Stephen Harper commits treason. Signs secretive deal with U.S. to remove Canada's sovereignty.

reply to post by eArth33lr


We know this is coming. The US Constitution is in the way of a lot of things, and I am sure the Canadian Constitution is too. Create a NAU and just eradicate them both without a shot being fired. We really need to ensure this doesnt happen, and the citizens on both sides of the border need to gang up on our leaders to ensure it doesnt.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by eArth33lr

 

I see your Press Core and raise you the Winnipeg Free Press: US Border Deal Not About Sovereignty

Besides, Harper doesn't have the authority to pass such a deal. He only has a minority. I know, it says that he's pushing it through quickly, before Parliament and the people can realize what he's doing, but it doesn't work like that. Parliament would never concede sovereignty just because Harper has signed some illegal treaty with Obama any more than Congress would, and the people would certainly never go for it. If Harper did such a thing, he may just risk becoming the first Canadian Prime Minister to ever be assassinated. Brian Mulroney tested people's patience, but this would be an act of treason and he would never survive it, politically, and maybe literally.
It's not happening. Yet, anyway.

Regardless of whether or not it actually goes through, it is more disturbing to me that it is being attempted in the first place.

Originally posted by Aeons


Because .... A large trading block, with common security concerns, and shared infrastructure being addressed in a formal manner is something that any party in power would find it to be in the country's best interest to be engaged in?

I suppose that would depend on how you define "a country." By its majority citizens, or by its minority, (but very wealthy) corporations.

Clearly, "free trade" is not beneficial for America as a nation. It has been enormously beneficial for some of our corporate parasit...........err, citizens. But for the nation itself? Not so much. Our economy is in the toilet, our people dispirited and underemployed, our democracy in a shambles. Free trade isnt good for "nations" its good for multinational business interests.

You dont see corporations tearing the borders down between themselves and their competitors do you? Why should nations? In essence, nations are like corporations. They are competing units. The whole theory in, "the Wealth of Nations" depends on the idea of them being competing units. People depend on the idea that their nations are competing units.

Corporations are competing units with nations. They are not loyal to countries, they are in an adversarial relationship with them. They are trying to benefit at the expense of nations. What possible theory can you manufacture tin which a policy that helps your competitor, your adversary, win out over you and exploit you, is in your best interest?

Originally posted by eArth33lr
reply to post by darrylss

 

I agree Darryl but do you really think the natives would have any say at all when it comes right down to the meat of it? When the natives stood in the way (a long time ago mind you) in the US, I'm pretty sure they slaughtered most of them didn't they? I think if the US wants their land bad enough, they'll get it one way or another.

The Native Canadians are the main reason why Canada is still one country. So yes, I'm pretty sure he has a point.

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by Aeons
I am unconcerned about the concept of the NAU. Sorry. It fails to make my blood boil.

Trade and such will happen. Having a say in it, that I find preferable to the alternatives. And having my elected representatives doing so is one way I can do that.

I'm sorry, but most Canadians don't like the way Amercians view politics as a whole. We are Federalists, believing in Universal Programs, which we support, much more like Norway than you can ever imagine adn consider it dishonorable to not look after your own. Peroid. There is no way your country is going to merge with mine.

Treason is a crime. The contract is nullified by one illegal clause in it. That is basic law. He will go to jail. There is no debate.

edit on 24-2-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

I am a Canadian. I am not a Conservative.

And I don't care. This will have no impact on sovereignty, and assures that the government is not leaving the issues of how we interact up solely to lobbyists and companies.

The USA won't take over Canada. They're Rome. In taking over Etruria, we'd still end up completely rewriting their bureaucracy and society and thousands of years from now they'd think that that was how they'd always been.

I have no concerns about this.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Company blocks can and will operate in a multitude of localities with many types of agencies and organizations. Companies are not going to go away. They can however, be regulated.

I have what they want. That gives me power in the discussion. Power I exercise as the base unit of the government, which administrates on my behalf.

Companies are in competition with nations. But nations also are their consumer, their resources, their employees.

These things do not exist in isolation. Indeed, they are overlapping the same people.

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by Aeons
I am unconcerned about the concept of the NAU. Sorry. It fails to make my blood boil.

Trade and such will happen. Having a say in it, that I find preferable to the alternatives. And having my elected representatives doing so is one way I can do that.

I'm sorry, but most Canadians don't like the way Amercians view politics as a whole. We are Federalists, believing in Universal Programs, which we support, much more like Norway than you can ever imagine adn consider it dishonorable to not look after your own. Peroid. There is no way your country is going to merge with mine.

Treason is a crime. The contract is nullified by one illegal clause in it. That is basic law. He will go to jail. There is no debate.

edit on 24-2-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

I am a Canadian. I am not a Conservative.

