It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Second, I respectfully suggest that you reconsider the general tenor of the SNOPES North American Union post which downplays the connection between CFR "proposals" and subsequent Government policies and laws.
3. According to a variety of sources, the following presidential candidates or former candidates are either CFR members or have strong ties, including advisors who are CFR members: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson.
“The “2005 Report to Leaders” and the companion “2006 Report to Leaders” on the Department of Commerce SPP.gov website describe many different memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements that have been signed by the working groups. Yet, the vast majority of these memoranda of understanding (MOU) and other trilateral agreements have not been submitted to Congress for oversight or for determinations regarding whether a treaty might be required for the agreement to be valid within constitutional restrictions.”
Note: an MOU is a legal agreement. Many Americans are worried that these MOU will be enacted into law essentially as a fait accompli, without significant Congressional debate or public awareness. Even if they are not enacted into law, the result could be a functioning NAU established basically by nothing more than these MOU and private business agreements.
Originally posted by scientist
like ive said so many times before, snopes is a great website.... for checking the validity of spam emails and urban legends, not for political topics. They shoot themselves in the foot everything they try to cover soemthing serious.
The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded. [con't]
As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met. [con't]
Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.
...
Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change
...
All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation
Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.
Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilising refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.