The North American Union Myth, page 1/

So I was alerted to the following post on SNOPES and find this to be an interesting highlight on not only globalization efforts but a potential side note on how indirect media can influence the perception of our populace.

For background, visit the following..

www.snopes.com...

The page is essentially a perfunctory debunk of the North American Union plans.....but the next link is where it gets interesting...

Second, I respectfully suggest that you reconsider the general tenor of the SNOPES North American Union post which downplays the connection between CFR "proposals" and subsequent Government policies and laws.

3. According to a variety of sources, the following presidential candidates or former candidates are either CFR members or have strong ties, including advisors who are CFR members: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson.

www.opednews.com...

The above is in response to the SNOPES article that states states that A CFR publication, Building a North American Community is not legally binding, but expert ruminations that have no bearing on policy(s) that have been and will be made. The indirect arguement provided in the excerpt above is actually a great implicit recognition that CFR supporters/members do have influence into the legal cultivation of tomorrow's partnerships and subsequent policy...but there is more...

“The “2005 Report to Leaders” and the companion “2006 Report to Leaders” on the Department of Commerce SPP.gov website describe many different memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements that have been signed by the working groups. Yet, the vast majority of these memoranda of understanding (MOU) and other trilateral agreements have not been submitted to Congress for oversight or for determinations regarding whether a treaty might be required for the agreement to be valid within constitutional restrictions.”

Note: an MOU is a legal agreement. Many Americans are worried that these MOU will be enacted into law essentially as a fait accompli, without significant Congressional debate or public awareness. Even if they are not enacted into law, the result could be a functioning NAU established basically by nothing more than these MOU and private business agreements.

www.opednews.com...

There are legally binding documents that do exist supporting the North American Union.....

Now, I invite you all to help me out with this. I don't necessarily have a functional awareness of the implications yet and would like to hear thoughts, pro and con, regarding the NAU movement. I know that the CFR is a heavey hitter, retaining some very pominent and influential people in the political and corporate fields. I of course will be ingesting what I can in this regard to further justify my interaction.....

But one of the sidenotes that did strike me was the lack of in-depth analysis on the part of SNOPES in this case. How often does the media, in whatever form, take a cursory look at a situation and then communicate a conclusion as holy writ? Many people will take things at face value and support these conclusions without any suspicion that the information they were presented is in actuality incomplete and inaccurate....a tactic that I believe is undoubtedly used intentionally for the rallying of populace support as well as for keeping the majority uninformed.....

It is without any hesitation that I state the intentions of our political leaders and their corporate counterparts to be as not necessarily corrolative with the majority of people, whom only encounter these issues on a minute basis.....

Thoughts and opinions, please....

reply to post by 12.21.12

---

What I don't understand (if someone can explain it to me I'd be very appreciative)

is how, in the event of a complete dollar collapse, would annexing (for lack of a better word) Mexico and it's economy be beneficial?

I'm not here to bash Mexico, but wouldn't the US government (or whatever it would then be called) have to assume responsibility fiscally as well as be required to provide certain benefits (Social Security, emergency health care,welfare,etc..) for it's 108 million new citizens?

Would they then halt those services for everyone if they couldn't be provided for all? And what gains would be made from that in an attempt to stabilize the currency?

Just curious if anyone has any ideas...



[edit on 15-2-2008 by Comma8Comma1]

reply to post by Comma8Comma1

---

Or better yet, since the illegal immigration problem is such a great way to make illegals legal by having them sign up for a National Id Card; could it be that they are turning their backs against their own people by distributing National ID cards to the illegals, making them legal and then announcing that if you don't get a National ID card you are therefor illegal?

As for the NAU and the EU I guess I answered my own question. Divide and conquer. National ID Cards represent electronic GPS tracking ID cards and the Amero is there for when the dollar crashes to create the NAU. The Verichip will be there to merge the two together. What an interesting political advertising campaign that will be. I wonder if they are going to use "convenience" as one of their selling points.

MemoryShock, thank you for this awesome thread.

I'm with marg6043 on this one, its coming whether we like it or not.



From what I understand, Big Business wants to avoid the ports here in the U.S. that are trade-union controlled, its much cheaper for them to ship goods to Mexico, where cheap labor can be used to assemble those goods, which will then be shipped up through the Trans-Texas Corridor aka NAFTA Superhighway. This is just one little piece of a large pie.

Here's some other threads on the NAU:
NAU (what you NEED TO KNOW) and how it is not SPP.GOV
North American Union Exposed

I might even suggest that ATS create a forum dedicated to the "North American Union" concept, to help clear up some of the questions surrounding this VERY important issue. Before there's any NWO, there's going to be a NAU.

I hope everyone can contribute a little something to this thread,
I'd love to see what will be brought up.

