articles now and then. | |
|
dmotz
|
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 5 | |
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 10/22/2006 9:12:57 AM | This was brought to my attention over a year ago. A frind of mine totally believes this is going to happen. At first I told him he was a conspiracy freak...he was reading things into this topic that were not there. He was blowing it out of proportion. Now...I see little things that are beginning to add up to" Maybe this is happening"
One simple thing is this...how many of you are truck drivers? Ever notice the sticker on your windshield or door? The one with the three flags on it? And what flags are they?
You got it....USA, MEXICO AND CANADA!....Irony?
I think we need to look hard at this...If this happens...it will be to late to stop it. I am not fond of the three nations merging..I wager the Canadian folks would feel the same way. The only nation who would like this is Mexico...for obvious reasons. | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 6 | |
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 10/22/2006 9:36:45 AM | Don't the people have a say in this? What happend to gov't representative
of the people? Are we too stupid to decide? I thought we were all
about democracy....or were they shitting us? | |
|
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 10/22/2006 10:59:36 AM | I truly can't see this happening. To create a new union, countries will have to go through a voting system and I doubt that Canadian and American citizens would agree to this union no matter what bullshi t they will come up with to sell this possible project.
As far as NAFTA goes, I am against it. They should scrap it immediately as it is very clear that Canada never benefited from it except for large corporations. The same goes for the US and Mexico.
Let’s not kid ourselves here. NEVER expect a fair deal when an agreement is on the table with a super power. The USA brought this deal originally because they knew the advantages to do so. Furthermore, when a trade partner feels that they can re-write parts of the agreement as it suits them, it shouldn’t be difficult to understand why this should be scrap immediately. A free trade agreement is only good if it is equal and respected from all involved under it’s own rules which is not the case with NAFTA. | |
|
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 10/22/2006 12:23:55 PM | Anything involving Bush and Rumsfeld and keeping meetings secret makes me nervous. The thing is I have never heard of any of this in the news. I did notice another site in Canada seems to be taking this seriously but like I said I never heard about this before.
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
North America confab 'undermines' democracy
Attendee of high-level meeting says officials wanted to hide it from public
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 21, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A closed-door meeting of high-level government and business leaders that discussed the merger of North America was designed to subvert the democratic process, charged an attendee of the confab in Banff, Canada.
Mel Hurtig, a noted Canadian author and publisher who was the elected leader of the National Party of Canada, provided WND the agenda and attendee list of the North American Forum at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel in Banff, Alberta, Sept. 12-14.
Hurtig said the "secret meeting was designed to undermine the democratic process."
"What is sinister about this meeting is that it involved high level government officials and some of the top and most powerful business leaders of the three countries and the North American Forum in organizing the meeting intentionally did not inform the press in any of the three countries," he said. "It was clear that the intention was to keep this important meeting about integrating the three countries out of the public eye."
NORTH AMERICAN FORUM
CONFIRMED PARTICIPANTS
(Internal Document, Not for Public Release)
Report dated August 31, 2006
Forum Co-Chairs:
Dr. Pedro Aspe
Hon. Peter Lougheed
Hon. George Shultz
Canadian Participants
Col. Peter Atkinson, Special Advisor to Chief of Defence Staff
Hon. Perrin Beatty, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
Mr. Peter M. Boehm, Assistant Deputy Minister, North America, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Mr. Thomas d'Aquino, Canadian Council of Chief Executives
Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, Government of Canada
Dr. Wendy Dobson, The Institute for International Business
Mr. N. Murray Edwards, Edco Financial Holdings Ltd.
Mr. Ward Elcock, Deputy Minister of National Defence
Mr. Bill Elliott, Associate Deputy Minister, Public Safety
Dr. John English, The Cdn Centre for International Governance Innovation
Mr. Brian Felesky, Felesky Flynn LLP
Mr. Richard L. George, Suncor Energy Inc.
Dr. Roger Gibbins, Canada West Foundation
Rear Adm Roger Girouard, Commander Joint Task Force Pacific, Cdn Forces
Major Gen Daniel Gosselin, Director General, International Security Policy
Mr. James K. Gray, Canada West Foundation
Mr. Fred Green, Canadian Pacific Railway
Mr. V. Peter Harder, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Paul J. Hill, Harvard Developments Inc.