And I don't care. This will have no impact on sovereignty, and assures that the government is not leaving the issues of how we interact up solely to lobbyists and companies.

The USA won't take over Canada. They're Rome. In taking over Etruria, we'd still end up completely rewriting their bureaucracy and society and thousands of years from now they'd think that that was how they'd always been.

I have no concerns about this.

And I don't care. This will have no impact on sovereignty, and assures that the government is not leaving the issues of how we interact up solely to lobbyists and companies.

This merging of america, canada, Mexico will have a very bad impact on sovereignty and you should worry, i guess you wont mind having an north american union flag flying over head in your childs school or college?

I probably wouldn't.

But NAU isn't this thing you are claiming it to be.

Even if it became akin to the EU - Britain is still Britain, France is still France, The Irish are still Irish, the Finnish are still humourless, and the Germans still are too organized and have big heads.

I would much prefer that they remove the passport/enhanced license requirement. I have friends in Quebec that no longer come over due to the fact that they can't afford the passport, etc. I also have not been able to visit there yet but I am working on getting a stupid passport.

It sucks. They're punishing the wrong people on the wrong border.

Originally posted by Aeons


Company blocks can and will operate in a multitude of localities with many types of agencies and organizations. Companies are not going to go away. They can however, be regulated.

Im not sure what you mean by this. I wasnt arguing that companies were "going away." Although they do when and if their needs change, they are not loyal to a nation in the same way its human citizens tend to be. What I am saying is that corporations themselves do not share computers with their competitors, or shipping equipment, or lend one another attorneys. Corporations maintain borders, boundaries between themselves and their competitors, because that is what competitors do. They keep their resources, their weapons, their intelligence, their skilled people, to themselves, and attempt to outcompete others. It is simply how the game is played.

Why nations, which are also competing groups, should be asked to tear down their borders to facilitate the needs of another competitor, a corporation, or many corporations, is beyond me. Because corporations are units who are in competition with nations, as well as in competition with their people. And it does not matter how you slice it, Aeons, you can call them "employees" or "consumers" both are competitive and adversarial positions to the corporation. Surely you realize that?

Originally posted by Aeons
I have what they want. That gives me power in the discussion. Power I exercise as the base unit of the government, which administrates on my behalf.

If government did administer on your behalf, you would not be seeing trade barriers come down around the world. Governments do not administer on your behalf. They administer on the behalf of the people who get them elected. In the west, this does not mean, "the voters," this means "the people who fund my ads." Be clear on the difference, and you will understand why it was so important to win the right in the US to allow corporations to freely fund political campaigns.

Originally posted by Aeons
Companies are in competition with nations. But nations also are their consumer, their resources, their employees.

These things do not exist in isolation. Indeed, they are overlapping the same people.

All of those are competitive and adversarial positions to a corporation. He who owns the rights to the resources I want or need, is my adversary. He who is bargaining with me over price, (of labor, or of a good) is an adversary.

Corporations are perfectly clear on the nature of their relationship to one another, to nations, to consumers, to a nations people, to their employees. There is no doubt that the corporation looks upon each of these things as competitors, and is constantly manipulating and scheming to maintain the upper hand in that competition in order to maximize profit.

But for some reason, even intelligent people can convince themselves that their best interests lies in making things incredibly easy for their competition. Thats just not the case. Tearing down borders between nations to make life easier for corporations is not good for nations, or the people in those nations, it is good for corporations. How anyone could think otherwise is beyond me, but I would love to hear the argument.

I find none of that compelling.

An employee is also a consumer. A citizen is also an employee. A freeholder is a citizen. An owner is still a citizen. A citizen is still the base component of the government.

Now, do I realize that corruption in the government elections exists? I've seen it first hand. Nothing shook my basic love of democracy as profoundly as holding a stack of double ballots that was never investigated.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

This merging of america, canada, Mexico will have a very bad impact on sovereignty and you should worry, i guess you wont mind having an north american union flag flying over head in your childs school or college?

A merger and close co-operating between Canada and the U.S. and not only is well documented. But as far as Mexico is concerned, well we have far more serious issues to deal with at the moment rather than worry about a nation that has obvioulsy failed to impose the obvious. Rest assussed, it wont last long, but it requires patience.

I really hope that this is complete bull.

I couldn't imagine any Canadian being pleased with Harper selling us out this way. If we became the NAU would it operate the same as the EU? Would we be allowed to maintain our rights to our natural resources, to our system of government, to our own checks and balances that keep Canada relatively different from America?

