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.

 

Who's against the North American Union?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DraconianKing
It is one step towards one World Government, it will start with the North American Union and will expand into the Pan American Union. Eventually all the unions will join together and one currency will be formed to please the bankers who are behind this NWO effort. It won't be stopped, you will not be given the choice or chance to stop it.


It CAN be stopped. But what it takes is an informed population that stops thinking of "they would never" and starts thinking of " They always have"




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Nygdan, you must have a neck like an ostrich because your head is buried deep in a hole. Please wake up and do some research before you try to "debunk" a well-known issue with moot points.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Yea infoholic.


The North American Union is about trade, yes. It uses international law to establish the terms of "trade" - and specifies that "commodities" include information, for example.

Another key term - corporations have the right to "negotiate" directly with governments. Just like a nation. Thus giving rise to the concept of "corporate state" as compared to "nation state."

Oh yeah. International trade law overrides national, state, county and provincial law. Every time. ...Another nifty term established under international law in NAFTA and the NAU.

It's not a conspiracy - just good business. And the NAU establishes international corporations as legally superceding all levels of government in North America. Under international law. And specifies that the primary goal is protecting the corporate right 'to profit,' with the clear and legal implication that individuals' and society's rights are secondary. If that.





posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Yet again... "ask each of the members of the European Union to compare their current rights as apposed to what it was before the E.U. was formed."... It's relevant because they have already seen what will happen with the formation of another union. I'm willing to bet my ATS points on the fact that they lost freedoms.


I don't know if you're referring to the countries forming the EU or individuals, but as an individual living in an EU country, here's my 2 euro cents.

I voted for Finland to join the EU.

It may be true that we did lose some freedoms in the legislative sense, but in exchange we also gained some rights. Of course there are naysayers who have very protectionist attitudes and (for example) they don't like the idea of having a freely moving workforce who has a right to work in any member nation. I see that as a benefit. As a professional my job opportunities multiplied in an instant, and if that's not good, what is?

I also like the fact that I have chances to get my voice heard in broader venues than before. I can vote in local, national and EU elections - previously I could only vote in local and national elections. And it's not like we could ignore the other european countries back then - individually or nationally - but now every citizen has more ways and venues to use to try and change their surroundings more to their liking.

In my opinion the old phrase "United we stand, divided we fall" also applies to EU. Individually no country in Europe was able to match the economical and political power of USA, China etc. but EU has much better chances to play and succeed in that company.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
The North American Union is about trade, yes. It uses international law to establish the terms of "trade" - and specifies that "commodities" include information, for example.

Another key term - corporations have the right to "negotiate" directly with governments. Just like a nation. Thus giving rise to the concept of "corporate state" as compared to "nation state."

How is that any different than what we do today? Corporations often have to negotiate with foreign gov'ts to gain a foothold into their markets.


Oh yeah. International trade law overrides national, state, county and provincial law. Every time. ...Another nifty term established under international law in NAFTA and the NAU.

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but what you are saying is that sovereignty would no longer exist. I will have to see evidence of this before I buy it.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
For those of you who don't know about Dr. Ron Paul, you will be shocked to learn what a Great American he is.

Anyway, The North American Union (NAU) is already in effect whether we like it or not. We must become active in fighting the NAU. We are now back to the same condition we as a country were in before the Revolutionary War. The same crooked bankers are running the show, and taxing us into slavery to pay for their outlandish globalist agenda. Soon the dollar will crash in some kind of crazy economic crash, and be replaced by the Amero.

We need to stand tall, shout at the top of our lungs, NO!!!

Our interstate highway system is getting systematically replaced by foreign owned toll roads. We already paid for the interstate, we don't have to pay tolls on roads we already built!! We should have protests that fill washington with angry AMERICANS!!! NOT NORTH AMERICANS!!! GET MAD!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Now then, if the Corridor was implemented with Canada, and Mexico and the Amero was implemented to replace the Dollar, what would this do to the economy?

Here's link on the subject : www.humanevents.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Here's the report on the Amero being into all major banks in America ready for distribution.

My guest: Bush will talk about it next week when he'll talk about the state of the economy.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
living in Canada i vote a No on this one



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alexander1983
living in Canada i vote a No on this one


I'm sure a lot of people agree with you Alexander1983... but has anyone taken into context the idea that we are all going to be forced to fund this move toward a North American Union.

Read the bill: S. 3622 - Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


THE COUNCIL TAKES NO INSTITUTIONAL POSITION ON POLICY ISSUES
AND HAS NO AFFILIATION WITH THE U.S.GOVERNMENT. ALL STATEMENTS
OF FACT AND EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION CONTAINED IN ALL ITS
PUBLICATIONS ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR OR
AUTHORS.
source


I wonder why they forward a bill to the council on foreign relations for approval if they have no position on policy issues and have no affiliation with the U.S. Government. Congress is asking the CFR to ok the American people to pay for the N.A.U.?





top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join