General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff
Mr. Pierre Marc Johnston, Heenan Blaikie
Mr. James Kinnear, Pengrowth Corporation
Mr. Harold N. Kvisle, TransCanada Corporation
Hon. John P. Manley, McCarthy Tetrault LLP
Mr. Ron Mannix, Coril Holdings Ltd.
Mr. Ron Mathison, Matco Investments
Hon. Anne McLellan, Senior Counsel, Bennett Jones
Hon. Greg Melchin, Minister of Energy, Government of Alberta
Ms.Sharon Murphy, Chevron Canada
Ms. Sheila O'Brien, President, Corporate Director, Belvedere Investments
Hon. Gordon O'Connor, Minister of Defense, Government of Canada
Mr. Berel Rodal, International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
Mr. Gordon Smith, Chairman, The International Development Research Centre
American Participants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Attendance list North American forum
Donald Rumsfeld, George Schultz among U.S. officials on roster
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 21, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
NORTH AMERICAN FORUM
CONFIRMED PARTICIPANTS
(Internal Document, Not for Public Release)
Report dated August 31, 2006
Forum Co-Chairs:
Dr. Pedro Aspe
Hon. Peter Lougheed
Hon. George Shultz
Canadian Participants
Col. Peter Atkinson, Special Advisor to Chief of Defence Staff
Hon. Perrin Beatty, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
Mr. Peter M. Boehm, Assistant Deputy Minister, North America, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Mr. Thomas d'Aquino, Canadian Council of Chief Executives
Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, Government of Canada
Dr. Wendy Dobson, The Institute for International Business
Mr. N. Murray Edwards, Edco Financial Holdings Ltd.
Mr. Ward Elcock, Deputy Minister of National Defence
Mr. Bill Elliott, Associate Deputy Minister, Public Safety
Dr. John English, The Cdn Centre for International Governance Innovation
Mr. Brian Felesky, Felesky Flynn LLP
Mr. Richard L. George, Suncor Energy Inc.
Dr. Roger Gibbins, Canada West Foundation
Rear Adm Roger Girouard, Commander Joint Task Force Pacific, Cdn Forces
Major Gen Daniel Gosselin, Director General, International Security Policy
Mr. James K. Gray, Canada West Foundation
Mr. Fred Green, Canadian Pacific Railway
Mr. V. Peter Harder, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Paul J. Hill, Harvard Developments Inc.
General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff
Mr. Pierre Marc Johnston, Heenan Blaikie
Mr. James Kinnear, Pengrowth Corporation
Mr. Harold N. Kvisle, TransCanada Corporation
Hon. John P. Manley, McCarthy Tetrault LLP
Mr. Ron Mannix, Coril Holdings Ltd.
Mr. Ron Mathison, Matco Investments
Hon. Anne McLellan, Senior Counsel, Bennett Jones
Hon. Greg Melchin, Minister of Energy, Government of Alberta
Ms.Sharon Murphy, Chevron Canada
Ms. Sheila O'Brien, President, Corporate Director, Belvedere Investments
Hon. Gordon O'Connor, Minister of Defense, Government of Canada
Mr. Berel Rodal, International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
Mr. Gordon Smith, Chairman, The International Development Research Centre
American Participants
Ms. Deborah Bolton, Political Advisor to Commander, US Northcom
Mr. Ron T. Covais, President, The Americas, Lockheed Martin Corporation
Sec. Kenneth W. Dam, Max Pam Professor Emeritus of American & Foreign Law and Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School
Mr. Dan Fisk, Senior Director, Western Hemisphere, National Security Council
Sec. Ryan Henry, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Ms. Carla A. Hills, Chairman & CEO, Hills & Co.
Ms. Caryn Hollis, DASD (Acting) Western Hemisphere Affairs
Mr. Bill Irwin , Manager - International Government Affairs; Policy, Government and Public Affairs, Chevron Corporation
Mr. Robert G. James, President, Enterprise Asset Management Inc.
