An "idea" called America, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

reply posted on 8-1-2007 @ 07:08 AM by Vitchilo

I'm having trouble connecting how the formation of N.A.U. will ignite a loss of my freedom. This presupposes that it's even possible to unite the continent beyond an econominc agreement.

First, they are already trying to ``harmonize`` our laws between Mexico-USA-Canada. So a north american police state, in Canada it will be after the next elections if the liberals are in majority with the Bilderberg member, Stephane Dion, a globalist.

And the NAU will try to create another constitution, a very different one where every right will be given instead of being natural. The europeans rejected the european constitution, now Angela markel the bilderberger want to impose it without a vote.

I suggest that if they do destroy and merge our constitution, we do a north american meeting with a people's representative from each region and we do set OUR rights and freedoms, and we don't accept anything the government impose us. Just as the USA independance leaders did back then before the war against england.

reply posted on 8-1-2007 @ 07:10 AM by oxygen_kills

America was, is, and always will be an idea before an actual place. It was the idea of America in which led to it's creation. Though many aspects of the original "idea" are slowly being dismembered, the idea still exists.

He is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that – it's an idea. It's not an actual place defined by borders.

If this is REALLY what the man is trying to accomplish, what would be so wrong with it?

reply posted on 8-1-2007 @ 07:25 AM by Political Veto

Originally posted by Vitchilo
First, they are already trying to ``harmonize`` our laws between Mexico-USA-Canada. So a north american police state, in Canada it will be after the next elections if the liberals are in majority with the Bilderberg member, Stephane Dion, a globalist.

And the NAU will try to create another constitution, a very different one where every right will be given instead of being natural. The europeans rejected the european constitution, now Angela markel the bilderberger want to impose it without a vote.

I suggest that if they do destroy and merge our constitution, we do a north american meeting with a people's representative from each region and we do set OUR rights and freedoms, and we don't accept anything the government impose us. Just as the USA independance leaders did back then before the war against england.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I'm starting to connect the dots. I'm not saying I buy into it 100%, but the theory is more understandable to me now.

Harmonizing laws sounds like marginal agreements to me, not a wholesale scrapping of our liberty. And a new constitution? We couldn't even attempt a balanced budget amendment with the bar being so high. I understand the political will to force fiscal dicipline wasn't there in DC.

I haven't followed Angela Markel. I may have to search around ATS on that subject.

reply posted on 10-1-2007 @ 03:27 PM by kashyapa

now now then... chill chill...

I actually like Coca cola.. it's dopeness that i can get it here in denmark

off course I've only tried a few different brands. so although they might taste better. it just easier sticking with what i already know..

Off course they might be better.. and I'm against consumerism...

but i guess im just lazy..

I mean it's not like I've been commercialy brainwashed into buying them

youtube.com... (ehem)

ok ok.. maybe I admit it that the only reason i buy Coca cola instead of other stuff might be that it's been anchored..

And i'd like to underline that.. off course I'm not just a sheep following commercial brands!!.. noway dude..

It's just.. im... too lazy and poor to try out other products..

and also, i think that it's really terific that there's poped-up an 7/11 on almost every corner of my city..
Too bad bout those local super markeds can't make a living any more.

Yeah.. America the idea... The US goverment Saved all of europe from Hitler..
(Oh those brave american politicians.. they had the gut's to press a red nuke button twice)
I wonder if those action movies being displayed since the late 40ties where one guy always saves the world from the "EVIL" enemies
have had any Anchorings on my fellow europeans..

oh and off course, the hero must lit a smoke after having killed the last one..

Err.. yeah... can't quit smoking either.. Guess im just addicted..

america the idea ;D hahahahha
Yeah.. if you can't kill 'em all.. buy them out..

Ever since Constantin invented them moneys.. guess it's still survival of the fittest.

And nooo this has nothing to do with the publicity darwin gets.. no subliminal commercialing there..

Who cares that biologist's have known since the 80ties that the most succesfull species to survive where of the symbiotic kind..

Ass long as the bush family has all them Aquifiers.. hell yeah.. he can sell us water in the future.. when all hell breaks out..
...

You guys over there in US trying to ravel out the conspiracy.. keep it up..

