The NAU

Sorry mods,forgot the souce to my listing of the spp myth vs fact sheet.

Here it is spp

[edit on 10-3-2007 by FreeSpeaker]

[edit on 11-3-2007 by FreeSpeaker]

[edit on 11-3-2007 by FreeSpeaker]

Originally posted by SBDAL
Infoholic... seeing as I'm not proficient at using search engines to do research, I would like to know of (links) or see proof that the NAU would be bad. I know the government is not 100% truthful with the populous and that the myth vs fact sheet could be a bunch of BS, but how do we know for sure?

There's basically only three that you really need to "know" and "understand" that would "show" the formation of the North American Union to be bad. (and no, there is no pun)

The United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.

These three things are the most important building blocks to the Nation that we live in today. These three things set forth the limitations on the Federal Government, and provide the means for the American people to ensure that they always possess the collective capability to claim and exercise their unalienable rights.

Now, first and foremost, you must get it out of your head the idea laid before you by the Federal Government, that this is but a means to protect you or to better your economic futures. That is complete hogwash.

Without those three items... you tell me, or better yet, ask yourself... "With no Constitution, what is going to protect my rights? What is going to protect my freedoms?"

Originally posted by SBDAL
They say we won't have a common currency. What situation do you believe will arise that will bring about calls for one? I love my country (US) and would never give up my rights. However, in my mind I cannot help but think that it would be selfish of me to deny the NAU (if indeed it comes packaged as they say it would be). If it helps, what?, 30+ million Canadians and 150+ million Mexicans achieve a better life, then why not? We should be helping them, and any other country, to achieve a level of success that the US has enjoyed for so long. We're all human when it comes down to it. Also, I can't seem to "read between the lines". I don't know exactly what it is you're expecting us to find. I, for one, would like you to pick the myth vs fact sheet apart (if you have the time). I'm new to all this, so please bear with me.

If the formation of the NAU, under the guise of the SPP, should continue or take place, there will not be further "calling" for a common currency other than the formation of a new "nation", also referred to as the "New States" If the SPP continues on in their current direction and momentum, there will be a formed union just like the European Union, of which the EU has a Euro and the "New States" would use the *proposed* Amero.

I assure you I would love to pick apart the Myth vs. Fact sheet from the SPP, and I will. However, right now I am extremely tired as I just got home from working a 12hr night shift. But I will leave you with this....

1st example - On the SPP website, myth vs. fact sheet, you'll see it says the following:

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.

This is in fact true. There has never been a "signed" treaty or agreement. Do you know why? Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution states:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing 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

Do you know what a "state" is? Here's the legal definition:

state
n. 1) the federal or state government and any of its departments, agencies or components (such as a city, county or board). 2) any of the 50 states comprising the United States. 3) a nation's government.
source

That says, per the Constitution... the federal government cannot enter into a confederation, of which the North American Union would be.

Take that a step further, by forming the North American Union, do you honestly think all three nations are going to agree to follow the US Constitution? Nope. There will be a homogenized, or blended, version... thus nullifying the current Constitution. Hmm... something that basically kills the Constitution? What would that be?....

treason
n. the crime of betraying one's country, defined in Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the information could harm American security. Treason can include revealing to an antagonistic country secrets such as the design of a bomber being built by a private company for the Defense Department. Treason may include "espionage" (spying for a foreign power or doing damage to the operation of the government and its agencies, particularly those involved in security) but is separate and worse than "sedition," which involves a conspiracy to upset the operation of the government.
source

Now, I've only covered their opening statement on the Myth vs. Fact sheet. Do I have you attention, yet? This is no joke I'm trying to sell. This is not hogwash. This is right in your face, nearly treasonous activities by our Federal Government... and they don't want you to know or understand what they are up to. And I say "nearly" because all that's lacking thus far is a signature... of which the SPP has sold you the "fact" that there hasn't been one.


I'd be happy to continue, but I must sleep.



Good day,



Info.

[edit on 3/11/2007 by Infoholic]

Well done infoholic! Nice research and wtg connecting the dots!
WATS to you!

After the rapture there will be chaos, and people will want someone to lead them. So they won't care about treason.

