The NAU

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
So how exactly is President Bush going to go through with the North American Union? So far everyone that I spoke to on this matter is pissed off. Bush screwed up big time.




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by NegativeBeef
So how exactly is President Bush going to go through with the North American Union? So far everyone that I spoke to on this matter is pissed off. Bush screwed up big time.


The ones in power want it to happen. The U.S. will be a third world country. No way to stop it from happening since the haves want it to happen to the have nots.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I really want to learn more about the NAU seems odd i just read about it yesterday and dont really get it i know Canada an the US are member of NATO along with alot of others why not just leave it the way it is is the NAU a response to the EU and is Mexico really going to be part of it.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by NegativeBeef
So how exactly is President Bush going to go through with the North American Union? So far everyone that I spoke to on this matter is pissed off. Bush screwed up big time.

I wish people would stop thinking of Bush as some kind of mastermind of everything that is wrong with the world.While certainly not the best man who ever had the job,I don't belive he is anykind of driving force towards the NAU.Bush is down to less than 2 years in office now thank heaven,but regaurdless who wins next fall does anyone think the idea will go away?I'm sure plans were being drawn long before Bush took office and when he's gone nothing will change.I think a closer union between Canada and the US is long overdue.Mexico is the hard part,its citizens do not have a lot in common with their northern neighboors and the current Mexican government doesn't seem to impressed with US policy at the momment.
I'd like to hear some serious reasons besides the old "our founding fathers" line why the NAU is a bad idea.The founding fathers could not envision the future,they made decisions based on what they knew back then, so who's to say they'd disagree with a NAU.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
I wish people would stop thinking of Bush as some kind of mastermind of everything that is wrong with the world.While certainly not the best man who ever had the job,I don't belive he is anykind of driving force towards the NAU.

Not too many people think bush as the mastermind... MOST actually see him as the puppet that he really is. But that's another thread. I do, however, see him as a driving force towards the NAU, the NWO, or whatever may come of it simply due to the fact that more freedoms, rights, and liberties were lost by the American people under his administration as compared to any other in American history.



Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Bush is down to less than 2 years in office now thank heaven,but regaurdless who wins next fall does anyone think the idea will go away?I'm sure plans were being drawn long before Bush took office and when he's gone nothing will change.

A lot of things can, and probably will, happen in the last two years of his administration. Don't turn your cheek quite so hastily or you'll get bitten. Actually, the plans were drawn up by bushy boy and his cohorts. When he's gone, things will change. They will get worse for the "us" if "we" don't do something about it.



Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
I think a closer union between Canada and the US is long overdue.Mexico is the hard part,its citizens do not have a lot in common with their northern neighboors and the current Mexican government doesn't seem to impressed with US policy at the momment.

As I've stated on another thread... If I wanted to be a Canadian, I'd move to Canada. That's why I'm an American citizen. Mexico is the "indifferent" part. Same thing goes. If I wanted to be a Mexican, I'd move to Mexico. Why should any American citizen have to give up being an American just so that someone could fulfill their father's beginning attempt at bringing together the NWO? The Mexican government is very impressed with the US policy(ies) at the moment. Why the hell do you think they "gleefully" joined up with the SPP? They jumped on that wagon as if it was the last train out of hell for them.



Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
I'd like to hear some serious reasons besides the old "our founding fathers" line why the NAU is a bad idea.The founding fathers could not envision the future,they made decisions based on what they knew back then, so who's to say they'd disagree with a NAU.

I'm very uncertain of your "education" on the issues of the NAU by your remarks, so I would like to ask that you post your reasonings as to why the NAU would be a good thing.... at all. What you've stated thus far is quite ignorant, for a lack of better words. The founding fathers of this great nation had a very concise vision of what this nation was to be... then, now, and for the future. They placed their building blocks directly under the footing of what they had lived through already. They could easily foresee what would become of a nation that they began, just the same as I can. I could easily sit here and spout off things that I foresee over the next century, but you wouldn't buy that would you?