I had a theory that that Usage-Based Billing thing was an easy target thrown out to increase his popularity. It'll definitely get him some votes... he gave us back our internet...

yea this isnt 'news'
it was signed years ago
really...
f'd up

Originally posted by JewelFlip
I had a theory that that Usage-Based Billing thing was an easy target thrown out to increase his popularity. It'll definitely get him some votes... he gave us back our internet...

He is a strategist PM, so it was well played. We are the most internet connected populace on the planet. Should have done it closer to the actual election though, so he'd better hope someone pulls the cord to bring the curtain down soon.

Originally posted by snowspirit
Harper can't do anything like that without the OK of the opposition parties, and there are 3 of them. Plus the Queen.

If it turned out that he did sign something without the rest of our government knowing, it would be illegal, and an election would be called. Immediately.

Sort've like Mulroney did with the FTA, after his campaign based on the promise of ignoring the FTA?

They pushed the FTA on Canadians through manipulating the reality of the situation, as per Washington's orders. There was a large populist action against it which resulted in an election. The Canadian people voted against Mulroney and the FTA... then Mulroney pushed it through anyway because of his control over the senate at the time.

Then Chretien came in on the promise of taking down the FTA in its infancy. Two weeks as PM and he changed his tune. Now if that is not treason, then it is surely not democracy.

I have this one economics professor who claims that the HST tax placed on British Columbians was the only good decision that Premier Gordon Campbell ever made. He says this from an economical point of view. Since I'm involved in the political side, it's not hard to see why Campbell resigned after 10 years as premier: HE PROMISED NOT TO PUSH THE HST ON US DURING THE PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS.

This is Canadian politics; it's not democracy. Our provincial and federal governments may do what they feel is best for Canada, but it is far from what Canadians think is best for them.

While Harper signs the Fortress American Agreement with Obama, Canadian food and housing prices jump like crazy. His solution is more connection with the US economy. That was also one of the US's solutions to annexing Canada for almost two centuries.

Gee, score three for our government, the very people we elect to protect our sovereignty
(First two being "military and military industry interoperability" in the 50s and the FTA/NAFTA 20 years ago)

The fact of the situation is that Harper is an extremely controlling, smart and aggressive person. He has formed an extremely effective federal government that is efficient at controlling the country. This is unlike any recent Liberal governments. And what is the alternative to Harper now? Nothing, at least no federal party that wouldn't get eaten alive by American interests.

This is exactly what happened 20 years ago; our country has been sold out, the people told lies, and our sovereignty now mostly in the hands of the Americans. What are some key points of the Security and Prosperity Protocol? The fact that Americans want joint land and water access (just like joint air space); national customs will become obsolete because "inspections" will be done at the corporate manufacturing facilities (not by those commie government agents :@@; Canadian bulk water supplies will become a priority commodity for the American market; less restrictions on foreign ownership of Canadian assets; blah blah blah

What a nightmare this will become, and it has all been planned for decades. The treason here, goes far beyond just Harper.

reply to post by Aeons


In other words, in some cases, brevity simply means you have no good argument.


What you think you are showing by saying that a citizen is an employee, consumer etc., I suppose we will never know. But I can tell you what you are not saying. You are not demonstrating in any way that in each of these positions, that individual who can be categorized in many ways, is anything other than a competitor or adversary to a corporation.

Only as a stock holder in a corporation can a human being have any non adversarial relationship with a corporation, and only within the limited scope as a stockholder. If you are an employee of a company who also owns some stock, you are still in competition with the company you are part owner of. Because when you negotiate your salary and benefits, you are in an adversarial position to that company. Your ends, to obtain a good salary, is at odds with the corporations ends, to pay you as little as humanly possible for the most work possible.

If you dont know who "the other team" is, you really cant win a war, can you? And therein lies the problem. Corporations have engaged in a decades long propaganda campaign to indoctrinate people with the idea that "what is in the best interests of big business, is in my best interests." When, in fact, that is almost never the case.

reply to post by Aeons

But NAU isn't this thing you are claiming it to be.

It is or the start of it, when you merge countries you basically create unions, thats what and how Europeans reacted when the formation of the EU started, now everyone doesn't like the EU in Europe its a waste.

I posted this thread last month...
Some interesting replies:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Brevity captures what I am saying just fine.

All the entities you have competing are populated by the same set of people.

I am a citizen. I am a consumer. I am an employee. I am an owner. I am a stockholder.

These things can be in competition - but again, each of these things is populated by the same person in a different function.

A nation is composed of people. A company is composed of people. A country has a directive to govern and administrate a nation. A business has a legal obligation to produce profits. A business operates with and in the environment of its resources and employees.

To not understand this is like saying that in a family the Husband and the Father are at war with one another. The husband surely has competing interests with the father in the family. Even though he's just one guy in two roles.