Info:

"Now, first and foremost, you must get it out of your head the idea laid before you by the Federal Government, that this is but a means to protect you or to better your economic futures. That is complete hogwash".

How though? I still don't understand. I can't just simply go by your say-so. What makes you think that it if an NAU confederation were to form, it would be bad? Are the freedoms you have now, and might lose as a result of the SPP, the only thing you're worried about? Are you under the assumption that if the SPP morphs into the NAU all of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence would be wiped out? How could they possibly get away with all of this? How could roughly 480 million people agree to this? Agree to have their rights stripped of them and to live in a unified North America that would only lead to an NWO? I'm sorry if I am sounding repetitive, but it's just that I can't quite grasp the notion of this. I am sure of conspiracies floating around in governments ALL over the world. However, I can't be so close minded (not that you are or anyone who shares your viewpoint) as to think that everything the government does is all a plot to somehow bring the world closer to a one world government.

"If the formation of the NAU, under the guise of the SPP, should continue or take place, there will not be further "calling" for a common currency other than the formation of a new "nation", also referred to as the "New States" If the SPP continues on in their current direction and momentum, there will be a formed union just like the European Union, of which the EU has a Euro and the "New States" would use the *proposed* Amero".

Okay... I need an explanation on that one. As of yet, is the SPP going down the same path as the EU did? While we're on the subject of the EU, would you consider it to be a bad thing? If so, could you please provide me with some examples? I have never really thought twice or really followed up on the EU and have never heard anything negative until I wandered onto ATS. It is all interesting to say the least. I will, however, be honest and say I am a bit suspicious that I never heard (maybe it WAS in TV and I just plain missed it) of any news story about the leaders of Mexico, Canada and the US meeting to form SPP. I'm on the fence on this one. I'm interested in what you or anyone else has to say concerning the SPP and the NAU and how it would lead, or not lead, us closer to a NWO. Thanks.

Infoholic,

Is this guy's postings an example of debunking you were talking about in the other thread?

This is the beginnings of a one world government.

I can't see there being a one world government. Maybe it's just me. All the time, money and effort to do this and for what? I am under the impression that some people believe the NAU is a step closer to a NWO, same with the EU. If that's the road "they" are taking then they would have to do the same to Africa, Asia, the Middle East and South America. It would be a tireless campaign for them to do that. If you build up a union of sorts, then one could break down 10, 20 or even 30 years later. They'd have to go back and reunify that one, but still, a different one could break down 5 years later. Excuse me if I offend anyone, as it is not my intention, but it seems to me that most of the NWO rhetoric comes from Christians preaching the word. The word that rapture and the end of times are coming.

I appreciate the "I'm not sure if I trust you" idea, but it's to no surprise to me. I don't want, nor expect anyone to "trust" me. I'll point you in the right direction to gather the information for yourself. It's up to you what you're going to do with it.

To lean towards the idea a little bit further as "how's this going to be bad" or "how's the NAU going to strip my rights" or whatever you want to call it, check this out...

The North American Union would be unionized under the "New States Constitution" as I've mentioned earlier in this thread. People have spent 25 million dollars of the Americans taxpayer dollars, and many years to formulate the "homogenized" constitution that I spoke of earlier.

Here's a link to it. There's plenty of information included so that you can research for yourself who, what, when, where, and why this was brought to be.

A CONSTITUTION FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA, from the book, THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION by Rexford G. Tugwell, published 1974 (Harper & Row: $20.00) illustrates with chilling clarity the final objective of regional governance conspirators. The goal is a corporate state concentrating economic, political and social powers in the hands of a ruling elite. "A Constitution for the Newstates of America", is the fortieth version of this revolutionary document prepared by a team of social experimenters at the CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, Fund for the Republic (Ford Foundation), Post Office Box 4068, Santa Barbara, California 93103.

The Center, its first objective accomplished, has appointed socialist-oriented University of Denver Chancellor Maurice B. Mitchell as its new head and may merge with the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, a Colorado-based world government policy promotion agency.