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Sorry to offend Infoholic.I was asking for reasons beyond the founding fathers arguement.But since you labelled me ignorant I thought I'd mention that your pretty confidente the founding fathers could forsee the future,as well as yourself.So they knew about atomics,satillites,cell phones,the internet?Seems to me if they did,they would have addressed these issues and how to govern them.The fact is the US doesn't resemble what your founding fathers intended and hasn't for a long time.So why are you so afraid of something new when you've already given up more than you realize.Finally I would like to know exactly what "giving up being an american"means.Just how is your daily life going to change?Or is it just a matter of giving up your status of worlds #1 to join something larger and more important than one patriots indignation at change.I don't think you realize how much electricity,oil,and fresh water Canada contains which the US is already buying all they can get their hands on.So cheaper electricity,oil(potentially worlds second largest supply),and fresh water(Canada has worlds largest supply besides Antartica) will not benifit american citizens?Feel free to sit in the dark with nothing to drink Infoholic.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   
FreeSpeaker,

No offense was taken, personally. I responded only to a reflection on your utter and total disregard to the lives lost that built this nation, continue to support this nation, and the complete disrespect to the fundamental principles that the United States of America was built on.

What reasons are needed beyond what the Founding Fathers provided? I do believe that the Founding Fathers provided our futures with "unalienable" rights, liberties, and freedoms... did they not? Did our Founding Fathers not provide for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Did our Founding Fathers not pay for the right to claim these with the shedding of blood?

I did in fact label you as ignorant due to your "Founding Fathers argument" questionnaire. What the hell formed this nation? What built this nation? What has this nation lived by, for, and with for 231 years? Pure luck? I don't hardly think so. This nation has lived by, for, and with the blood, sweat, and tears of millions that whole heartedly follow the structural foundation of the Founding Fathers.

Again, ignorance pays it's toll. Technologies have nothing to do with the provided freedoms, rights, and liberties, in the sense of limiting them. The items you apparently wish to argue about are privileges, meaning, you don't have to partake in them. The freedoms, rights, and liberties that our Founding Fathers died to provide us with, meant that under no circumstance could they (those rights, liberties, and freedoms) be taken away, regardless of any technological advancement.

The Founding Fathers did address the issues of any technological advancement, since you wish to stand by this argument. The Founding Fathers did so by limiting the powers of the Government.

The United States of America, as you eloquently, and correctly put it, does not resemble what it was intended to be. They, the Founding Fathers, and anyone else that chooses to uphold the foundation of America, didn't happen to put in provisions for the American citizens to be held accountable against apathy and laziness. Unfortunately, they gave the provisions to be free to be apathetic and lethargic.

I am definitely not afraid of something new. What I am disgusted with is the formation of a panel that feels they are free to dismantle the foundation of the United States of America... referencing the SPP, the information provided in the letters that I've written to Congress, and the petition I've created (pointing to the obstruction of the Constitution)... the steps being taken, that people like you seem to take with a grain of salt, are in fact unconstitutional, and in fact treasonous. Read Article 1, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Here, I'll provide it for you.


Article 1 Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
source


What does "giving up being an American" mean? With the formation of the North American Union, do you think you'll still be an American? If so, then you really are more ignorant that I gave you credit for. Upon the formation of the N.A.U., the United States of America will be rendered null and void, right along with our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Check into it.

How will our day to day lives change? Take away every single right, liberty, and freedom that you, I, and any other American citizen share, and you tell me exactly how your day to day life will not change.

The United States of America is no better than any other nation, nor individual, across the globe. Hence, the U.S.A. was built under the guise that "All Men Were Created Equal" (men/women). It's not about "one patriots indignation at change", it's about the death of America... something that I, and millions across the nation will not stand idly by and allow to happen.

Who cares how much electricity, oil, and fresh water Canada contains. Do you think the United States of America is not self sufficient? Do you think the U.S. couldn't be self sufficient?

With the right, privilege, and freedom to partake in the technological advancements set forth by the Founding Fathers, with tight Governmental control... I do not for one second believe I would ever sit in the dark with nothing to drink.



Again, I will ask of you...


Originally posted by Infoholic
...I would like to ask that you post your reasonings as to why the NAU would be a good thing.... at all.


