Another Call for a North American Union

iori thats fine and you're entitled to your opinion, however if you think our way of government is going to be rewritten then you are in for a rough confrontation with reality. we dont need canada and mexico to compete in the global market, we need to replace our federal tax policy. If I see 1 more NAU advocate say we need to forum a union to compete my head is going to explode.

Originally posted by ape
iori thats fine and you're entitled to your opinion, however if you think our way of government is going to be rewritten then you are in for a rough confrontation with reality.

Um, Im confused, what exactly is our way of government, apart from freedom and democracy?

If I see 1 more NAU advocate say we need to forum a union to compete my head is going to explode.

Really?
Oh well, than yeah, we need to combine to do that.

Sorry, I could'nt resist.

Um, Im confused, what exactly is our way of government, apart from freedom and democracy?

you just answered your own question, if you think for a minute a new constitution is going to be imposed on the american people you're in need of a serious reality check. this goes for the canadians aswell, they are also patriots and do not want a union.



[edit on 1-2-2007 by ape]

my suggestion to all you liberals out there, instead of making up crazy policies that you think would work how about you educate yourself on our federal tax policy and visit this website - fairtax.org...

It's not liberals that want that, it's neo-cons, globalists. Liberals are against it i'm pretty sure.

Liberalism in the United States of America is a broad political and philosophical mindset, favoring individual liberty, and opposing restrictions on liberty, whether they come from established religion, from government regulation, or from the existing class structure

The United States Declaration of Independence speaks of "unalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", which can be identified as ideals of classical liberalism,[2] and asserts that government may exist only with the "consent of the governed"; the Preamble to the Constitution enumerates among its purposes to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"; the Bill of Rights contains numerous measures guaranteeing individual freedom, both from the authority of the state and from the tyranny of the majority

What is wrong with liberals? I don't understand the people who says that liberals are bad because they are liberals...

If i'm for universal health care, patriotism, second amendment, liberty, constitution, against a ``liberal`` economy and against a big government, what am I? I may do a thread about that...

[edit on 1-2-2007 by Vitchilo]

I'm a liberal, but I don't fit all the preconceived notions, such as
I advocate gun rights and oppose smoking bans.

The problem is people group everyone into groups, and assume
they all think the same, which really is'nt a good idea.

[edit on 2/2/2007 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by Vitchilo

my suggestion to all you liberals out there, instead of making up crazy policies that you think would work how about you educate yourself on our federal tax policy and visit this website - fairtax.org...

It's not liberals that want that, it's neo-cons, globalists. Liberals are against it i'm pretty sure.

Liberalism in the United States of America is a broad political and philosophical mindset, favoring individual liberty, and opposing restrictions on liberty, whether they come from established religion, from government regulation, or from the existing class structure

The United States Declaration of Independence speaks of "unalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", which can be identified as ideals of classical liberalism,[2] and asserts that government may exist only with the "consent of the governed"; the Preamble to the Constitution enumerates among its purposes to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"; the Bill of Rights contains numerous measures guaranteeing individual freedom, both from the authority of the state and from the tyranny of the majority

What is wrong with liberals? I don't understand the people who says that liberals are bad because they are liberals...

If i'm for universal health care, patriotism, second amendment, liberty, constitution, against a ``liberal`` economy and against a big government, what am I? I may do a thread about that...

[edit on 1-2-2007 by Vitchilo]

haha, no wonder you're so worked up you obviously have a serious reading comprehension problem. that post you quoted me on was not even directed at you. lear how to read please. u wanna go by exact definition on everything? you're going to be dissapointed. the liberals in power represent liberalism just as much and the republicans who got voted out represented conservatism

get a clue

all of these clowns you see on TV are in the pockets of lobbyiest, people need to wake up and recognize who represents true individual liberty, certainly the dems/liberals dont. you will find who represents individual liberty on the congressional score card and co sponsor card on the fairtax website. every single 'liberal hero' is against fairtax because it takes away the power of hidden taxation, it is the perfect counter to their liberal socialist anti-business / anti-capitalism policies and big government agendas.

ted kennedy is a fine example of my opinion, he is a big liberal guy and whats funny is he stashes his cash in offshore accounts to avoid the same taxation him and his liberal buddies impose on the american people. a disgrace and whats sad is many like him are in washington.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by ape]

haha, no wonder you're so worked up you obviously have a serious reading comprehension problem. that post you quoted me on was not even directed at you. lear how to read please. u wanna go by exact definition on everything? you're going to be dissapointed. the liberals in power represent liberalism just as much and the republicans who got voted out represented conservatism

I know it wasn't directed at me, I was just trying to understand why a lot of people view liberals as bad and don't see any differences between them. Not directed at you either.