Aspen Institute Chairman is Robert O. Anderson, chief executive officer, Atlantic Richfield Company; member, Committee for Economic Development (laid ground work for regional government), and advisory board member, Institute for International Education. Anderson is the principal figure in campaign aimed at seizing control of the National Rifle Association.
credits

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.
source

Again, don't take my word for it. Do your own research. Don't just tell me that the information that I've provided for you "doesn't cut the cake" (or whatever euphemism you want to use), prove it with viable proof from your own research.

Originally posted by wildcat
After the rapture there will be chaos, and people will want someone to lead them. So they won't care about treason.

That will be then, this is now. Just because we all know (for some anyway) what will happen in the future, does that mean that all people should just lay down and play dead before hand? No one knows exactly when rapture will happen... it could be today, tomorrow, next week, next month, a decade from now, or a hundred years, etc. etc.

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
Is this guy's postings an example of debunking you were talking about in the other thread?

This is the beginnings of a one world government.

Kinda sorta. This particular guy's responses are more like disinformation being spouted from a government agent. Which, I don't mind arguing with them. It just gets me to dig a bit deeper to find more information so that I may share it with people, anyway.

Yes, you are correct, this (along with many other illicit activities) is the beginnings of a One World Government.

Originally posted by SBDAL
All the time, money and effort to do this and for what? I am under the impression that some people believe the NAU is a step closer to a NWO, same with the EU. If that's the road "they" are taking then they would have to do the same to Africa, Asia, the Middle East and South America.

Info.

Info:
"Again, don't take my word for it. Do your own research. Don't just tell me that the information that I've provided for you "doesn't cut the cake" (or whatever euphemism you want to use), prove it with viable proof from your own research."

LoL. I will do my own research then. Just wanted someone who already knows the subject to shed some light on it for me (instead of telling me to do my own research). Please do not take my questions to your answers personally. It doesn't mean I think you're full of it, it just means I need further explanation, sorry. I'll read up on the links you provided (thank you, by the way) and will get back to you. I'm not here to argue, just want to learn more about this topic.

And I can't really figure out what was so funny about what I said. Again, you must have thought my opinion is aligned with those who believe the SPP won't turn into the NAU. Again I am not one of those. I was merely asking questions to satisfy my curiosity.

Infoholic,

Since your quoting the United States Constitution and implying that a NAU would be treasonous,I thought a reread of the constitution was in order,and I wasn't suprized to find some conflicts with your satements.For example,

Article. I.
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 any Thing 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

Article. II.
Section. 2.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments
Source

As you can see,the the president can make a treaty provided two thirds of the senators present concur despite article.1. section.10. of the constitution.

Futhermore,

Article. IV.
Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Source

If a NAU was to be formed,the constitution gives the government the right to admitt new states with the consent of the states concerned as well as congress.
Finally,

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Source

[edit on 11-3-2007 by FreeSpeaker]

By my interpertation of the constitution,there is legal ground for a NAU should the proper amendments be made to the constitution which is a right provided by the constitution.If in fact such a treaty was ratified by a 2/3 majority of the US government,there would be nothing treasonous about it.Should you object to such a treaty with violence you would be the one commiting treason.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by FreeSpeaker]

[edit on 11-3-2007 by FreeSpeaker]

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
As you can see,the the president can make a treaty provided two thirds of the senators present concur despite article.1. section.10. of the constitution.

Do you understand the difference of a treaty and a confederation? I specifically pointed out the "confederation aspect".

Treaty - A formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade.
Confederation - A group of confederates, especially of states or nations, united for a common purpose; a league.

As you can see, the idea of a "treaty" would be for 'trade' purposes, of which the trade agreements already in place for the "sovereign" nations of North American do not need to unify as one nation as to have an improvement in said trade. However, furthering trade with a "treaty" can in fact be made by the President ***only*** with the approval of 2/3's Congress. The idea of a "confederation", of which is the concern with the SPP is specifically prohibited by the Constitution, with absolutely no other provisions set forth for the President, anywhere.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
If a NAU was to be formed,the constitution gives the government the right to admitt new states with the consent of the states concerned as well as congress.

*sigh*

Article 4 Section 3 does not even apply here. Nice try, but not even remotely close.