[edit on 3/8/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Infoholic,

I respect what the US's founding fathers created,but you've admitted that the US doesn't resemble what they had intended any longer so how can the founding fathers arguement be valid?The constitution has been ammended many times because of new considerations that the founding fathers could not forsee,which have in part been driven by new tech,or the language no longer representes current standards.You said "Technologies have nothing to do with the provided freedoms, rights, and liberties, in the sense of limiting them".I have to disagree.The US government invaded your right to privacy when they started to monitor google.You said " our Founding Fathers died to provide us with, meant that under no circumstance could they (those rights, liberties, and freedoms) be taken away, regardless of any technological advancement".Well it has already happend.As for the US being self reliant you must be kidding,unless of coarse you advocate just taking by force whatever you need.Canada is the US's largest supplier of oil and natural gas,not to mention supplying the east coast with electricity,so if it was turned off today everything would be fine? If the USA could be self sufficient it would already be,there would be no reason to be involved in the middle east for example.As for the SPP dismantling your way of life,could you give some examples.You've inspired me to futher educate myself on the NAU and SPP,because what I've read sofar doesn't corallate with your view of it,so keep a eye open for a thread I will write in defense of a NAU.

PS, I greatly respect your founding fathers intentions as well as the soldiers that have defended them.That doesn't mean I can't disrespect how your founding principles have been subverted for capitalistic gain.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
FreeSpeaker,

You are obviously not fully reading my posts. It appears to me that you are picking out little bits and pieces of what you want to hear and ignoring the rest.

How in the world can you and I discuss this issue, if that's how you are going to carry yourself?

I greatly anticipate a thread that you would start. I hope that you will in fact gather enough information as I have in order to open your eyes to the discussion in its entirety.

Info.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
You are obviously not fully reading my posts. It appears to me that you are picking out little bits and pieces of what you want to hear and ignoring the rest.

I assure you I am reading your post and considering your points,and I admit i'm not fond of the founding fathers arguement because its always the first denfense used in opposition to globalization or in this case the NAU,so sorry if you think i'm not giving it its due.Both Canada and the US have had their idenities subverted by immigration and greedy capitalists,so I no longer hold eithers founding principles as a valid arguement for opposition to a NAU.Trust me that I wish things hadn't gone so astray in both systems but it has happend and there is no going back.Until I post my thread on the NAU I thought I'd leave this as a opening to that discussion.


the 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 U.S section of the SPP is headed by the Department of Commerce.

Fact: The SPP is a White House-driven initiative. In the United States, the Department of Commerce coordinates the ‘Prosperity’ component, while the Department of Homeland Security coordinates the ‘Security’ component. The Department of State ensures the two components are coordinated and are consistent with U.S. foreign policy



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
I assure you I am reading your post and considering your points,and I admit i'm not fond of the founding fathers arguement because its always the first denfense used in opposition to globalization or in this case the NAU,so sorry if you think i'm not giving it its due.Both Canada and the US have had their idenities subverted by immigration and greedy capitalists,so I no longer hold eithers founding principles as a valid arguement for opposition to a NAU.Trust me that I wish things hadn't gone so astray in both systems but it has happend and there is no going back.Until I post my thread on the NAU I thought I'd leave this as a opening to that discussion.


FreeSpeaker,

Using the Founding Fathers' argument as a defense against globalization??? It's using the founding principles as a defense of a nation... a sovereign nation.

You have came across in our discussion as the NAU is the answer to fix the problems with the Governments, because they have strayed away from what the Founding Fathers created.

You, my friend, have it all wrong.

The people of Canada and the United States of America need to step away from the television (yes, stop watching soap operas and who wants to be a millionaire) and learn their government and exactly what's going on.

Further annihilation of freedom, rights, and liberties is no way to fix what a handful of corrupt people have done. The issue you, IMHO, need to address is apathy.

The reason that this great nation has gone downhill, is because there are too many people that are just too damn lazy, or ignorant to the fact of what is going on.... hence my comment of you not reading my post completely... because I said this...


Originally posted by Infoholic
The United States of America, as you eloquently, and correctly put it, does not resemble what it was intended to be. They, the Founding Fathers, and anyone else that chooses to uphold the foundation of America, didn't happen to put in provisions for the American citizens to be held accountable against apathy and laziness. Unfortunately, they gave the provisions to be free to be apathetic and lethargic.


As for your posting the disinformation posted on the web by the Government themselves... beautiful.
If you choose to buy into their BS, then so be it. Don't expect the rest of the nation to accept it blindly... oh wait, that would mean you are asking them to be apathetic, yet again.