And I agree, Bush a conservative? Biggest joke EVAR!

all of these clowns you see on TV are in the pockets of lobbyiest, people need to wake up and recognize who represents true individual liberty, certainly the dems/liberals dont. you will find who represents individual liberty on the congressional score card and co sponsor card on the fairtax website. every single 'liberal hero' is against fairtax because it takes away the power of hidden taxation, it is the perfect counter to their liberal socialist anti-business / anti-capitalism policies and big government agendas.

I agree. But what am I if i'm against total liberalism of the economy, because it leads to monopoly, for the fair tax and against big government?

This is the last time Fairtax is being discussed in this topic.... Want to discuss fairtax? Start a thread about it. This thread is not about fairtax.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I did read that, I disagree with some of it, but it does give freedom
and democracy, in fact I read almost all of the freedoms guaranteed
in the American constitution within it.

Here's my take on the New States Constitution:

source

SECTION 1. Freedom of expression, of communication, of movement, of assembly, or of petition shall not be abridged except in declared emergency.

abridged - to reduce in scope : DIMINISH source
According to the U.S. Constitution, these rights shall not be infringed, period.

SECTION 2. Access to information possessed by governmental agencies shall not be denied except in the interest of national security; but communications among officials necessary to decision making shall be privileged.

That kills the Freedom of Information Act

SECTION 4. The privacy of individuals shall be respected; searches and seizures shall be made only on judicial warrant; persons shall be pursued or questioned only for the prevention of crime or the apprehension of suspected criminals, and only according to rules established under law.

What happened to "probable cause"? So, here we are, guilty until proven innocent.

SECTION 6. All persons shall have equal protection of the laws, and in all electoral procedures the vote of every eligible citizen shall count equally with others.

Who's to decide who's eligible or not? What are the qualifications of being eligible?

SECTION 7. It shall be public policy to promote discussion of public issues and to encourage peaceful public gatherings for this purpose. Permission to hold such gatherings shall not be denied, nor shall they be interrupted, except in declared emergency or on a showing of imminent danger to public order and on judicial warrant.

Basically says that under whatever term they deem fit, they can take away your right to be involved in "public" matters.

SECTION 8. The practice of religion shall be privileged; but no religion shall be imposed by some on others, and none shall have public support.

There goes the separation of Church and State. A privileged religion? American was founded for "freedom of religion". So once again, you can only worship the God they provide for you. "All Hail The King!"

SECTION 11. Education shall be provided at public expense for those who meet appropriate tests of eligibility.

You can now go to school if you're smart enough, and if you provide your own schooling. What happened to "No Child Left Behind"?

SECTION 12. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. No property shall be taken without compensation.

How about "just" compensation?

SECTION 15. Writs of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in declared emergency.

Our Constitution provides for habeas corpus unless "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Responsibilities:

SECTION 8. There shall be a responsibility to avoid violence and to keep the peace; for this reason the bearing of arms or the possession of lethal weapons shall be confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law.

I don't care what they put under the Rights or the remaining responsibilities. Without a means of protecting yourself, you are at the mercy of the ruling Tyrant.

Article 2

SECTION 12. Police powers of the Newstates shall extend to all matters not reserved to the Newstates of America; but preempted powers shall not be impaired.

Sounds to me that this is a declaration of the Police State that we've all been fighting against.

Article 4 - The Legislative Branch

SECTION 1. There shall be a Senate with membership as follows: If they so desire, former Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Principal Justices, Overseers, Chairmen of the Planning and Regulatory Boards, Governors having had more than seven years' service, and unsuccessful candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency who have received at least 30 percent of the vote. To be appointed by the President, three persons who have been Chancellors, two officials from the civil services, two officials from the diplomatic services, two senior military officers, also one person from a panel of three, elected in a process approved by the Overseer, by each of twelve such groups or associations as the President may recognize from time to time to be nationally representative, but none shall be a political or religious group, no individual selected shall have been paid by any private interest to influence government, and any association objected to by the Senate shall not be recognized. Similarly, to be appointed by the Principal Justice, two persons distinguished in public law and two former members of the High Courts or the Judicial Council. Also, to be elected by the House of Representatives, three members who have served six or more years.