As I've already pointed out, repeatedly, the concern with the SPP is the formation of a North American Union, of which would be a "confederation" of the three nations. The joining of the three nations in question as one, is not allowing the nations of Canada and Mexico to join as part of the United States. They would be forming one singular nation consisting of the three nations that "once were". By doing so would render the U.S. Constitution null and void, (drumroll please.................) thus being a treasonous act.


As far as the Amendment process... Article 1 Section 10 already covered that. It prevents the "state" (which to your dismay includes all 3 branches of government and to the states level) from making an Amendment that would allow the "confederation" of any of it's (the Constitution's) protected "States" (50 States on down the "We the People").


Am I making this easy enough for you to understand?

Originally posted by SBDAL
LoL. I will do my own research then. Just wanted someone who already knows the subject to shed some light on it for me (instead of telling me to do my own research). Please do not take my questions to your answers personally. It doesn't mean I think you're full of it, it just means I need further explanation, sorry. I'll read up on the links you provided (thank you, by the way) and will get back to you. I'm not here to argue, just want to learn more about this topic.

I encourage you to do your own research so that you can make your own conclusion as to the information that is readily available across the www. If you want my opinions, I'll give them as I have already done. If you want to be spoonfed the ins and outs of the NAU/SPP, then don't question what I feed you. I have shed plenty of light thus far and what I get in return is a "That's not good enough for me." idealism. What could possibly be enough for you if you don't take what has been laid before you as compared to the U.S. Constitution. It's right there in black and white, and it's not as if I'm making any of it up. If I'm interpreting what you have said incorrectly, then by all means, please forgive me.

Originally posted by SBDAL
And I can't really figure out what was so funny about what I said. Again, you must have thought my opinion is aligned with those who believe the SPP won't turn into the NAU. Again I am not one of those. I was merely asking questions to satisfy my curiosity.

I was laughing about your comment......................:

All the time, money and effort to do this and for what? I am under the impression that some people believe the NAU is a step closer to a NWO, same with the EU. If that's the road "they" are taking then they would have to do the same to Africa, Asia, the Middle East and South America.

................ because they have already done the same to Africa, Asia/Middle East, and South America.


African Union - already done
South Asian Union - proposed
South American Union - already done



Now, is there any other way I could convince you that I'm not full of hogwash, or are you enjoying this little game we are playing?



Info.

[edit on 3/12/2007 by Infoholic]

Ok I've read up on the links you provided me. As far as this New States Constitution, I am very skeptical. I did a Google search on it and found only 1 link to anything refering to it (the very first link). The website, home.iae.nl... doesn't seem credible to me. It doesn't look very professional and could have been put together by anyone. Check the main page of the site home.claranet.nl... They talk of cosmic laws and celestial news. Sounds too much like a cult for my taste. Your link, www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm, didn't jump out at me as anything to be concerned about. Only thing that seemed might anger people was the right to bear arms being taken away. I, for one, applaud that. Too many innocent people are being killed and/or robbed because of irresponsible and devious people using guns.

As far as the South Asia Union, it is a proposed idea. A proposed idea by a civilian... not a person with influence who could make this happen.
www.sulekha.com... this link will take you to a site that the original author, of the link you provided me with, is a registered member of.

Here's a quote: "This is the first step towards establishment of new world order under Indian initiatives to promote economic, political and social justice in the world and formation powerful of Alliance of Asian Armies to enforce peace justice and security in the world specially Asia in true sense."

If anything, it sounds as if this guy is some extremist of some kind. He wants India to promote this whole alliance so that armies of Asia could unite and ENFORCE peace? I don't know about that one. It doesn't seem legitamite enough for me to believe it. Saulat Kamran, the man who wrote this proposed idea, has posted the same message to many blogs and news sites in Asia.

www.sulekha.com... Thats the link to what he said. Is this what you're talking about? www.dawn.com... This site lays out the whole agreement. Here's an tiny piece of it.
"Withdrawal:

1. Any Contracting State may withdraw from this Agreement at any time after its entry into force. Such withdrawal shall be effective on expiry of six months from the date on which a written notice thereof is received by the secretary-general of the Saarc, the depositary of this Agreement. That Contracting State shall simultaneously inform the committee of experts of the action it has taken.

