North American Union!!! Bush's Real Agenda???

This would be another effect of a North American Union. Instead of the dream of some Mexicans that their lost lands will someday be recovered from the U.S., it looks like the U.S. will, in effect, be going after the rest of Mexico - the parts we didn't get in 1846 to 1848.

Has anyone looked at the positives of A New World Order? No wars, combined technology and knowlegde, combined charity, stable economy? I don't even know if a new world order will happen, and indeed there are possible negative problems attached to it, but what about the GOOD?

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Has anyone looked at the positives of A New World Order? No wars, combined technology and knowlegde....

first of all, just because we'd all be one big world government doesnt mean that war would stop. It would just become civil war.... something in the mold of the city-state wars of ages past. The world would not become smaller, there's no telling if the economy would be stable at all. About the only thing it would do would make everyone in the entire world follow the same laws. And I do not think people would react to that. How would they deal with all the different religious groups, and those countries whose laws are based largely on relgion? ( mainly the middle east.)

The idea really is a horrible one. The tiny bit of good that could possibly come out of it is definitely outweighed by the huge negative aspects that would happen for sure.

Individual liberties, for one, would get trampled hard. A world union (or even regional union) needs solid law enforcement authority to make things work out, and the justification for the NAU seems to be to "help trade and stop terrorism". That's a far cry from the original founding purposes of the US, which was to secure the individual liberties of people.

Today, we'd be told that a "stable economy and stopping terrorists requires some sacrifices". What's the whole point of having a nation at all if you can't live freely, which requires taking risks? Live free or die.

In a global or regional union, I suspect that certain types of "offensive speech" might eventually be restricted against the body, not to mention gun rights (that would be the first to go!) and general privacy.

Government sucks.

Nice little clip of how our three leaders are selling out to make one country, I for the life of me can't remember being asked by any of my/our government employees what I thought about this idea
Dobbs- North American Union Youtube video

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Has anyone looked at the positives of A New World Order? No wars, combined technology and knowlegde, combined charity, stable economy? I don't even know if a new world order will happen, and indeed there are possible negative problems attached to it, but what about the GOOD?

Valid points all of them and then there is the multitude of payoffs for those that force the system onto the rest of us or compromise their own countries for the sake of higher level control.

Is there a possibility of some laws being broken to achieve this union?? certainly a circumvention of the constitution is a possibility, in any event our leaders are leading us down the path of no return with this union and civil war and strife seem to be on the horizon with this plan.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by the_sentinal]

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Has anyone looked at the positives of A New World Order? No wars, combined technology and knowlegde, combined charity, stable economy? I don't even know if a new world order will happen, and indeed there are possible negative problems attached to it, but what about the GOOD?

IMHO, the NWO would not be free of war. The underclass needs to have a focus for their anger at their powerlessness. Perpetual war is the best rationalization for postponing or rolling back freedoms. I am convinced that there is some truth to the concept of NWO because neither party in the upcoming (2008) US presidential election will be against the North American Union. How is it possible that something so troubling to so many people will not be a campaign issue? Its prececessor, NAFTA also had bipartisan support.

My guess is that advanced technology and knowledge would be constrained to the ruling elites, and that the masses would get the modern equivalent of "bread and circuses," i.e. NASCAR and McDonalds.

I heard an author talk the other day about how 23% of Americans want an authority figure to make their decisions for them, and don't want to be bothered by political and social issues. The post above, sadly, sounds as if it might have come from someone in that group.

I don't see this happening.

There are alot of people in this country that enjoy a good dose of the constitution and Bill of Rights.

Do you think Americans will give up their weapons..........
I don't, and here is why.

When the founding fathers made the constitution they were thinking far into the future. We would come to a crossroads where force for something would be needed. To keep the United States as it is. In that they made the 10 Amendments so that we are guaranteed rights as they seen fit. Unfortunately people are not seeing things as some of us are seeing. A complete and total raping of our Freedoms...

Mainly these ones.
1st, 2nd, 4th Amendments

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of Speech, It's been disallowed for some time, People have been going to jail for people what they believe in.

Freedom of Religion, well I have heard stories of Pastors in churches getting thrown in jail for speaking for the bible.

Freedom of Press, Well this is self explanatory.. Which is why most of us get our news on the Internet rather than TV or Newspaper.

Freedom of Protest, Think back to the RNC convention in NYC, they were carting people left and right for protesting in the streets. Also Mayor Bloomberg stated the following.

"People who avail themselves of the opportunity to express themselves ... they will not abuse that privilege," he said at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "Because if we start to abuse our privileges, then we lose them, and nobody wants that."

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

Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This is self explanatory, but I will add something here.

I have heard on Alex Jones that they have been taking registered weapons in IL, and as of recently in New Orleans during the Katrina incident.