Looks like the "lawmakers" have already been decided. Hmm.... kinda like there goes your "right to vote".

Infoholic, excellent dissection of the Newstates Constitution. You picked up on some things I missed. I'm i total agreement with you, this sounds very scary to me. Unlike the EU, we'll never get to have a vote on this and poof, there goes our Constitution, our rights and America. Most of our govt are completely treasonous.

Plus, section 8 which takes away people's rights to self protection uses the term of lethal weapons. Knives can be lethal weapons. So can a lot of other things as those in charge deem to be lethal weapons. So someone could be arrested for having a screwdriver so long as those in power say a screwdriver is a "lethal weapon."

In light of all the talk about the North American Union, whether on ATS, the internet in general, and on the televised form of media... I wrote a letter to my state's representatives. This is an example of what America needs to do.

To: Senator Sam Brownback (2008 Presidential Candidate), Senator Pat Roberts, and House Representative Jerry Moran.

I would like to request some answers from you on the following issue: the formation of the North American Union. The Council on Foreign Relations has been working on, and is continuing work on a "North American Community", as described in the CFR Task Force Report No. 53, May 2005. Quoting from this report, "The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it."

I have researched this issue a great deal. Funding to begin steps needed to achieve this goal is prescribed under S. 3622 (which would force US Citizens to have a portion of their tax dollars spent to "build up" Mexico), the North American Investment Fund Act. H. CON. RES. 40 has been introduced in the House of Representatives to "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

If this was not a concern, why has the funding for such a movement been introduced to use the American's tax dollars to "equalize" Mexico's standards of living to that of America's and Canada's, with the bill accepted and now being referred to the Council on Foreign Relations for further approval?

We do not have a financial responsibility to bring Mexico's Standards of living up to those of America's and Canada's, as was reported by Princeton University sociologist Douglas Massey, director of the Mexican Migration Project.

In the past 6 years, as I have grown painfully aware of in the past 8 months, there has been numerous Constitutional Rights and Freedoms that have been stripped from the American People, of which angers me a great deal, and of which I will address at a later time.

I feel whole heartedly, as would be attested by millions of American citizens, that a formation of the North American Union is completely unconstitutional and, in fact treasonous. Attempts by the Federal Government to strip the American people of their Constitutionally protected sovereignty, attempts to erase the borders of our nation, and attempts to nullify our Constitution are nothing short of "Acts of Treason".

I, and other American citizens, demand answers to these acts. We deserve answers from those that we elected to represent "us" in our Federal Government.

I thank you in advance to your written response,

*sent 2/2/07, 07:45pm

Good initiative Infoholic! What about sending this email/letter to all senators and congressman in the US?

A good link about the NAU, dozens of links to articles and video of CNN talking about the NAU

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Good initiative Infoholic! What about sending this email/letter to all senators and congressman in the US?

To make a long story short, that would be like beating a dead horse.

Here's what I mean:

For the House Representatives

Can I send a message to a Member who does not represent my congressional district? -- Congressional courtesy dictates that Representatives be given the opportunity to assist their own constituents. The Write Your Representative service does not allow for the processing of messages to a Member that does not represent the state and zipcode entered. If direct contact with a specific Member that does not represent your district is required, the Clerk of the House maintains addresses and phone numbers of all House Members and Committees, or you may call (202)225-3121 for the U.S. House switchboard operator.
source

For the Senators
It'd be happy to send them all a letter.



[edit on 2/2/2007 by Infoholic]

Theres a whole lot of speculation, and not much facts. The SPP has nothing to do with creating a North American Union, and that constitution is so silly, its beyond discussing for me. but anyways, Here are some myhts and facts from the Departments Website.

Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP):
Myth vs. Fact

Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.

Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

Myth: The SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.

Fact: U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.

Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.

Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.

Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.

Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

Myth: The SPP will cost U.S. taxpayers money.