Admiral Tim Keating, Commander, US Northern Command
Mr. Floyd Kvamme, Chair, President's Council of Advisors on Science & Technology; Director, Centre for Global Security Res.
Dr. Ronald F. Lehman II , Director, Center for Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Mr. William W. McIlhenny, Policy Planning Council for Western Hemisphere Affairs
Dr. Peter McPherson , President, National Association of State Universities & Land-Grant Colleges
Ms. Doris Meissner, Senior Fellow, Migration Policy Institute
Dr. George Miller, Director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Mr. George Nethercutt, Chairman, US Section of the Permanent Joint Board on Defense, US – Canada (Security)
Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Journalist for Wall Street Journal (Area Specialist)
Dr. Robert A. Pastor, Director, Center for North American Studies, American University, Washington, DC
Dr. William Perry, Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project
Lt. Gen. Gene Renuart, USAF Senior Military Assist. to Sec. Rumsfeld
Mr. Eric Ruff, , Department of Defense Press Secretary
Sec. Donald R. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, US Department of Defense
Dr. James Schlesinger, Former Sec. Of Energy & Defense
Mr. William Schneider, President, International Planning Services
Sec. Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary of Energy, US Dept. of Energy
Dr. Thomas A. Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
Dr. David G. Victor, Director, Program on Energy & Sustainable Development, Center for Environmental Science & Policy
Maj. Gen. Mark A Volcheff, Director, Plans, Policy & Strategy, NORAD-NORTHCOM
Ms. Jane Wales, President & CEO, World Affairs Council of Northern California
Mr. R. James Woolsey, Vice President, Booz Allen Hamilton
Mexican Participants:
Emb Andrés Rozental, (Mexican Coordinator) – Mexican Council on Foreign Relations
Silvia Hernández , Former Senator and Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on North America
Mario Molina , , 1995 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Fernando Chico Pardo , CEO, Promecap
Juan Gallardo , , CEO, Grupo GEUSA
Gerónimo Gutiérrez , Deputy Foreign Minister for North America
Luis de la Calle , Consultant. Former Deputy Minister of Economy
Agustín Barrios Gómez , Solutions Abroad
Vinicio Suro, , PEMEX
Eduardo Medina Mora , Secretary of Public Security
Carlos Heredia , State Government of Michoacán
Jaime Zabludowsky , Consultant. Former trade negotiator
Manuel Arango , CEO, Grupo Concord
Jorge Santibañez , President, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte
Luis Rubio, CIDAC
Mónica Serrano , El Colegio de México, Señor Fellow Oxford University
Arturo Sarukhan, Coordinator of Int'l Affairs, Campaign of Felipe Calderon
Juan Camilo Mouriño, General Coordinator of President Elect's transition team
Ernesto Cordero, Coordinator for Public Policy Issues Ambassadors/Consul General
Mr. Carlos de Icaza, , Ambassador of Mexico to the United States
Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu, Ambassador of Canada to Mexico
Ms. Maria Teresa Garcia Segovia de Madero, Ambassador of Mexico to Canada
Mr. Thomas Huffaker, U.S. Consul General in Calgary (on DOD's list)
Mr. John****on, Deputy Chief of Mission, US Embassy in Ottawa, (representing Ambassador of US to Canada)
Mr. Colin Robertson, Minister & Head, Washington Advocacy Secretariat, (representing Ambassador of Canada to US) | |
|
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 10/22/2006 1:05:03 PM |
At Lockheed Martin, the experience, knowledge, diverse technologies and customer relationships already exist. In systems integration, information technology, air traffic management, chemical and biological detection, fingerprint identification and almost every Homeland Security challenge, Lockheed Martin has the demonstrated capability to provide critical solutions in:
Border Control
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Emergency Response and Incident Management
Information Management
State and Local Coordination
They weren't kidding. I'm wondering what their solution is for border control. | |
|
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 10/23/2006 10:19:30 PM | NAFTA actually had very little to do with free trade. That's why it was oppossed by groups that are pro-free trade.