If you would like me to, or if it would make you feel better, I can easily pick apart each piece of the "Myth vs. Fact" sheet that the government posted on their website. Go ahead and get that thread started, and send me an invite. I'll be all over that like white on rice.



Info



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Infoholic,

When did I suggest that the NAU is the solution to fix the governments?
I belive I was saying that because Canada and the US no longer resemble their intended form,whats the point of objecting to something that can only benifit all three nations.If you think things will go back to the way things were 200 years ago,you are living in your own imagination.I belive I've asked you how your rights and freedoms will be affected by a NAU and all you have responded with is ignorant criticism that stinks of a lack of a open mind.You have no consideration for the fact that a NAU can mean good things for trade and defense of these three nations,which the US will be the major benifiter of.As for the government disinformation you say I posted,feel free to pick it apart because i'm actually interested in your opinion(despite your low opinion of mine),and please list any other sites that meet your obviously high standards reguarding the NAU or SPP.I just hope your sites aren't just like minded people as yourself all agreeing with each other.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
FreeSpeaker,

I take your stance against the Founding Father argument to be a stance for the NAU being a fix for the failed governments today, because the Founding Fathers' ideals are what formed the United States of America, thus telling me you believe the Founding Fathers' ideals "failed" (which is blatantly incorrect) due to the corruption and misguidance in the governments today.

Maybe I need to apologize for my comment stating the United States of America no longer resembles what it was formed to be, because it still does, just not to the extent it was originally formed in. The masses have been diverted from the original forming foundation of this nation with WMD... weapons of mass distraction. Hence, my repeated comment of apathy and lethargy.

The only nation to benefit from a union of the three in question would be Mexico. Canada, I'm not certain of rights, liberties, etc there, but I am certain there is no other nation on this planet with the same rights, liberties, and freedoms that the general populous of America share.

The original formation of this union that took place 200+ years ago, can and will continue to work today and for many many years to come, as long as people were to learn what is theirs, and lose that creature of apathy.

As far as answering your question about what rights etc. would be effected by the NAU, I was kind of hoping that you would find that information out for yourself. If I were to point it out, I'll end up arguing agaisnt an uneducated decision making process.

Ignorant criticism that stinks of a lack of an open mind, huh? If that shoe fits, then I'll gladly wear it, because I for one will not stand idly by while the demise of our nation is taking place right before our very eyes. So be it. There is no single reason good enough for me to renounce my American citizenship so that I can join a trilateral union under the guise of furthering one man's dream of fulfilling his father's. No words could be strong enough to encourage me to give up the rights, freedoms, and liberties that are protected under the United States Constitution. Demanding that my rights stay in tact is a lack of an open mind?

The NAU is no more better for the trade or defense than what we have now. There are already means of open trade with Mexico and Canada that will have 0 benefit from the formation of the NAU. I have not seen one single change that would benefit anyone, besides the Mexican populous. Would you like me to elaborate on that one, or can you find that information for yourself?

Government disinformation... SPP is the official governmental website where the hosted "information" is nothing more than what they want you to believe. If you want to accuse me of being close minded, you need to look in a mirror. Look elsewhere for the information about the North American Union. I implore you to do that. Then come back and we'll discuss the NAU. I have in fact looked for myself, and I have in fact written to my congressional representatives to ask for information regarding the NAU. Have you by chance followed one of my other threads about this very topic? The information that those in the seats of the government provide me with, are misleading to say the least. Research the provided information. But don't take my word for it.

I assure you, picking apart the SPP website myth vs. fact sheet will be nothing containing opinion. It will be based on fact. Constitutional fact.

Just to get you started on your way, look here for a very simple google search.
Read these posts found on a boolean search from ATS.
Even more information can be found on a Prison Planet.com search.
Or maybe a bit diverse search on Ask.com


Read up, FreeSpeaker. Let me know what you come up with, start your NAU thread (and I'll come pick it apart
), and I'll even take the time to point out to you where your rights, freedoms, and liberties will be affected. But, I will not do that until you have had a chance to search this out a bit for yourself. I'm not going to sit here and argue with a brick wall (no pun intended towards you). You must agree that it is impossible to have a discussion with "anyone" that doesn't have their 'ducks in a row'.




