Do you support the loss of american sovereignty?

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well, if there were some malevolent force trying to create an authori-
tarian NAU, that would'nt exactly benefit them, as the people would
form a government/system completely opposite of what they want.

And that is why they aren't telling the people what they are doing. If they create the changes themselves behind the scenes then they will maintain control of the new state and use a day of distress to announce the new union.

In order to create the day of distress they need to bring the US economy to it's knees. The people will clamor for the new state and embrace the Amero with open arms once the central bank completely fails.

It's gonna be different this time. The people's values have changed since 1933.

So once again, who supports the North American Union and who supports America?

[edit on 28-3-2007 by In nothing we trust]

I think you really should change the question.

Saying NAU can mean different things.

What you are asking is do you support America or an authiritarian,
undemocratic uberstate.

No...Congressman Ron Paul explains why.

www.house.gov...

Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

So, Iori, how exactly would the NAU benefit us Americans?

Originally posted by Johnmike
So, Iori, how exactly would the NAU benefit us Americans?

Well, before I answer this, this would have to be after Mexico was
raised up to or near our level, which is something I think has to be
done before any organization like it can be implimented.

1. Creates a much smaller, and therefore easier to patrol border.
2. Improves the economy, both through removing tariffs on good from
Mexico and Canads being removed, which would lower theprices of
some things, and by merging the American, Canadian and Mexican
economies into one.
3. Would provide many more resources, be that farm land (both food
and energy) or workers.

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by Johnmike
So, Iori, how exactly would the NAU benefit us Americans?

Well, before I answer this, this would have to be after Mexico was
raised up to or near our level, which is something I think has to be
done before any organization like it can be implimented.

1. Creates a much smaller, and therefore easier to patrol border.
2. Improves the economy, both through removing tariffs on good from
Mexico and Canads being removed, which would lower theprices of
some things, and by merging the American, Canadian and Mexican
economies into one.
3. Would provide many more resources, be that farm land (both food
and energy) or workers.

So basically...it wouldn't be Mexico. You can't advocate something that is based on fantasy and fallacies.

Please utilize reality.

Originally posted by Johnmike
So basically...it wouldn't be Mexico.

It would be Mexico, just not the Mexico that exists right this moment.

You can't advocate something that is based on fantasy and fallacies.

It s not based on either of those things, I answered the question based
on how an NAU (not the one that people create conspiracies about)
would be positive about people.

So... Who is paying for this Mexican revolution?

In response to bringing the economics of Mexico up to par with the U.S., did you know that without a vote from the general American populous, the Legislative branch of our Government attempted to put through a bill that would utilize taxes paid by you and I as American citizens, to bring Mexico up to the terms you speak of?

Originally posted by Infoholic
In response to bringing the economics of Mexico up to par with the U.S., did you know that without a vote from the general American populous, the Legislative branch of our Government attempted to put through a bill that would utilize taxes paid by you and I as American citizens, to bring Mexico up to the terms you speak of?

No, I was not aware of that.
That is good to know though.

I don't see the problem though, that is the congresses/legislatives job,
to draft and pass bills/laws.

The general population does not vote on such things.

Originally posted by iori_komei

The general population does not vote on such things.

I personally think that citizens should have a say as to how their tax money is spent. There is far too much of it that is totally wasted. I am not sure that the tax payers of our country would favor sending a bunch of money to prop up the government of Mexico.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by iori_komei
The general population does not vote on such things.

You are right. We shouldn't even have to because, well, it is unconstitutional...

Originally posted by iori_komei
No, I was not aware of that.
That is good to know though.

I don't see the problem though, that is the congresses/legislatives job,
to draft and pass bills/laws.

The general population does not vote on such things.

S. 3622 (or here) was the bill they attempted to get through, but the bill died on the desk of the Committee on Foreign Relations.

True and correct, it is their job to draft and pass bills/laws, however, it is not their job to misrepresent the people of America, of which is those in Legislative and Executive branches are elected to do.

The problem that I, and many others see, is instead of using our tax monies to better the lives of people in Mexico (especially under the guise of exactly where this thread is headed), they could spend our tax monies to better the schools, health care, roads, etc. in America. After all, that is what our tax money is for (amongst other things).

You are right. We shouldn't even have to because, well, it is unconstitutional...

No where in the constiution does it say we can not give monetary
aid or otherwise to another country.

Originally posted by Infoholic
True and correct, it is their job to draft and pass bills/laws, however, it is not their job to misrepresent the people of America, of which is those in Legislative and Executive branches are elected to do.

Who's to say they are, they would not, in this case, be misrepre-
senting me, or others who agree with me on it.