Free trade doesn't even neccessarily benefit corporations. It's based on the idea that industries on one country will be able to produce a good more cheaply than industries in another country. The other countries will have their own industries with a comparative advantage. In order for free trade to work those industries with a comparative disadvantage will either go out of business, move to another country, or switch to an industry with a comparative advantage. Thus each country will see a loss of industries that they don't have a comparative advantage in. Some corporations will suffer under free trade if they can't afford to move to another country or switch product lines. Those who are pro free trade tout the benefits of cheaper goods but the reality is that it's a lose-lose proposition. Countries have to surrender economic sovereingty because they become dependent on foreign countries for many good and services. High wage jobs invariably go overseas resulting in lower wages for most people. The quality of goods and services take a back seat to cheap prices (no one can afford the higher quality goods and services) and we're all stuck buying cheap goods (in every sense of the word cheap). | |
|
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 10/25/2006 8:50:12 PM | A proposed congressional resolution today sponsored by Republican Reps. Virgil Goode Jr. of Virginia, Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Walter Jones of North Carolina, and Ron Paul of Texas would denounce any effort by the U.S. to enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada. Howard Phillips and Jerome Corsi hosted a news conference at the national press club about it this morning. Read more here
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52604 | |
|
dmotz
|
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 12 | |
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 10/31/2006 6:53:53 AM | This can not happen folks...Write you congressman and senate....This will be the end of our nation as we know it. This effects all of us. The US ,Canada and Mexico...We could lose our nations and become one...not good~!
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52684
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
WASHINGTON – Rep. Ron Paul, a maverick Republican from Texas, today denounced plans for the proposed "NAFTA superhighway" in his state as part of a larger plot for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American Union.
"By now many Texans have heard about the proposed 'NAFTA Superhighway,' which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor," he said in a statement. "What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention."
Paul explained that most members of Congress are unaware of the plans because only relatively small amounts of money have been spent studying the plans and those allocations were included in "enormous transportation appropriations bills."
(Story continues below)
"The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,' or SPP," he explains. "The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco."
No treaties were involved, and Congress was not included in discussions or plans, he says.
"Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments," according to Paul. "One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don't be fooled: The superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically connected interests."
Paul says, however, the real issue raised by the superhighway plan and the SPP is national sovereignty.
"Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress," says Paul. "Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade."
The ultimate goal, he says, is not simply a superhighway "but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy and virtually borderless travel within the union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether."
Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has introduced a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the U.S. should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union.
"I wholeheartedly support this legislation and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election," says Paul. "Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight – and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty." | |
|
Jay152
|
Joined: 10/11/2006
Msg: 13 | |
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 10/31/2006 4:19:15 PM | | I wonder if this is part of the "New World Order" Bush senior was talking about in his administration. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 14 | |
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 10/31/2006 5:07:17 PM | There's a PDF of the NAU doc on the net, the commitee members are all corporate lobbiests (incl. The Canadian Defence Minister) and CEOs, New World Corporate Order....
The main (barely hidden) gist of the document is to increase oil supplies from Mexico and Canada, ....US supplies aren't even mentioned. | |
|
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 11/1/2006 5:13:40 PM | I think you guys are going way overboard with this and not quite understanding what they are trying to form. They are not trying to create a supranational government for North America but rather a mostly economic union, which is a far cry from Europe. First and foremost the congress cannot approve any governing body that would have primacy over the U.S government because it would be unconstitutional and immediately struck down at the courts. If something like that were to go through not only will you have to amend your constitution, but so will Canada and Mexico. Good luck with that. The NAU is at best a watered down EU economic system or a beefed up NAFTA depending on how you chose to look at it.