2. The rights and obligations of a Contracting State which has withdrawn from this Agreement shall cease to apply as of that effective date.

3. Following the withdrawal by any Contracting State, the committee shall meet within 30 days to consider action subsequent to withdrawal."

Article 14 is quite interesting as well.

About the African Union, I agree as far as it's existence. I could have seen this one a mile away. Africa has been in much turmoil. Economies have failed and disease runs rampid. I applaud the countries in Africa who have made this big leap in bettering thier continent. Some of the poorest countries are in Africa. They need and deserve this. Here's a link to the AU Constitutive Act: www.au2002.gov.za...

Article 3's objectives sound promising (especially objectives a,b and h). As with the proposed South Asia Union, any member state can withdraw from the union at any time.

www.answers.com...
This is a link to another site having some backround information on SACN. As of now, all member states are still using their original forms of currency. Although I found this article english.people.com.cn... which has the Peruvian president calling for a single currency. This would also be a logical unification for me.

So in conclusion. I am not worried about the SPP, NAU or NWO. Not enough evidence for me. Not saying it's not true or could one day be a reality, but for now with what I had at hand, it doesn't worry me. If you have anything else that you think would be of use to me, then please share.

Originally posted by SBDAL
Ok I've read up on the links you provided me. As far as this New States Constitution, I am very skeptical. I did a Google search on it and found only 1 link to anything refering to it (the very first link). The website, home.iae.nl... doesn't seem credible to me. It doesn't look very professional and could have been put together by anyone. Check the main page of the site home.claranet.nl... They talk of cosmic laws and celestial news. Sounds too much like a cult for my taste. Your link, www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm, didn't jump out at me as anything to be concerned about. Only thing that seemed might anger people was the right to bear arms being taken away. I, for one, applaud that. Too many innocent people are being killed and/or robbed because of irresponsible and devious people using guns.

You're skeptical of the website or the New States Constitution? If you're skeptical of the website, that's not a good reason, because a website can be written in crayon by a 3 year old as long as the information provided is credible. If you're skeptical of the New States Constitution, again, in the paragraph before the preamble, there's information there that you might want to research before you disregard it.

Debunking a website due to "cosmic and celestial news"???
If that's your case, then why are you visiting ATS? There's news about UFOs and religious conspiracies here, too. :shk:

There's way more to the New States Constitution that you seem to be oblivious to besides the loss of the right to bear arms. And on that note, by taking guns/weapons away from the general populous (law abiding, anyway), do you honestly believe that will result in a lack of crime? Criminals will find a way to obtain those weapons for their devious benefit. I'll get a weapon to protect myself, my family, and my nation from those criminals.

Originally posted by SBDAL
As far as the South Asia Union, it is a proposed idea. A proposed idea by a civilian... not a person with influence who could make this happen.
www.sulekha.com... this link will take you to a site that the original author, of the link you provided me with, is a registered member of.

Here's a quote: "This is the first step towards establishment of new world order under Indian initiatives to promote economic, political and social justice in the world and formation powerful of Alliance of Asian Armies to enforce peace justice and security in the world specially Asia in true sense."

If anything, it sounds as if this guy is some extremist of some kind. He wants India to promote this whole alliance so that armies of Asia could unite and ENFORCE peace? I don't know about that one. It doesn't seem legitamite enough for me to believe it. Saulat Kamran, the man who wrote this proposed idea, has posted the same message to many blogs and news sites in Asia.

I already saw that, that is why I listed it as proposed.

Info:

Yes, I know you know that the South Asian Union is proposed (ty for the rolling eyes). I was more interested in who proposed it. Some fanatical guy in Bangladesh ranting about preventing Asian enslavement and ENFORCING peace. I am not lending any credibility to someone who promotes violence such as he suggested.

About the whole celestial voyages... did you take a look at the website? There's alot more wierd things there besides UFO's. They talk about them being aliens and being able to morph into humans. They also talk about harvesting souls. Here's a link from within their website:

www.operationterra.com...