Fact: The SPP is being implemented with existing budget resources. Over the long-term, it will save U.S. taxpayers money by cutting through costly red tape and reducing redundant paperwork. This initiative will benefit the taxpayers through economic gain and increased security, thereby enhancing the competitiveness and quality of life in our countries.

Myth: The working groups and SPP documents are a secret and not available to the public.

Fact: The SPP’s initiatives and milestones with timelines can be found by clicking the Report to Leaders link at www.spp.gov. The Web site contains a section to enable interested persons to provide input directly to the various working groups.

Myth: The SPP seeks to lower U.S. standards through a regulatory cooperation framework.

Fact: The framework will support and enhance cooperation and encourage the compatibility of regulations among the three partners while maintaining high standards of health and safety. Enhanced cooperation in this area will provide consumers with more affordable, safer, and more diversified and innovative products. Any regulatory changes will require agencies to conform to all U.S. administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

Myth: The SPP is meant to deal with immigration reform and trade disputes.

Fact: Immigration reform is a legislative matter currently being debated in Congress and is not being dealt with in the SPP. Likewise, trade disputes between the United States, Canada, and Mexico are resolved in the NAFTA and WTO mechanisms and not the SPP.

Myth: The SPP will result in the loss of American jobs.

Fact: The SPP seeks to create jobs by reducing transaction costs and unnecessary burdens for U.S. companies, which will bolster the competitiveness of our firms globally. These efforts will help U.S. manufacturers, spur job creation, and benefit consumers.

Myth: The SPP will harm our quality of life.

Fact: The SPP improves the safety and well-being of Americans. It builds on efforts to protect our environment, improves our ability to combat infectious diseases, such as avian influenza, and ensures our food supply is safe through the exchange of information and cooperation ─ improving the quality of life for U.S. citizens. Americans enjoy world class living standards because we are engaged with the world.

Myth: The SPP creates a NAFTA-plus legal status between the three countries.

Fact: The SPP does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. It creates no NAFTA-plus legal status.

[edit on 2/2/2007 by DYepes]

And I see you have ever so easily bought into their "disinformation".

Do you actually work for the government or some affiliate of the government by chance?

Yeah from the official website, their own BS. And on the white house website they say that Bush is the greatest president EVER. That's BS too. And Iraq have WMDs, BS.

Sorry, but you can't take their word on it, they are chronics liars and only act for their personnal gain. Sorry, but my BS meter is EXPLODING.

The facts coming from them state contrary to everything being posted by non-government sources. Although I am still in support for a North American Union, this clearly shows that the SPP has nothing to do with such. It is not even a treaty.

I mean people continue to insist "they" are just spouting this disinformation, but they are part of the Democratic process here. This isnt just stuff they can write and keep it secret but make it work. They are public servants, they are under public scrutiny, and if there was in fact a North American Union about to happen out of nowhere, which unfortunately there is not, it would in fact be going through the appropriate democratic process.

Originally posted by DYepes
The facts coming from them state contrary to everything being posted by non-government sources. Although I am still in support for a North American Union, this clearly shows that the SPP has nothing to do with such. It is not even a treaty.

I mean people continue to insist "they" are just spouting this disinformation, but they are part of the Democratic process here. This isnt just stuff they can write and keep it secret but make it work. They are public servants, they are under public scrutiny, and if there was in fact a North American Union about to happen out of nowhere, which unfortunately there is not, it would in fact be going through the appropriate democratic process.

Do you not understand that a "treaty" of this manner would be illegal, not to mention unconstitutional, which would be and is, treasonous... punishable by death. Of course there isn't going to be a signed treaty that underminds the U.S. Constitution. They're not going to be that forthright with the public. They're not quite that dumb.

Democratic process? If their process was in fact "democratic" as our Nation and Constitution call for, wouldn't the people of the US be included, and these "deals" would not be made behind closed doors, with the ins and outs being hidden from the general populous.

I'm terribly sorry if the following statement offends you, but, DYepes, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

I am sorry if you are offended because your paranoid fantasies are a bit off, but noone is perfect. It can be quite disheartening when your accusations are proven false, but frankly you should be pleased. There are no laws being broken, and it is not going against the constitution. You just said it yourself.

Dont worry be happy.