If it will go through it will limit the ability to regulate domestic fiscal policy, since with a new currency a new central bank would be created, but it won't have a whole lot more benefits or do more harm than NAFTA did. I also don't understand where you guys get the whole open borders idea when it comes to labor, all that is mentioned is trade. No one as far as I know is proposing an EU like labor system. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 16 | |
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 11/1/2006 8:15:12 PM | | It's about giving more strength to corporate hegemony. Peel away the misdirection and what it comes down to is: The control of resourses, consumer markets, and the ability to regulate the two; will be in the hands of an oligarchy and out of reach of elected representatives and those who elect them. | |
|
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 11/1/2006 8:35:03 PM | | Not all corporations are bad. You should read about some multinationals that do a lot of good like the Body Shop, Intel, Ben & Jerry's etc. Not every corporation is a monstrosity like Halliburton or Shell. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 18 | |
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 11/1/2006 8:51:10 PM | Not all corporations are bad. You should read about some multinationals that do a lot of good like the Body Shop, Intel, Ben & Jerry's etc. Not every corporation is a monstrosity like Halliburton or Shell.
Reducing cororate influence, or eliminating it from democratic governance won't do any harm to the well meaning corps.
The existence of the corporate entity in its current form is anti-democratic, and if you were to do some reading, you would find that this very issue was one that was warned of by most of the US founding fathers.
http://www.mcn.org/e/iii/afd/santaclara.html
Things like SPP, NAFTA, NAU, etc.....only serve to benefit the very few at the expense of the whole. | |
|
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 11/7/2006 11:27:06 AM | Governor Rick Perry (R.-Tex.)attempted to defend his plan to build the Trans-Texas Corridor parallel to Interstate 35 (TTC-35) and denied he was attempting to create a “big, tri-lateral connection” between Canadians, the United States and Mexico.
Perry is locked in a re-election battle with three challengers who have all opposed TTC-35. Given the plurality nature of the Texas gubernatorial race, even if considerably more that 50% of those voting in the Texas gubernatorial election oppose TTC-35, Perry could win with as little as 35% of the vote and proceed with his super-highway plans.
Perry attempted to prove that he was not working for the creation of a North American Union because he was intent on securing the southern border. The author of this article strongly disputes Perry’s seriousness about this border security claim.
On October 10, Rep. Michael McCaul (R.-Tex.), chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Investigations, released a report that produced evidence the Bush Administration has been dramatically underestimating the numbers of illegal immigrants, the volume of drugs, and the risk of violent crime and terrorism entering the U.S. across our wide-open border with Mexico.
The report, titled "A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border," claims that as many as 4 to 10 million illegal aliens crossed our border with Mexico in 2005. Previous government figures have underestimated the number as at low as 1.2 million.
Read more here
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17892
P.S. I don't care for the ads on the site, but this article is interesting and felt like I should post it. | |
|
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 11/20/2006 3:50:32 PM | Here are some excerpts from an article relating to SPP/NAU I found today authored by constitutional scholar Devvy Kidd:
Millions of Americans simply haven't been able to understand why Bush has refused to close the borders or make any attempt whatsoever to stop the massive invasion of illegals. As soon as the veil was lifted on this North American Union and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, it all made sense even to his most loyal supporters. Bush has never had any intention of upholding the laws of this land because his job is to cement the final pieces of one world government along with bankrupting US with his endless, unconstitutional "wars of liberation."
Why do you think this voluntary National ID card surfaced and is scheduled for 2008? Because Bush and his global masters intend for the destruction of our republic to be complete by 2010. Do Americans really understand what this means? All the blood that has been shed to keep America a free nation will have been spilled for nothing. It means the death of our nation, our constitution, our Bill of Rights. It means inheriting another 100 million illiterate poor from Mexico, making all of US "global citizens" in this nightmare scheme.
The Council on Foreign Relations is an evil operation, a subject I have written about extensively over the past decade plus. These people are our enemy and you should know their faces; see here(link included in article) and this one(link included in article) courtesy of an American who cares; this list was obtained from the Seeley Mudd library at Princeton University. The American Empire: Conquest Through NAFTA is another in depth look at the connection between the destruction of our sovereign country and the CFR.
This is our country, not Rick Perry's, not some company out of Spain and not George Bush's. Our children and grand children deserve their birthright to be free in a free united States of America. I pray Americans won't be too busy to do their part because that's exactly what the destroyers are counting on: laziness and apathy.
The middle class is being killed off and a new peonage system will develop in what used to be America if this NAU succeeds. Lord, our Founding Fathers must wonder why they and all the thousands whose blood ran in rivers to give us a free republic even bothered.