The problem that I, and many others see, is instead of using our tax monies to better the lives of people in Mexico (especially under the guise of exactly where this thread is headed), they could spend our tax monies to better the schools, health care, roads, etc. in America. After all, that is what our tax money is for (amongst other things).

Considering that the majority of Americans are magnitudes of orders
more better off than the majority of those in Mexico, I see this as a
good use of money.

I agree though, there are many impotant things here that need funding.

However, I'm sure the amount of money that we pump into the war,
and give to countries that no longer, or in some cases never, need(ed)
it, I'm sure there is more than enough to fund both the upliftment of
Mexico and the betterment of America.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Who's to say they are, they would not, in this case, be misrepre-
senting me, or others who agree with me on it.

Well, that's a tough one, iori, because it's never been addressed, except for one occasion that I'm aware of.

Douglas Massey, director for the Mexican Migration Project, stated that not only was the United States' immigration policy "negative and counterproductive," but also that Canada and the United States have a financial obligation to build up Mexico itself. source

Nowhere in the Constitution does it lay the responsibility on the American populous to render aid "forcefully" to other nations. Nowhere does it disallow it either, but that's not the point. That's why we have a Committee on Foreign Relations (which isn't technically part of our Government, therefore, it's irrelevant).

I'm certain, if the American populous was confronted with the idea of sending aid to another country, the American people would be happy to, but... forcing the people of America to do just that without prior knowledge or any knowledge of such an act, would piss a lot of people off.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Considering that the majority of Americans are magnitudes of orders
more better off than the majority of those in Mexico, I see this as a
good use of money.

Then the people of Mexico need to address that with their own government, not ours.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I agree though, there are many impotant things here that need funding.

However, I'm sure the amount of money that we pump into the war,
and give to countries that no longer, or in some cases never, need(ed)
it, I'm sure there is more than enough to fund both the upliftment of
Mexico and the betterment of America.

In the Constitution, the appropriations for funding the Military are actually listed in black and white (actually black and parchment if you will). The money we give to those countries after we annihilate them, are funds to rebuild the country... as a means to say, "Oops, I'm sorry."

I understand that aiding Mexico would be beneficial to Mexico, but for the reasons set forth as to why they want to build up Mexico... is in fact unconstitutional... whether or not you approve of it or not.

Originally posted by iori_komei

You are right. We shouldn't even have to because, well, it is unconstitutional...

No where in the constiution does it say we can not give monetary
aid or otherwise to another country.

I was talking about the NAU in general.

Article 1 Section 10
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.

Originally posted by LostSailor
I was talking about the NAU in general.

Article 1 Section 10
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.

There's no part of the constiution that says the United States can not
become part of a larger national entity.

That particular part of the constiution refers to the states only, not the
country as a whole.

The states can not do any of that, but the government as a whole can.

Originally posted by iori_komei
There's no part of the constiution that says the United States can not
become part of a larger national entity.

That particular part of the constiution refers to the states only, not the
country as a whole.

The states can not do any of that, but the government as a whole can.

On the contrary ...

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.

The "state" as referred by the Constitution does in fact directly point to the Government. The Constitution was made to limit the Federal Government, not the people.

Originally posted by iori_komei

You are right. We shouldn't even have to because, well, it is unconstitutional...

No where in the constiution does it say we can not give monetary
aid or otherwise to another country.

Originally posted by Infoholic
True and correct, it is their job to draft and pass bills/laws, however, it is not their job to misrepresent the people of America, of which is those in Legislative and Executive branches are elected to do.

Who's to say they are, they would not, in this case, be misrepre-
senting me, or others who agree with me on it.

The problem that I, and many others see, is instead of using our tax monies to better the lives of people in Mexico (especially under the guise of exactly where this thread is headed), they could spend our tax monies to better the schools, health care, roads, etc. in America. After all, that is what our tax money is for (amongst other things).

Considering that the majority of Americans are magnitudes of orders
more better off than the majority of those in Mexico, I see this as a
good use of money.

I agree though, there are many impotant things here that need funding.

However, I'm sure the amount of money that we pump into the war,
and give to countries that no longer, or in some cases never, need(ed)
it, I'm sure there is more than enough to fund both the upliftment of
Mexico and the betterment of America.

What?! We have people dying of starvation! We have homeless! People DIE every day in this country! Your suggestion that we are "magnitudes of orders more better off," so we need to take care of other countries, is repulsive!

We have NO obligation to support any economy or people other than our own! Let them suffer for their own economic stupidity!

The United States government can start caring about Mexicans when U.S. citizens aren't starving to death within its own borders. When that happens, maybe it'd be acceptable to do another nation's job for it.

No, and I think the armed American citizenry would violently oppose any forced or "invited" occupation of the country. It would not be pretty...