Here's an quote:
"The elohim are here. They have incarnated as ordinary humans in order to act as lightning rods, to draw down and anchor the energy of change, and to assist in the birthing of the new age. It will be necessary to evacuate those who are destined to inhabit Terra, for the necessary cleansing will render the present body of Earth uninhabitable for a time. The evacuees will be taken in their physical bodies to another location, where they will prepare themselves for the colonization of Terra, the "New Earth." The remainder of this information will deal with the details of that process and paint a vision that those who can "hear" will be able to hold in their hearts and minds and that will help them to understand the necessity of the cleansing that is soon to take place."

Excuse me?! If that isn't a cult then I don't know what is. It's not so much that I am skeptical of the New States Constitution as I am the website. If it is affiliated with a website that claims the Earth will perish and all physical bodies will be transported to Terra (The New Earth) then it's credibility drops in my book.

Of course taking arms away from the citizens (law abiding or not) will not wipe out shootings or theft. People would just substitute firearms for knives or bats, lol. It would decline, I am almost sure of that. Just like anything you make illegal, there will be a underground market for them. I am talking about these kids that get a firearm from daddy's closet and go on a shooting spree because some kids made fun of his/her acne or weight problem, the wanna-be thug who steals a gun from a home to committ a robbery and/or murder, the jealous (ex) husband who takes his revenge out on his wife and lover and countless accidents that happen in homes where young children die from accidental shootings. I could go further into this subject, but this thread is about SPP not gun control. If you'd like to point out to me (because I am oblivious :@@ what more there is to this New States Constitution that I missed, I'd be more than happy to read it.

Would you agree with my assumption that the African Union could/would be a good thing? That the people of Africa have gone through so much tragedy, that something like this would actually be beneficial to them as opposed to some plot to take over the world?

Originally posted by SBDAL
Yes, I know you know that the South Asian Union is proposed (ty for the rolling eyes). I was more interested in who proposed it. Some fanatical guy in Bangladesh ranting about preventing Asian enslavement and ENFORCING peace. I am not lending any credibility to someone who promotes violence such as he suggested.

I'm not here to debate the credibility of one person's goal of forming, or vouching for, the South Asian Union. I could care less about that unification. I care very much about the unification of the US with any other country, of which would take away my rights, freedoms, and liberties.

Originally posted by SBDAL
About the whole celestial voyages... did you take a look at the website? There's alot more wierd things there besides UFO's. They talk about them being aliens and being able to morph into humans. They also talk about harvesting souls.

Excuse me?! If that isn't a cult then I don't know what is. It's not so much that I am skeptical of the New States Constitution as I am the website. If it is affiliated with a website that claims the Earth will perish and all physical bodies will be transported to Terra (The New Earth) then it's credibility drops in my book.

Conspiracies in Religion
Paranormal Studies
Mythical Beasts
Aliens and UFOs

There's plenty of people here that believe in the types of things that you are boasting that would essentially make said websites "not credible". Again, if you are going to think that way, what business do you have on ATS?

Originally posted by SBDAL
Of course taking arms away from the citizens (law abiding or not) will not wipe out shootings or theft. People would just substitute firearms for knives or bats, lol. It would decline, I am almost sure of that. Just like anything you make illegal, there will be a underground market for them. I am talking about these kids that get a firearm from daddy's closet and go on a shooting spree because some kids made fun of his/her acne or weight problem, the wanna-be thug who steals a gun from a home to committ a robbery and/or murder, the jealous (ex) husband who takes his revenge out on his wife and lover and countless accidents that happen in homes where young children die from accidental shootings. I could go further into this subject, but this thread is about SPP not gun control. If you'd like to point out to me (because I am oblivious :@@

what more there is to this New States Constitution that I missed, I'd be more than happy to read it.

People like you with this type of mentality are the ones that make it that much easier for those to do the things that we've discussed in this thread. There's other threads to discuss the 2nd Amendment so I won't waste my time by beating my head against a brick wall with you there. :bnghd:

Originally posted by SBDAL
Would you agree with my assumption that the African Union could/would be a good thing? That the people of Africa have gone through so much tragedy, that something like this would actually be beneficial to them as opposed to some plot to take over the world?

Well sure. Absolutely. And as I've already stated, the fact that someone else is doing it, doesn't bring anything remotely close to justification of the US joining/forming a North American Union as to benefit Mexico. For the past 200+ years, the US has formed their own nation, and at the same time, have been there to aide other countries. Are you suggesting that the US join a union with each nation we've ever helped? That is just absurd.