Info

[edit on 3/8/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Infoholic,

The fact is i've already read more than the sites you mentioned and still have not found any definent evidence that your rights or mine are in danger from the SPP or a NAU.I've found lots of speculation and opinions but no proof.
As for Mexico being the biggest benifactor,I'll partly agree.But the SPP is a US designed policy and lets be honest,if the US didn't benifit in any significant way they wouldn't have proposed it.

But enough of our disagreement,until nextime.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
FreeSpeaker,

Thus far in our "disagreement" you've only been able to debunk what I say. Let me give you an example of debunking.


FreeSpeaker - "Infoholic, what's your name?"
Info - "Infoholic."
FreeSpeaker - "No, it's not." (



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Infoholic,

I'm begining to wonder if you have checked any Mexican or Canadian sources,there's more than just the american side to this issue.For example, have you checked www.globalresearch.ca,a Canadian site which you might find a little more forthcoming than some US sites.I also recomend some mexican or canadian articles.Still no proof that I will wake up one morning with all my rights suspended without exercising my right to vote on it.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   
FreeSpeaker,

Globalresearch is a fine collection of articles, however, a bit difficult to get through with that proverbial fine tooth comb. I did several different searches and came up with only a few nearly related articles on the NAU. Could you post a few of your outstanding links for me, please.

As far as taking into consideration the Canadian and Mexican viewpoints... could you explain to me why I should want to relinquish my rights to make another country (or two) happy? You just don't get it, do you?

Do a search for "New States Constitution" on google, and one of the 1st links you see will be what the new Constitution will be. But don't take my word for it, research it. If you think things will be that bed of roses that you imagine, that's great.

As well, have you been able to vote on anything that has taken place with the SPP, or the North American Union movement thus far? What makes you think you'll be able to vote on that when the time comes? All that is left (besides fine tuning the NAU articles of agreement) is that mighty stroke of a pen.

Something I haven't asked thus far, but I can easily assume... I take it you are a Canadian, right?



Info.

[edit on 3/9/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
The only reason i can see for this is agreement is in responce to the Shanghai Co-operation Agreement[en.wikipedia.org...], of which members are China, Russia and soon to be Iran and Pakistan, India also maintanes observer status. Another reason i can see is that France and Germany have been more or less amalgimating there military defence industrys and along with Spanish and Italian oil interests theyve more or less been competing very openly with America. The Anglo American alliance is about all America has with relations in Europe. Makes sense really, a European super state under the Euro is the last thing America wants and try as it might it has failed in its efforts to stop it from happening.

en.wikipedia.org...

that is a good resource for any information pretaining to the NAU.



[edit on 9-3-2007 by Starvald]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Starvald,

Maybe I don't quite understand exactly what you are trying to point out (besides some nations worldwide are joining at the hip), but it seems to me that you think the formation of the NAU (or at least it's agreement) is a good thing... simply because "everyone else is doing it".

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The fact that "everyone else is doing it" is not a good enough reason. Just because people of every nation, across the globe, are doing drugs or blowing themselves up, or *giving up their rights* to obtain a false sense of security is no reason to give up each owns rights and liberties.

As far as the US being worried about the formation of a "European Super State"... I don't really think the US is willingly going to follow suit with them, considering in 1776 "we" fought tooth and nail to separate from them and their way of life.

Your provided link to wikipedia is a good source as a starter point.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I beleive such cooperative agreements have there good points and there bad points, however i was just pointing out the reasons i beleive it is happening in reaction to the formation of new power blocks, power blocks which in reality challenge American hegemony of the planet.

Of course America is not going to follow suit with Europe we use different currencys, and that is the fundamental reasons for these cooperative agreements, protect the economy you control whilst being in direct competition against others. Of course, the entire planet could revert back to individual city states and principalities but i think thats rather extreme and chances are there would most definatly be far less rights as the average person is concernd. Single nations can no longer support themselves they are slowly but surely being assimilated, it is just unfortunate however 9 times out of 10 lesser nations happen to be turnd into the battlegrounds for the larger more predominant nations.

"considering in 1776 "we" fought tooth and nail to separate from them and their way of life"

LOL by doing what?, asking the French to win the war of independance?, to be honest the american war of Independance was as much a European war as it was a British American war.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by Starvald]





top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join