Read the full article here:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd231.htm | |
|
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 11/29/2006 1:38:15 PM | Republican senator says Bush may need to be impeached over SPP/NAU plans.
Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, said she believes the Security and Prosperity Partnership, being run out of the White House and the U.S. Department of Commerce, is little more than a secret plan to end U.S. sovereignty by 2010. And she said Congress is being kept in the dark until the point that it becomes a done deal.
Johnson, who will head the Senate Education Committee this coming session, said the signs already are there, from an “inland port” in Kansas City and construction of a superhighway corridor through Texas to the lack of any real action in building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico(the fence bill which was recently passed with significant bi-partisan support, with the likes of Hilary and Obama voting for it, in the senate).
“We will have no sovereignty, we will have no Constitution left,” said Johnson, first elected to the Legislature in 1996. And that, she said, will make moot all of the other arguments that tend to divide the nation like abortion and gay rights.
“We’re not going to be able to argue those rights any more because we are going to be ruled by unelected tribunals, bureaucrats that are unelected,” she said.
Johnson said she wants congressional hearings on the process. And she said if federal lawmakers determine that Bush is undermining national sovereignty that would be an impeachable offense.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=79763 | |
|
NateC
|
Joined: 4/10/2006
Msg: 22 | |
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 11/29/2006 9:53:51 PM | The point of it is to amalgamate North America's gold and GNP against EU's. Big mistake. Especially since the London Stock Exchange is about to take over from the NYSE; The UK, while on the EU concil, is not a full member of the EU.
The othsr reason is, Canada is holding up against the EU far better than the US is because not only do we not have investors pulling out, our gold is stronger; I think that rumour about the US gold stockpiles being alloyed must be true if that be the case.
Once the U.S. government restabilises, everything should "normalis". However, you guys should be damned thankful for NAFTA. If us canucks weren't taking it up the a$$ for Uncle Sam, you;d be in some pretty dire straits economically - moreso compared to today, I'd think. | |
|
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 11/30/2006 7:55:20 AM | Unfortunately, Ben & Jerry's is now owned by Unilever, and the Body Shop... I don't know what happened there. Let's jsut say it's not operated by anita Roddick (sp?) any longer, and the product and company policies have changed noticeably. So, sorry, they don't provide great examples of enlighted corporate practices. As for the gold standard... seems to me the Euro is doing just fine against the dollar.
I think the "free trade" concept could work just fine - except that it has to be all or nothing. US citizens need to have access to the resources of Canadian citizens, such as subsidized health care and cheaper prescription medications, and Mexican citizens need to be able to access resources from the US such as good jobs. If I want to go on a shopping spree in Canada because my money is worth more there, I should be able to do that and bring back as much stuff as I want without consequence. Individuals need to have as much freedom and flexibility to move across borders and access opportunity as corporations. Worker's rights need to be uniform across the board. Otherwise, "free trade" is a crock. | |
|
NateC
|
Joined: 4/10/2006
Msg: 24 | |
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 11/30/2006 9:59:51 AM | I'm sorry, if you're not paying taxes to my country, there's no way in hell you're getting access to Canadian Health care benefits. And besides, you don't want access to it right now, it's a clusterf*ck.
Personally, I'm opposed to a merger with the U.S. Not that our politicians are any better, but your leaders scare me, and a merger like that with Mexico is out of the question, too. Fox and all his ilk are pretty scary people.
Not only that, I'm sick of my country being treated like a corporation. And, I don't think that the US should have any exclusivity on our resources anymore. We've got the most, we should be lording it over your country for the way your leaders have treated us since Diefenbaker canned the Arrow. | |
|
| SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 11/30/2006 11:46:10 AM | | natec, I'm not disagreeing with you AT ALL. I think the US is a mess these days too, and certainly couldn't blame anyone for wanting to build a fence to keep us out. (But can I still come visit the Montreal Botanical Gardens pleeeeeeease?) My point is that free trade should be all or nothing - none of this half-baked garbage that's passed for "free trade" so far. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