Info:

"I'm not here to debate the credibility of one person's goal of forming, or vouching for, the South Asian Union. I could care less about that unification. I care very much about the unification of the US with any other country, of which would take away my rights, freedoms, and liberties."

Spoken like a true American. The whole "I don't care what happens to any other country, as long as it doesn't affect mine" is absolutely the wrong attitude to have. NAU will NEVER happen... I repeat NEVER happen.

"There's plenty of people here that believe in the types of things that you are boasting that would essentially make said websites "not credible". Again, if you are going to think that way, what business do you have on ATS? "

Wow.... Again, did you even look at the website? Here's that quote again:
"The elohim are here. They have incarnated as ordinary humans in order to act as lightning rods, to draw down and anchor the energy of change, and to assist in the birthing of the new age. It will be necessary to evacuate those who are destined to inhabit Terra, for the necessary cleansing will render the present body of Earth uninhabitable for a time. The evacuees will be taken in their physical bodies to another location, where they will prepare themselves for the colonization of Terra, the "New Earth." The remainder of this information will deal with the details of that process and paint a vision that those who can "hear" will be able to hold in their hearts and minds and that will help them to understand the necessity of the cleansing that is soon to take place."

Show me one thread (in ATS) having someone hawking this BS and people actually buying into it. Just because I don't believe in paranormal studies doesn't mean I should revoke my membership here and leave.

"People like you with this type of mentality are the ones that make it that much easier for those to do the things that we've discussed in this thread."

Look, the day I hear about Canada, Mexico and the US forming a union, adopting a common currency and stripping our rights, then I'll believe you. Until then this is all just people getting into hysterics over nothing. Over countries trying to help each other out. Seriously, do you think there's a sinister motive behind everything the government does?

"Well sure. Absolutely. And as I've already stated, the fact that someone else is doing it, doesn't bring anything remotely close to justification of the US joining/forming a North American Union as to benefit Mexico. For the past 200+ years, the US has formed their own nation, and at the same time, have been there to aide other countries. Are you suggesting that the US join a union with each nation we've ever helped? That is just absurd."

No I am suggesting nothing of the sort. So you have no problem Canada benefiting, just not Mexico? What if your rights stayed right where they are as well as your freedoms and liberties? Would you still not want Mexico to join? Sure, the past 200+ years the US has built themselves quite a nation. If anything, Mexico has more right than Canada to join because of the land taken by the US from Mexico... but, that's another thread. Plus, Mexico has good amounts of natural gas and other natural resources that the US could benefit from.

Originally posted by SBDAL
Spoken like a true American. The whole "I don't care what happens to any other country, as long as it doesn't affect mine" is absolutely the wrong attitude to have. NAU will NEVER happen... I repeat NEVER happen.

Spoken like a true 1)disinfo agent, or 2)ignoramus.

Nowhere did I mention anything about not caring about what happens to other countries. The United States does a lot to help other countries, and it has been that way for decades. Being able to help those other countries has nothing to do with forming a union. The concept that you fail to grasp is the American Populous will loose certain rights, liberties, and freedoms when and if the NAU comes to be. And yes, they are trying like there's no tomorrow to form this union. Will it happen, hard to say. People like me will not stand idly by while the corrupt government tries to put it in place. And the day that the government says, "You've lost "x" rights in order to form this union."... will be the day that several million American citizens stand tall and tell the Government and people like you, "UP YOURS!"

Originally posted by SBDAL
Wow.... Again, did you even look at the website?

Show me one thread (in ATS) having someone hawking this BS and people actually buying into it. Just because I don't believe in paranormal studies doesn't mean I should revoke my membership here and leave.

I did look at the website. I'm not the least bit deterred by their content.

I provided you links directly to the forums held here at ATS of which people believe things such as (for example) Dick Cheney would actually be a reptilian alien. There's people that believe in unicorns and gremlins. The list can go on and on.

The fact that I was trying to make you aware of is your hypocrisies. It's ok for you to be on ATS where people believe in the same things that you are discrediting another website for. How ludicrous.