Goddamn those goverment guys are smart.. off course this has nothing to do with the symbiotic link between the late cave-man and the psylocybin symbiosis (psylocybin is the chemical most related to serotonin)
or the small clue that almost all great thinkers did shrooms..

and it definitely has nothing to do with bush avoiding the drugs screenings.. haha

and massive ADHD and OCD outbreaks has nothing to do with the abscence of the psylocybin diet.. or the new MAPS studies finding that Psylocybin might cure OCD...

no no.. off course not.. haha

America.. love the poeple

America the idea.. hmm.. pew pew.. spit spit ;D

reply posted on 11-1-2007 @ 11:54 AM by ferretman2

What 'rights' have you lost?

What rights would you lose in there was a 'North America Union' created?

reply posted on 11-1-2007 @ 09:29 PM by Infoholic

Originally posted by ferretman2
What 'rights' have you lost?

What rights would you lose in there was a 'North America Union' created?

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.

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.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

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.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Need I go through and give examples of each!?

You really must get out more often... or at least search a bit deeper into the internet.

You can easily read many links throughout ATS that discuss loss of America's freedoms stemming from the enactment of the Military Commissions Act, the USA Patriot Act, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, and others.

Go to thomas.loc.gov... and read bills that have been signed into law. Read past your nose. Read between the lines. These bills that are allegedly here to protect us, leave us open for our rights, liberties, and freedoms to be raped at any given moment.

There are many instances (here on ATS and across the internet) of the press being denied the right to report, as protected under the 1st Amendment Right. There are instances of people being arrested during "peaceable" protests, which is protected under the 1st Amendment. There are instances of homeowners having their guns taken away, which is protected under the 2nd Amendment (New Orleans - taken from protective homeowners, not the thugs downtown). There are instances of the government taking steps to ensure their ability to invade your privacies as protected under the 4th Amendment (read up on H.R. 1). There are instances of people being incarcerated for acts of terrorism without proper representation as provided for the government under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which this, and other rights are protected under the 5th - 8th Amendments.

As of your last question... the North American Union would be in direct violation of the 9th, and possibly the 10th Amendments, by the simply pointing out one more thing.

Those that are in the legislative branch today, have shown more than once, and in more that one way that they do not believe in the rights that we all share, since they are so willing to write the laws to take them away. When the N.A.U. comes to be formed... you must understand that the rights, liberties and freedoms that we all share today, will be expunged and a new constitution will be written. The same Constitution we have today will not even be considered to be part of the N.A.U. Those that wish to put in place a means of making more money through a new government will take any and all steps necessary to prevent "you" from getting in their way.

Don't kid yourself.

Sourcing the internet doesn't mean this is the only way to read of these things. Get a newspaper. Watch the TV. Call a friend that "is aware" of ongoings today. Sourcing the internet was only meant as a tool as to "quickly" and "efficiently" bring all the above mentioned sources to your fingertips all in one convenient package.

[edit on 1/11/2007 by Infoholic]

reply posted on 11-1-2007 @ 09:53 PM by darkelf

Originally posted by oxygen_kills
America was, is, and always will be an idea before an actual place. It was the idea of America in which led to it's creation. Though many aspects of the original "idea" are slowly being dismembered, the idea still exists.

He is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that – it's an idea. It's not an actual place defined by borders.

If this is REALLY what the man is trying to accomplish, what would be so wrong with it?

If I moved to Japan, I’d make an effort to learn the language. However, I would like to live out my remaining days here in the US. I am a lazy old woman and can find no reason why I should have to learn any other language to finish out those days in the land of which I was born.

Living in South Texas has truly opened my eyes. I have no problem with those who speak other languages. What I have a problem with is the discrimination against those who only speak English. I don’t think I should have to learn a foreign language to live in my own country. But I highly suggest that anyone in the US who doesn’t speak Spanish should learn the language now.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 19-1-2007 @ 11:39 PM by Infoholic

Call me lazy, but it took me a while amidst all my other searches and work online, and I've come up with a little bit more to add to this little "idea" they like to call the North American Union... of which I am strongly apposed.

As taken from the "Council of Foreign Relations" website... check it out.

Overview
Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.

North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a trinational, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.

When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. 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.
source

and furthermore....

In 1964, the writing of a new constitution for America began, at a tax-exempt foundation with the misleading name, Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions.

The people who took it upon themselves to write this new constitution on our behalf were, of course, not elected representatives, or in any other way our representatives. As a tax-exempt foundation, they were able to do political work on what amounts to a subsidy taken from your taxes, but you and I were never asked if we wanted a new constitution written. Indeed, only a very tiny fraction of the people in the United States even know that it exists: it has been made known to practically no one except a select category of influential people whose views and interest generally coincide with those of the people who wrote it. The American people as a whole are still in the dark about it, and this situation is deliberate. It is therefore truly a "secret" constitution.

This model constitution took ten years to write, drawing upon the efforts of more than 100 people. A preliminary version was published in 1970 and given exposure in limited circles. But, in 1974, an essentially final version was quietly published in a book entitled THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION by Rexford G. Tugwell (Harper & Row, $20), the man who directed the formulation of the new constitution. It is the fortieth draft. During most of the time that their constitution was being written, the Center for Study of Democratic Institutions was lavishly funded to the tune of $2,500,000 annually.
source

and....drumroll please.... The "New States Constitution".....!!!READ IT!!!

Constitution for the Newstates of America

PREAMBLE

So that we may join in common endeavors, welcome the future in good order, and create an adequate and self-repairing government - we, the people, do establish the Newstates of America, herein provided to be ours, and do ordain this Constitution whose supreme law it shall be until the time prescribed for it shall have run.

(One, two, skip a few...)

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.

source

There you have it, people.

Are you ready to take a stand against this?

[edit on 1/19/2007 by Infoholic]

reply posted on 20-1-2007 @ 10:09 AM by Vitchilo

Thanks Infoholic!

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

They should add inalienable rights, and no exception of any sort except invasion.

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.

Permissions shall not be required.

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

Without FAIR compensation.

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

INVASION, in case of invasion ONLY.

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.

NO WAY. Wipe out this section.

SECTION 9. Taxes on land may be at higher rates than those on its improvements.

Taxes on land IMO, should be for the structures worth more than 200.000$.

SECTION 11. The rights and responsibilities prescribed in this Constitution shall be effective in the Newstates and shall be suspended only in emergency when declared by Governors and not disapproved by the Senate of the Newstates of America.

No emergency aside from invasion.

SECTION 13. Newstates may not enter into any treaty, alliance, confederation, or agreement unless approved by the Boundary Commission hereinafter provided.

HAHAHAHAHA. Yeah right. You do the North American Union without anyone approval, then in the constitution you forbid such a thing... Hypocrisy...

So that's my analysis of the first two articles... The others parts later.

reply posted on 20-1-2007 @ 11:03 AM by Toadmund

Vitchlio said:

in Canada it will be after the next elections if the liberals are in majority with the Bilderberg member, Stephane Dion, a globalist.

Stephan, another Bilderburger?

In Canada, the Liberal Party leadership race concluded with a surprise; Stephan Dion, a one-time Bilderberg guest in 1998 won, ( www.bilderberg.org... ) and now with a leader in place, what does the future of Canadian politics hold? Speculation has been arising about the possibility of a Liberal/Bloc Quebecois attempt at an election, but Harper will not go quiet into that good night, as right now his popularity is unnoticeable at best, and it seems unlikely that the Globalists would want to have another Canadian Prime Minister to mold into the North American Union implementation process, and just after Harper has so easily and forcefully pushed for alignment with the US that has never been so apparent and disregarding of all Canadians' national identity.
infowars.com...

Was he just a 'one time guest?
If not, that would be a shame, because personally I like this guy already, but what's to lose? Harper already is a Bilderburger, AND he sucks (see pic below in sig)
I wonder if Americans would like it if the right to bear arms became a privilege and not a right, like in Canada, or will we be able to get guns like in the US if we became a union?
AND, like mentioned above, is this a ploy so that Mexico and Canada get to share the US Imperialist war debt? Seems to me the US would push for this union, only because there is no other choice, make a union, share the debt, exploit the Mexicans for labour, steal Canada's oil and everybody will just be SOOOO happy

And everyone will eat it up like pigeons with popcorn.

reply posted on 20-1-2007 @ 03:40 PM by Infoholic

This is not a ploy. Research the beginnings to this new (un)constititution. They have used our tax dollars to build what Bushy boy is pushing for.

This can't happen!

reply posted on 20-1-2007 @ 04:49 PM by Jessicamsa

I've been trying to tell my mom about this stuff. She does not believe me. I don't know how to convince people about it. People say it'd be on all the news if it were true and that Lou Dobbs is full of it.

Do you all talk abou this to your family? What are their reactions?

reply posted on 20-1-2007 @ 05:36 PM by Infoholic

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
I've been trying to tell my mom about this stuff. She does not believe me. I don't know how to convince people about it. People say it'd be on all the news if it were true and that Lou Dobbs is full of it.

Do you all talk abou this to your family? What are their reactions?