There is a video floating around of this where an old woman is holding a gun saying she don't want to leave and some big tough swat guy or something tackles here and arrests her in front of cameras.
I have this video, I will try and put it on the net somewhere.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here is an example of this right going out to sea.

www.democracynow.org.../05/08/1352248

JONATHAN LANDAY: My understanding is that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an Americans right against unlawful searches and seizures.

MICHAEL HAYDEN: No, actually, the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That’s what it says.

JONATHAN LANDAY: But the measure is “probable cause,” I believe.

MICHAEL HAYDEN: The amendment says “unreasonable search and seizure.”

JONATHAN LANDAY: But does it not say “probable – “

MICHAEL HAYDEN: No.

JONATHAN LANDAY: The court standard, the legal standard --

MICHAEL HAYDEN: The amendment says, “unreasonable search and seizure.”

JONATHAN LANDAY: The legal standard is “probable cause,” General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, “we reasonably believe,” and a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say, “We reasonably believe.” You have to go to the FISA Court or the Attorney General has to go to the FISA Court and say, “We have probable cause,” and so what many people believe, and I would like you to respond to this, is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA Court by creating a new standard of “reasonably believe” in place of “probable cause,” because the FISA Court will not give you a warrant based on “reasonable belief.” You have to show “probable cause.” Could you respond to that, please?

MICHAEL HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order, alright? The Attorney General has averred to the lawfulness of the order. Just to be very clear, okay, and believe me, if there is any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth, and it is a “reasonableness” standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so, what you’ve raised to me, and I'm not a lawyer and don't want to become one, but what you've raised to me, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is “reasonable,” and we believe – I am convinced that we're lawful, because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

So I think if they decide to start taking guns off of everyone, I think there will be hell to pay. So I don't see this NWO/EU thing going on any time soon.


[edit on 7/16/2006 by ThichHeaded]

Can you guys even VOTE for this matter being a citizen of those countries involved with this?

Well? Can the Mexican, Canadese and US citizens VOTE for this or not?
I mean, the EU was formed years ago of course but all member countries
still have their own laws and values.
A few years ago we had to VOTE for a EU common law which would be the same
for all members, we were able to vote (France and Dutch voted no) and stop that
from happening. The way i see this NAU, the public does not even know about it,
so, can you even vote in favor or against this?

This might be a good way of tackling immigration, but i see it just like the EU. Its creating a super state to combat the rise of China and India.

I too, think its the rapid building blocks of the new world order.

Is there a South American Union?

I didnt read all of the post so if someone already stated this than I am sorry. Its early and I need some rest
OK America is the only country in the world where in the constitution it states that the people have a right to bear arms. The only real obstacle in a takeover of America by NWO if you will is that, I know this number is not correct but it is a large number, 75 percent of the population have guns. Which means that say someone invades france. After they beat the military complex there is no real resistance to mass slaughter. But here even after the military falls and the death squads come in they would lose their whole army by the time the got half way across the country just by attrition alone.
So that being stated if we were to have a new sovereignty in North America, would the right to bear arms be in the new constitution. Somehow I doubt it

And then don't forget about them wanting to widen I-35 into a NAFTA super-highway.

Needless to say, as an American patriot, I'm against it.

That Tenth Amendment is all-important--states' rights. It's hard to have a NAU much less a one-world government if America's government isn't centralized, IMO.

Originally posted by the_sentinal

Originally posted by ProudCanadian
I heard about this not too long ago. So we'd have the same dollar and everything like they do in Europe?

Would we still need passports to cross over from one North American country to another? Would our laws and politics be even more closely influencing eachother?

no i dont think that you would need a passport, i have relatives in germany and i think that they can now cross the borders freely

the real problem will be the centralization of currancy, the mexican peso is nowhere near the value of the dollar so from that perspective i see some big trouble on the horizion with this plan

you do need a passport in Eu countries. However all passports of citizens within the EU are effetively EU passports. That probably doesn't make sense, but you need to prove you are a citizen of the european union to move freely about the union...

I really cannot see this happening. Not with Mexico included. I don't know any American who would want that. I don't know many Americans who would want to join with Canada. And I doubt Canadians want to join with the US and Mexico. The only country who would want this is Mexico.

Hell, I'm American I wouldn't mind joining with the rest of North America. Yeah, yeah, the evil illuminati is going to get us etc etc.

Just make em states, what would be the difference. Canada isn't that much different from us down here anyways, a little more liberal and a better drinking age is all.

I think it's a good idea, as long as we bring Mexico up to an
American-Canadian standard, and don't get rid of any rights.


I've heard about the superhighway project, and I gotta say,
I'm all for it.

I would'nt mind joining America and Canada, and as I stated above,
as long as Mexico was brought up to American-Canadian standards,
I would'nt mind joining with them either.


Also, I don't believe in the whole NWO Illuminati thing, it just does'nt
seem very realistic to me.



Also, I'm all for a single global government, as long as it's democratic,
fair and free.

[edit on 8/9/2006 by iori_komei]

Just a single question... with the american Union will Canada and Mexico have the wiretapping thing, patriot act and this kind of crap? THanks!