Originally posted by SBDAL
Look, the day I hear about Canada, Mexico and the US forming a union, adopting a common currency and stripping our rights, then I'll believe you. Until then this is all just people getting into hysterics over nothing. Over countries trying to help each other out. Seriously, do you think there's a sinister motive behind everything the government does?

If this is your stance, please explain to me why I've been wasting my time discussing this topic with you. You ask me to "explain" and I did, then it's not good enough for you. You ask for irrefutable evidence that the NAU would be "bad" or "wrong", which I did, and you "imply" I'm full of hogwash and "I won't believe it till I see it."

Hysterics over nothing? Steps are being taken today to form the NAU. Do you honestly expect any American to not be concerned about what we see happening, knowing that tomorrow it could be implemented? You can sit there in your chair with your apathetic self and do nothing. That's not the road that I choose to take.

I have zero reason to believe that the Federal Government is doing anything besides lying to us, "We the people". If that's a problem, then you need to take a step back and absorb the precedents that the Government has set for themselves.

Originally posted by SBDAL
So you have no problem Canada benefiting, just not Mexico? What if your rights stayed right where they are as well as your freedoms and liberties? Would you still not want Mexico to join? Sure, the past 200+ years the US has built themselves quite a nation. If anything, Mexico has more right than Canada to join because of the land taken by the US from Mexico... but, that's another thread. Plus, Mexico has good amounts of natural gas and other natural resources that the US could benefit from.

I did not say anything remotely close. I have a problem with Canada and the US forming a union. I have a problem with Mexico and the US forming a union. If you want to be an American citizen, then move to America, become an American citizen, and live under the US Constitution. Don't expect me, or any other American citizen to give up our rights just so that we would be on the same level as you.

If my rights stayed right where they were, then a Union wouldn't be being discussed. An "added state" would be the topic. A unification of Mexico or Canada or any other nation for that matter with the US forming a Confederation, or a collection of nations, is illegal under the United State Constitution. I don't care what nation it would be, it's still going to be illegal. That specific provision was put in place to protect the people of the Nation that it formed.

Mexico's natural gas supply or other natural resources are exchanged for money in something that's called "trade". Trade has nothing to do with forming a new "Union".

Now you're just grasping at straws.

Me? A disinfo agent? Okay... not an ignoramus either. Of course we would lose certain rights that we have now. It's only fair, because each country, I'm sure, won't see eye to eye on everything. So you sacrifice some things in order to make a more cohesive unit. People like me? I don't know what you meant by that, but sure, when it happens you can post a thread here titled "up your's sbdal"... and I won't even say a word. Okay,

I'm no hypocrite... not eveyrone here believes, lmao, Dick Cheney is actually a reptilian alien or that unicorns are galloping around somewhere. I do not go into, nor am I interested in, that part of ATS. I cannot discredit ATS as a whole for the rantings of some people, no matter how delusional their claims might sound to some. The majority of this site is dedicated to other topics I find interesting (9/11 conspiracies, NWO, weaponry and such). The website I provided a link to you is some really off the wall stuff, that I find a bit "cultish". I asked for a link with the same type of rhetoric and you provided none, so I wouldn't even dare put ATS and that "other" site in the same ballpark.

You haven't wasted your time. You were helpful enough to point me in a direction. I read up on the links, did some research of my own and came to the conclusion that I wasn't worried about SPP later becoming NAU. I'm not claiming you full of hogwash or even imlying it. I just don't see what you're seeing. If you believe that nothing but lies are being spewed onto the populus, then you have some paranoia issues (no offense). The government also does some good, whether you choose to believe that or not.

Let's reverse this "situation". Let's say you were a Mexican citizen living in Mexico. Would you be for this union with Canada and the US? It would make your quality of life better... for you and your family. That's exactly what would happen to families living south of the border, but no you don't want that to happen because you want to be able to polish your shotgun on Sundays. That's really been your argument. Stop being so selfish and think of humanity. You tell us to read between lines and do our own research... that just leads me to believe you don't have any proof (not speculation, opinion or rants). I am still waiting for you to pick the Myth vs Fact sheet apart from the SPP website. I might end up seeing what you're seeing.