Straight from the Haass's mouth:
Sovereignty and Globalisation
Author: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations

The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded. [con't]

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met. [con't]

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.
...
Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change
...
All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilising refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

I encourage everyone to read the article, those are just a few morsels.

reply to post by aecreate

---

Great article, is not doubt in my mind that the NAU is well planned in the minds of the parties involved, perhaps even as we speak the closed doors meeting are well on schedule and on time.

Cheney loves those himself.

Haven't they basically done this in Europe, already? The Euro, the open borders..etc.?? Are they all freaking out about how their country has been swallowed up by some unknown entity, or stolen from them

Actually -- the concept of a North American Union, done right, could be a GOOD thing.

I said, "Done right". Don't go ballistic on me. Just playing the devil's advocate, here. My friend Will pointed out a few things to me I had not considered, at all. I just reacted emotionally to the thought that "America will no longer exist".

Cheaper access to things needed by all three nations, and (eventually) a common trade-currency would put us on an equal-footing with Europe - because our enemy isn't the Mexicans or the Canadians -- it's the Chinese...isn't it?

In 2005, the Chinese made their first investment in Canada’s oil industry, targeted specifically at the Canadian oil/tar sands.

Since then, they’ve poured money into Canada. The Canadians have responded by committing to the production of oil earmarked for China – and as China’s economy grows, its thirst for oil will continue. It’s easy to see that China could eclipse the U.S. as Canada’s largest trading-partner; something which could happen sometime before 2015-2020.

Not far off, huh?

Mexico has seen similar overtures from China. With Venezuela supplying nearly 20% of our imported oil, and a hardline anti-U.S. government in charge, it is also easy to see where the Mexican government could cozy to China far more quickly than to the U.S.

In blunt terms, we’re to the point where we could be, due to a combination of disastrous foreign and domestic policies and the excesses of sixteen years of nearly-worthless presidential administrations, isolated and living with the yoke of overpriced Middle Eastern oil, a dollar which has about as much value as the Russian Ruble, a restless population, and a military infested with neoFascist ideologies.

A North American Union would enable free and unfettered trade and migration between three countries; the United States, Canada, and Mexico. It would enable all three to combine the resources used for the defense of these nations, and protect all three borders far better than we are doing now.

It would also enable the twelve million people in the United States ‘illegally’ to cease being a part of the underground economy, and begin paying taxes and living as guest workers with a goal of complete citizenship. They're here, anyway..and they wouldn't be here if someone wasn't paying them to be here. Obviously there is an economic market for them.

The combined economic output of the three nations would outstrip that of the European Union, and would likely keep North America as the main economic power in the world for decades to come.

Some people say a North American Union would involve compromising U.S., Canadian, or Mexican sovereignty. In fact, due to the amount of money spent on duplicating defense efforts, it would only strengthen our collective economies.

Then again, the Minutemen would have no one to terrorize in the name of patriotic 'duty'.

My point, I suppose is this: People jump to conclusions based on sensationalized propaganda when they might have a different view if they thought it through.

Minutemanproject.com...
www.asianresearch.org...
article-- "The Dragon's Thirst for Canadian Oil"



[edit on 15-2-2008 by themillersdaughter]

If anyone has ever played the game Risk, it compares with current situations.
We have the EU already.Next could be the NAU and after that a Russian/China union.
Slowly those will get whittled down until we have a one world government......the NWO.
I for one like being Canadian and living in a sovereign nation.I'm sure Americans feel the same way.
I've been in contact with Mr. David Emerson.He is our Trade Minister in Canada.Mr. Emerson outright denies the NAU and he sugar coats the SPP.He does admit to a NAFTA Super Highway that would run from Mexico,through Texas and into Canada.The highway in Canada would splinter off running to Montreal,Winnipeg,and Vancouver.
There is plenty to read at the Canadian Action Party
regarding the SPP/NAU.
When I asked Mr. Emerson about the secret meeting held in Banff last year, he basically told me that it was a meeting of "business" people and there was nothing to see.He failed to mention any of the military personnel and current/past U.S. administration that was there.
I personally believe that we are headed for a North American Union.

I finally solved a great mystery! I think I see now...
  Posted 18 days ago with 72 member flags

Finally! MSM Coverage - Legal Challenges to Fed - The End is Near
  Posted 18 days ago with 48 member flags

You Westerners Are Deluded
  Posted 19 days ago with 30 member flags

‘Barcode everyone at birth’
  Posted 4 days ago with 20 member flags

Pentagon Source Alludes to Martial Law Around July 1st, 2012
  Posted 2 days ago with 18 member flags

FBI Seize Email server, then return it
  Posted 15 days ago with 16 member flags

Australia preparing for Global Revolution November 5 2012 begins today.
  Posted 8 days ago with 12 member flags

HSBC Insider - This Bank is a Criminal Enterprise Laundering Billions
  Posted 16 days ago with 11 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: