Now why would Americans not know about the coming AMERO?
Check it out for yourself

Many of us do know about this.
And yet, what exactly are we talking about? Appearances or real hard facts?
Are we looking at possibilities, or something imminent?

I'm afraid this isn't sufficient proof of much of anything for me. Can you provide more?

MORE INFO
If it still isnt enough let me know

Yeah, you need more.

I have a question or two.



Says here the plan is to be in place or to be implemented in 2010,
what effects would there be if the Democrats all but wipe out the Republican party, and make real headway in removing many of the anti-constitutional road blocks the Bush Govt has set in place?


Lets assume that Hillary wins the election, and we all know the Clinton's are all for world economics.
How do you spose the Canadian and the Mexican people would feel about this, let alone the people of America?


Is there ANY possibility that ALL of this is somebodies, or a groups wild ass plans that don't really have a ghost of a chance in the real world of actually happening? The PNAC got their Pearl Harbor. Is that what these people want?



Are we once again connecting dots on a TV screen of static and making a picture that is not there?

I will get you more research on this subject but let me first respond to your questions from my point of view. I know you may not want my opinions on this but it seems to me to be easier for me to respond in a way that I seem to understand it.
so here I go:

This is an agenda set by the Council on foreign relations of which Bill Clinton has been if not now a member (as well as the Bush Clan, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Crystal, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and many others both democrat and republican. Will it change? only the mechanics. As I have stated before: If hillary becomes President, the plan becomes open and the UN is once again taking precedence over our constitutional principles (As if it ever ended). The NAU materializes either way.

Though at times Canada and mexico may seem to appear to be conservative, Because of their forms of government they are in essence really a soft liberal. for instance, Bush is claiming to be a conservative through his political party and has to appear to be as such yet the policies he has implemented in essence are liberal. ie. trying to give Iraq more freedoms etc... Canada and mexico (the governments) are viewing the NAU as an opportunity to be equal with the United States which has the power economically, militarily, and politically as well as the opportunity for the distribution of resouces which of course the US has the most. In other words it would be in their best interest to join the NAU. The people of these countries have for the most part been kept in the dark like the US however Canada is awakening much faster.

Personally I wish this was so. However, many things taking place point to the real possibility of this happening. The Dollar is about to crash hard, with the onset of the EU America either maintains it's dominance by expansion or allow the EU to surpass the US in dominance, They have managed to undermine the political system so much that a constitutional crises is inevitable. I believe someone seen all of this coming and Homeland security was created as a shadow government answerable only to the executive branch bypassing the judicial and legislative branches. I really believe that the reason impeachment hasnt been on the table is because through subversion Bush managed to make it so that they can't impeach him. Otherwise it really don't make sense because Bush has committed treason and we all know it. Congress even knows that Bush was creating the NAU and SPP without their approval which in and of itself is an impeachable offense.

The Pearl Harbor was mixed with way too many errors. I think what happened was someone got scared and left clues to who was behind the attack and too many people are coming closer to what really happened. As silly as it sounds you can only get away with a conspiracy if people don't know the puppet master. IN MY OPINION: PNAC didn't finance 911 and it would be pure speculation to blame them. The power in America doesn't even rest in the political arena. It rests in the hands of those who create our currency. They and they alone are the ones who could pull off a 911. But that's for another post....
As far as the connecting the dots thing: What choice does one have. If the media is designed to narrow your view then obviously finding the truth is not an easy task. The only tool we have are the words that they say or write. It's like when I drop quotes on here rather than research. I only take it from what they say. I can drop research on here and I will but if I drop research on here bear in mind that the research is probably designed for a specific intent. You nor I personally know the researchers therefor we may not see the bias that they are trying to present.
And you thought you were a skeptic!!!

Amero Value
Canadian Action Party
Stop the NAU
John Birch Society
Eagle Forum

If some of the links don't work sorry but this is from a repository of mine.
I do have more just ask

Any credibile sources?

NAFTA has been around for a while, but its only recently that work towards a Union (the NAU) has started in earnest. Take a look into the SPP and the Partnership for Prosperity. Texas already has tollroads which are the first stage of the "superhighway" which will cut right across the US.
http://www.spp.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_...f_North_America
http://www.nascocorridor.com/
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15623
Several think tanks have argued for the Amero over the last few years.
A plan for a union would explain the current allowance of the illegal immigration situation to continue, and the adoption of the Amero would be very convenient in the event of a free falling dollar (not to mention rich getting richer and poor getting poorer).
From one of those articles:
"NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals already empower foreign NAFTA investors and corporations to challenge the sovereignty of U.S. law in the United States. Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been quoted as saying, “When we debated NAFTA, not a single word was uttered in discussing Chapter 11. Why? Because we didn’t know how this provision would play out. No one really knew just how high the stakes would get.”

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehnsive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions

(2) In this directive:

(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;

( "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

© "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;

(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;

(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;

(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and

(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.

Policy

(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

Implementation Actions

(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.

(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of

the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;

( Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;

© Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;

(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;

(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and

(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National

Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and

responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall

continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of

the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:

(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;

( Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;

© Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;

(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;

(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between

and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;

(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and

(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing

on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and

assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.

(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:

(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;

( In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and

© Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.

(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:

(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;

( Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and

© Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.

(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:

(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and

( Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.

(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;

( Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;

© Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;

(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an

official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;

(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and

(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.

(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.

(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:

(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;

( Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;

© Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;

(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and

(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate

support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:

(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

( Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

© Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its

agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE W. BUSH
In this I highlighted some important aspects, If you notice this document is primarily for the executive branch.
According to this document in the event of a national emergency all power will rest solely in the executive branch and homeland security which as I have stated before are outside congressional oversight. This document will come into effect if:
There is another terrorist attack
there is an economic crises
if there is a severe enough natural disaster
If this document is enacted Bush would need no congressional approval if in implementing the NAU were to create stability.
Ironically canada and mexico are socialist countries where the government makes all their decisions for them. Sure their leaders are elected but the policies in these countries are kept out of the hands of the people.


The crises is looming. The dollar is weakened severely. When the year end report comes out in October be prepared!!!



As in the European Union (and this is why the brits are having such a hard time with it) the NAU will supercede the laws of Canada mexico and America. Bear in mind, the NAU will NOT be a United States Union. These countries won't be joining the United States. All 3 countries will relinquish their sovereignty to the NAU.

NOPE
just this one
oh wait
Heres another one

Even Snopes has debunked this.

there's no mention of the NAU in NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51, HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20 but wingers try to connect the two in order to discredit those of us speaking out against the Presidential Directives. The biggest advocate of these conspiracy theories is the guy who started the Swiftboat Veterans group.

As I have said, the best way to hide conspiracy, is to promote excessive conspiracy theory.

The voice of reason..?
Lay's out the information and opens it up for discussion...
Nice post Chorlton.

I'm glad the John Birch Society's found something to do since the Soviet Union fell. I was worried about them.

I guess I'll engage this one.

Mr. Brewer, I'll debate this one with you with a minimum of sarcasm. Here's the question I want you to address:

Why would a North American Union, similar to the EU, be a bad thing?

Of all the responses I believe that yours is the most appropriate because though the sources may seem illegitimate the plan and the idea are relevant and by asking me why this would be a bad thing at the very least you are accepting that it is a real possibility. As for all you others, I'm not the one writing about the NAU to create it.
No as to why the NAU would be a bad thing:
Cultural differences=loss of identity
Though resources will be redistributed as to create a socialist state, the elite will maintain their wealth forcing the people of the NAU to maintain a slave mentality. All will be done for the good of the state (almost sounds communistic don't it?)
No individual national soveriegnty
The constitution for the NAU would be wrote primarily by socialists as the majority would be socialists thereby individuality would be replaced by collectivism (This is the main premise of the communist manifesto)
Ideally this would sound like a good thing however in all cases where this has taken place the ultimate conclussion leads to a tyrannical form of government. We seen this many times throughout history ie. Rome, Italy, Russia, Germany et al.
What maintains a degree of civility among nations is the diversity, the reason we have problems among the nations is because when a nation reaches their pinnacle of power they feel the necessity to force their ideology on other nations which leads to revolt. Power in the hands of a few is not a good thing this is why our constitution was created to maintain control through the will of the people as opposed to the will of the government. If a new constitution is created that supercedes our own then our constitution will become null and void. The reason the NAU is kept out of the publics eye is because they know that what they are doing is wrong.

I consider myself a Socialist Democrat, and in your last piece you make the Socialists out to be the bad guys, so I'm probly not the one to debate this.


However, speaking of the EU and loss of identity,
Has Germany lost it's Identity?
How about France?
Great Britain?
Italy?

I'll take on your points one at a time:

Of all the responses I believe that yours is the most appropriate because though the sources may seem illegitimate the plan and the idea are relevant and by asking me why this would be a bad thing at the very least you are accepting that it is a real possibility. As for all you others, I'm not the one writing about the NAU to create it.

I wouldn't deny that it's a possibility. Historically speaking, NAFTA is similar to how the EU got started in 1956. If anything, NAFTA is far stronger and more pervasive than the original ECSC.

No as to why the NAU would be a bad thing:
Cultural differences=loss of identity

First, there would be little lost in cultural differences between the United States and Canada. Both are predominantly English-speaking ex-British colonies with representative democratic governments. I would suggest that the differences (national health care, Parliamentary vs. Congressional system) are less significant than the similarities (noted above, plus provincial/state autonomy).
Second, to argue by analogy with the EU, I haven't noticed much loss of identity among the member nations (I've travelled in Ireland, England, Scotland, France, Germany, Austria, Spain, the Czech Republic, and Italy since the unification of the currency). Furthermore, our country has been undergoing "loss of identity" for a long time now, as regional differences give way to a more national identity. Up until WWII, your identity was defined as much by your state as by the country. Nowadays your home state really doesn't matter all that much, except possibly in college football (Texas excepted). There are also upsides to the "loss of identity." If we were to forge a new identity as North Americans, it could lessen tensions between the countries of North America, ease the problems and bottlenecks of borders, and make the resulting Union more influential and powerful than the U.S. is now.

Though resources will be redistributed as to create a socialist state, the elite will maintain their wealth forcing the people of the NAU to maintain a slave mentality. All will be done for the good of the state (almost sounds communistic don't it?)

That hasn't been demonstrated at all. Mexico is not a socialist state, and neither is the U.S. I suppose you could argue that Canada is, or rather that it's slightly more socialist than the U.S., but even if that's true, what hope have 30 million people to overrule the will of 410 million (the combined populations of the U.S. and Mexico)? I think it's far more likely that the result of the Union would be much more an average among the three states, a modified capitalist state not unlike the U.S. is currently.

No individual national soveriegnty

Again, arguing by analogy, the countries of the EU remain sovereign, as is demonstrated by the fact that the British, the Italians, the Poles, and the Spanish joined the U.S. in Iraq while the French, the Germans, the Austrians, and the Irish didn't. And all the EU has really done has been to require its members to conform their laws to certain EU standards, mostly on economic issues. Regarding national security and crime and punishment, the countries of the EU remain very diverse. For example, abortion remains illegal in Ireland, Britain and Denmark still use their old money, and the German Beer Purity Law of 1516 remains in force.

The constitution for the NAU would be wrote primarily by socialists as the majority would be socialists thereby individuality would be replaced by collectivism (This is the main premise of the communist manifesto)

Nonsense. The majority would be Americans. The population of North America (by which I mean Canada, the U.S., and Mexico) is 440 million. More than two-thirds (300 million) are Americans. You'd have a hard time scraping up more than a million or so true socialists in Canada, and Mexico is at most evenly divided between people of more-or-less socialist leanings and people who are even more capitalist than Americans. And all the money lies in the latter group.

Ideally this would sound like a good thing however in all cases where this has taken place the ultimate conclussion leads to a tyrannical form of government. We seen this many times throughout history ie. Rome, Italy, Russia, Germany et al.

But probably the two most relevant Unions did not end up in tyrannical governments. I speak, of course, of the EU, and somewhat older, a union formed out of thirteen independent states that united to form a single country. Place called the United States of America.

What maintains a degree of civility among nations is the diversity, the reason we have problems among the nations is because when a nation reaches their pinnacle of power they feel the necessity to force their ideology on other nations which leads to revolt. Power in the hands of a few is not a good thing this is why our constitution was created to maintain control through the will of the people as opposed to the will of the government. If a new constitution is created that supercedes our own then our constitution will become null and void. The reason the NAU is kept out of the publics eye is because they know that what they are doing is wrong.

Considering that most of the constitutions in the world are modeled on ours, and that there's very little difference between the Canadian Confederation and the U.S. Constitution, I don't see it as very likely that the North American Union Constitution would be much different from the current U.S. Constitution. (Probably the single greatest difference is that I suspect the Second and Third Amendments would go away, and the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Amendments would be even stronger.) There would also be plenty of opportunities to reject a constitution. The EU began in 1956 with the European Coal and Steel Consortium. In the subsequent 51 years, the EU has not adopted an overall constitution, though one was proposed. It was soundly defeated in referenda. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, each of the original thirteen States had its own constitution. I think most people would agree that the later-adopted and partially-superseding U.S. Constitution was a good thing. It replaced the Articles of the Confederation because the Articles weren't working.

Given that the U.S. Constitution was a success by most measures, even though it infringed substantially on the prior rights and sovereignty of the thirteen States, I don't see it as inevitable that a North American constitution would inevitably be a bad thing.

The main problem I have with your argument is that you appear to be saying that either "the socialists" or the big-money powers (who are overwhelmingly capitalist), or possibly both, will rig things to turn the NAU into a totalitarian state. You would have to explain to me how that could happen when three-quarters of the NAU (Canada and the U.S.) have strong anti-totalitarian traditions, and the last quarter (Mexico), while it has a tradition of strongmen, also has a tradition of rebellion against those strongmen.

I could write an essay on your response but I chose instead to deal with your last comment. Bush has done more than any other person to put us under a totalitarian rule. The reason we haven't seen it too much this far is because the main focus of americans is terrorism. Truth be told, Bush through his policies has slaughtered close to a million Iraqi's, In the immediate aftermath of 911 he began locking up arabs within our own country without provocation, Through his policies he has locked people up for no other reason than their religion, During Katrina (If we would have listened to the people rather than the government propaganda machines) Fema, Homeland Security, and special forces were shooting rather than rescuing people. Obviously this had to come from a high command. I don't know what you think totalitarianism is but Bush sure seems to fit the bill. You said that America and the EU were examples of where nations did not become totalitarian. The US cannot be compared with the EU because the countries involved are primariy totalitarian, communist, or a dictatorship. If their not 1 of the 3 then they are extreme socialism. The EU isn't complete so using that as an example is mute. This brings us to the other example AMERICA. This would take me days to write. I Suppose if you picked apart all the historical documents you would understand why I say America could not be an example. I'll leave you with this thought though: The reason America cannot be an example is the same reason Canada could not be an example.

The rebellion against the strongmen statement only holds true IF the people have a reason to rebel. If for instance, The US economically collapsed the people would be willing to accept whatever was offered to relieve them of the financial burden. This already happened once in America and now we are the largest debtor nation on earth. What do you think the international bankers would want for collateral when the US files bankruptcy again? If you said well we have property YOUR WRONG!!! because all real property in the US is subleased to the US by the Federal Reserve. This is what we used for collateral the last time we went bankrupt. So could the NAU become totalitarian yes but I don't necessarily think it will and the reason why is because they know that totalitarinism only works as long as the people are prosperous. This discussion took place in philadelphia a long time ago. The reason they chose a Republic was because the monarchy was utilizing a form of totalitarianism through the Church of England. They had originally considered making George Washington the first King but opted out although many people still addressed him as king George. Ironically, the biggest issue at that constitutional convention was a dispute between John Adams and I believe Thomas Jefferson in which John Adams argued that the people were not educated enough to vote in an election. This is why we ended up with the electorial college many years later. My point is this: though we were established as a republic, there was a fight to keep America under English principles. The question I've yet to know the answer of is: Did America ever leave english rule?

Man I got all off topic lol

I could write an essay on your response but I chose instead to deal with your last comment. Bush has done more than any other person to put us under a totalitarian rule.

True. And that's really not very much. Compared to the USSR or the DDR, we're still very free.

The reason we haven't seen it too much this far is because the main focus of americans is terrorism. Truth be told, Bush through his policies has slaughtered close to a million Iraqi's, In the immediate aftermath of 911 he began locking up arabs within our own country without provocation, Through his policies he has locked people up for no other reason than their religion,

I'm not saying that's OK, or that's insignificant, but I would point out that many extremely vocal critics of the administration did not get locked up, mostly because there are sharp limits to what the populace would tolerate. Unfortunately, locking up small, unpopular minorities has a long history in the United States (Indians, Japanese, and now Arabs). But one of the measures of our freedoms is the limits on detention without trial.

During Katrina (If we would have listened to the people rather than the government propaganda machines) Fema, Homeland Security, and special forces were shooting rather than rescuing people. Obviously this had to come from a high command.

I'll need some facts to back that up. Exactly (or even approximately) how many people were shot by government personnel? There will always be a few because of the inherently chaotic situation in a disaster.

I don't know what you think totalitarianism is but Bush sure seems to fit the bill.

I think totalitarianism is a governmental system under which citizens have no power and no rights. I agree with you that Bush has pushed as hard as possible toward totalitarianism under the guise of the "unitary executive" and "fighting terrorism," but he wasn't able to push it very far.

You said that America and the EU were examples of where nations did not become totalitarian. The US cannot be compared with the EU because the countries involved are primariy totalitarian, communist, or a dictatorship. If their not 1 of the 3 then they are extreme socialism.

I'm sorry but that's completely untrue. Every country in the EU has a democratic government. It's one of the basic requirements for membership. And they aren't "extreme socialism" either. They are mixed capitalist economies, somewhat more socialist than the U.S., but far from the Soviet Union or the former Warsaw Pact countries.

The EU isn't complete so using that as an example is mute.

Of course it isn't complete. That does not make it moot. No currently extant country is complete. But the fact is that thus far the EU has not tended toward totalitarianism, has not usurped the sovereignty of its member countries, and has not imposed socialism.

This brings us to the other example AMERICA. This would take me days to write. I Suppose if you picked apart all the historical documents you would understand why I say America could not be an example. I'll leave you with this thought though: The reason America cannot be an example is the same reason Canada could not be an example.

The United States is a perfect example. It is actually the oldest "Union" still in existence. After the Revolution, the States had enormous sovereignty, but were too small and weak to operate effectively. So they ceded a great deal of their sovereignty to the federal government in order to minimize inter-State conflict, streamline trade, and have a common external policy. You can't simply say that the U.S. and Canada can't be examples, you have to say why they can't be examples.

The rebellion against the strongmen statement only holds true IF the people have a reason to rebel. If for instance, The US economically collapsed the people would be willing to accept whatever was offered to relieve them of the financial burden. This already happened once in America and now we are the largest debtor nation on earth. What do you think the international bankers would want for collateral when the US files bankruptcy again? If you said well we have property YOUR WRONG!!! because all real property in the US is subleased to the US by the Federal Reserve.

That's not true. If you claim it to be so, you must provide evidence, and you can't. You're welcome to try, though.

This is what we used for collateral the last time we went bankrupt. So could the NAU become totalitarian yes but I don't necessarily think it will and the reason why is because they know that totalitarinism only works as long as the people are prosperous. This discussion took place in philadelphia a long time ago. The reason they chose a Republic was because the monarchy was utilizing a form of totalitarianism through the Church of England. They had originally considered making George Washington the first King but opted out although many people still addressed him as king George. Ironically, the biggest issue at that constitutional convention was a dispute between John Adams and I believe Thomas Jefferson in which John Adams argued that the people were not educated enough to vote in an election. This is why we ended up with the electorial college many years later. My point is this: though we were established as a republic, there was a fight to keep America under English principles. The question I've yet to know the answer of is: Did America ever leave english rule?

My opinion is that the United States established a system that was so like Britain's that it merely changed the identity of the bosses, and kept the system. However, I will point out a couple of errors in this paragraph. First, neither Jefferson nor Adams attended the Constitutional Convention, so you must either be talking about two other men, or you must be talking about the Continental Congress that drafted the Declaration of Independence, which both Jefferson and Adams did attend.

Attendees of the Constitutional Convention

Second, the Electoral College was established because the President was to be chosen by the States, not by popular election. Each state was permitted to choose how it selected electors. No election was necessary, the state legislature could simply appoint electors. U.S. Const., Art. II, sec. 1.

Man I got all off topic lol

Sure did. I'll be happy to continue the discussion, though.

MASSAH MASSAH please put down the whip these welts be stinging somethin fierce lol
Great response but I got to git but Ill correct my mistakes later.
EVERYONE (that means you sky) take notice, this was a well thought out response...

I like this. We're disgreeing very strongly, but we're keeping it polite and fairly well focussed. Take your time and we'll continue later.

This would be true however it would depend entirely on your definition of freedom. There is freedom with no restraints which seems to be the direction the US is headed and there is freedom with responsibility which seems to be lacking in America.



true the extremely vocal critics have not been locked up however they have been discredited and silenced through the media. Again your correct on the locking up people in America throughout history. But in the 20th century we locked people up because we knew who the enemy was. Today this isn't the case. They are guilty of locking people up because of an ideology, religion, and culture. Creating a war on terror is equivilant to declaring a war on what a person thinks sees or believes. Our constitution is suppose to have protections for these people but apparently this is not so.



I don't want to be put in the position of citing sources just to be placed in a position to defend what someone else said. (and the point goes to Jubal)



totalitarianism [(toh-tal-uh-tair-ee-uh-niz-uhm)]

Domination by a government of all political, social, and economic activities in a nation. Totalitarianism is a phenomenon of the twentieth century: earlier forms of despotism and autocracy lacked the technical capacity to control every aspect of life. The term is applied both to fascist governments (see fascism) and to many forms of communism.

Bush has very little to do with it. Like I said before the power rests in the hands of the ones who control the currency. The United States is already controlled politically, socially, and economically by those who control our money.



This would be true if things were really as they seem. A few interesting things happened after the cold war that went unnoticed by many in the US. The people who were repressing the people created a new party and further pushed Gorbachev's Perestroika. Did things change democratic or were they allowing it to appear this way to appease America into it's own demise. Bear in Mind, Gorbachev now resides in the citadel in California. This goes into a whole host of things I really don't wish to expound on.

Let me take a break before I go on

What's this place coming to?

This would be true however it would depend entirely on your definition of freedom. There is freedom with no restraints which seems to be the direction the US is headed and there is freedom with responsibility which seems to be lacking in America.

I would suggest that freedom with responsibility has always been lacking in America. The "freedom" that gets talked about so much was freedom for well-off white men. Until WWII, women and children were effectively slaves, black people were slaves and later officially discriminated against by the laws of all states, not just the South, Indians were victims of theft and murder, and poor white men had the choice of working under hellishly hazardous conditions or starving. The ones who exercised their freedom did so without a thought to the consequences of their actions, and the deck was stacked to see to it they'd never pay for their actions.

true the extremely vocal critics have not been locked up however they have been discredited and silenced through the media.

Which is as it should be. The media is a fairly free market. If it can be bought or intimidated into following somebody's party line, then the cure is for people dissatisfied with the media message to get their own messages out. And that's easier now than it has ever been in human history. Start a blog. If you're good at it, and persuasive, you can make a serious difference. That's the true conservative message. Don't like the way things are? Pull up your socks and do something about it.

Again your correct on the locking up people in America throughout history. But in the 20th century we locked people up because we knew who the enemy was. Today this isn't the case. They are guilty of locking people up because of an ideology, religion, and culture. Creating a war on terror is equivilant to declaring a war on what a person thinks sees or believes. Our constitution is suppose to have protections for these people but apparently this is not so.

True, but I disagree that we "knew who the enemy was." The two most egregious cases of indefinite detention without cause were the Indians, who were nobody's enemy, and the Japanese-Americans in WWII. It's an odd kind of enemy that walks out of your concentration camp, joins your army, and goes on to be the most decorated unit in the entire army (look up the 442d Regimental Combat Team). The Japanese-Americans weren't our enemies.

I don't want to be put in the position of citing sources just to be placed in a position to defend what someone else said. (and the point goes to Jubal)
totalitarianism [(toh-tal-uh-tair-ee-uh-niz-uhm)]

Domination by a government of all political, social, and economic activities in a nation. Totalitarianism is a phenomenon of the twentieth century: earlier forms of despotism and autocracy lacked the technical capacity to control every aspect of life. The term is applied both to fascist governments (see fascism) and to many forms of communism.

Bush has very little to do with it. Like I said before the power rests in the hands of the ones who control the currency. The United States is already controlled politically, socially, and economically by those who control our money.

We the people control wealth in the United States (not money, wealth). We are not the victims of a vast conspiracy. We have the ability to change things if we choose to.

This would be true if things were really as they seem. A few interesting things happened after the cold war that went unnoticed by many in the US. The people who were repressing the people created a new party and further pushed Gorbachev's Perestroika. Did things change democratic or were they allowing it to appear this way to appease America into it's own demise. Bear in Mind, Gorbachev now resides in the citadel in California. This goes into a whole host of things I really don't wish to expound on.

Not particularly relevant, considering Russia is not part of the EU. You might focus your comments more on Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, all of which have fundamentally democratic governments.

Let me take a break before I go on
[/quote]

Nope NO Conspiracy HERE
I know it's not about the NAU but I thought it was worth noting
Oh wait could this be part of a conspiracy linked to the NAU

You're right, that's not one case of a bunch of dumb-ass rent-a-cops overreacting, it's clear and convincing evidence of a conspiracy between the Illuminati and the Masons (and probably the Jews) to turn all of North America into a great big slave camp.

OK, that was sarcasm. But I think you take my point.

No North American Union HERE
or HERE

Maybe you need to roll back through the thread. If you remember, the issue we've been discussing is not whether we are moving toward a North American Union, but whether that would be a bad thing. You're assuming it would be a bad thing, but I don't regard that as demonstrated yet.

I would remind you that the United States has already tried, on several occasions, to form a North American Union. Like when we stole a third of Mexico, and when it was our official policy to annex Canada.

Jubal,
I may be wrong on some of my facts as to why we shouldnt have a North American Union but This article sorta spells it out better.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying we're having a debate. I will point out one thing in the article that's wrong, though.



That's just insane. The European Union has the European Parliament, which has not "superseded" the parliaments of the member countries. This is just hysteria. It also isn't a stealth conspiracy. If it was, there wouldn't be so much written about it.

If you don't like the idea, fine. You'll have plenty of chances to advocate and vote against it. I'm not sold on the idea. I'd have to see the specifics.

I don't think it's insane to view NAU as an attack on US sovereignty. The whole point is to undermine the US congress's constitutional authority to regulate foreign trade, which I do not view as a trivial infringement.

Until about 1870, corporations were allowed to exist only if they served the public interest. Now, there are very few controls on their power. Free trade simultaneously destroys two of the remaining controls: Whatever crimes* they can get away with overseas can be freely exploited in domestic markets, and they get to de-unionize longshoremen and teamsters at the same time.

OK, who's the attacker? And is a surrender of part of our sovereignty a bad thing?

As to the part about corporations, I agree. I think the Supreme Court's decision that corporations are "legal persons" was just insane. Corporations are creatures of the state. The state can do whatever it wants with them. They have no rights.

Happy is right on the money as far you jubal it was a hidden conspiracy up until now when the information could no longer be contained. There has been no oversight by congress up to this point. this leads me to believe that those attempting to destroy America from within know that what they are doing is AGAINST the constitution of the United States. The Executive Branch Cannot enter into any treatise without the advice and consent of the senate:

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

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.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Now if he has entered into any treaty thus far this is grounds for impeachment.

It doesn't matter if he has or hasn't. Treaties have no effect until they're approved by the Senate. Treaties can also be overriden by legislation.

dammit jubal I want so bad to criticize you but YOUR RIGHT!!!

I'm a lawyer by trade, Mr. Brewer. I may have my head up my ass about politics and sovereignty, but I know my law.

Well that's a good thing right? I'm a musician by trade a researcher full time. I spend most of my time researching not just the political system but the entire political spectrum. I know law but certainly not to the degree which you do. I'm no lawyer!!!
I Do know the constitution

1.) The corporate elite, who don't care for democracy or human rights and are perfectly happy with any kind of government as long as it protects their profits. Free trade is good for them, it's bad for everyone else.

2.) I think that the surrender of part of our sovereignty is bad. As hard as it is to create a progressive government in our country, it would be worse if it had to play nice with an anti-progressive super-government when it finally gets elected. It will be bad enough in 2009: Massive deficit/debt, massive dependence on foreign oil, massive dependece on Chinese imports (forget consumer goods; we can't build a tank without their computer chips. Actually, don't forget consumer goods either). Our economy is in danger of a major collapse, and deliberate economic retaliation by a foreign power, or even a multinational corporation, could set it off.

Remember, there is no NAU, it's only the corporate elite. We aren't talking about giving Canadians a voice, but only billionaires. They love war, they love classes and orders, they hate democracy, they hate human rights. We don't need to speculate, this is who they are. "International cooperation" is just a smoke screen for removing the real power that affects people's lives even farther away from democratic control.

Are you aware that AIM has very dubious credibility?

who doesn't?

Well, there are plenty of credible information outlets out there. I'm sure you know of a few, since you are a "full-time researcher". Or maybe you don't, since you are convinced Hillary Clinton is a radical liberal and cite websites well-known for their right wing slant and publication of paid shills.

I don't think you are a propagandist. No paid shill in their right mind would come to this forum to ply their trade. I do believe that you are horribly misinformed. It's not your fault. And I don't blame you for it. You claim to be a researcher. I'm not sure that you are as much as you think you are. I, myself, am a professional researcher. I'm also a full-time player in the media reform movement. It's part of my job to know what outlets are credible and which aren't. I research who pays what to whom to get certain takes on certain issues promoted in the mainstream media. I monitor the talking poits, the spin, and the vocabulary used by pundits influence the public. I see you parroting those same things here in this forum as you speak.

Don't feel like I'm coming down on you. I used to listen to Hannity and Limbaugh. I used to read Newsmax. I used to trust them. I used to think they wouldn't have such a following of they weren't telling the truth. But if you pay attention and your desire to become informed is stronger than your desire to blame and hate, you'll come around too, and find it hard to believe that you ever read worldnetdaily or AIM.

I agree only to the point of realizing that any source you or I use has a perspective on an issue that is theirs (and generally) theirs alone. Sure I posted a worldnetdaily post BUT as I had stated before I had heard the same thing from hillary herself on the campaign. Look if she says something she says something. I seldom take in the opinions of those who report however if quoted and quoted correctly then I will let her speak for herself. I couldn't find any mainstream reporting on it because it sensationalizes conspiracies. I know what Worldnetdaily's slant is on the news but I wish not to discredit it as I wish to not sound like I'm anti-semetic. But I guess I had you figured all wrong POAC. I guess you do KNOW ALL my bad.

Your logic is impeccable. Unfortunately, there stands the EU. Could you explain why it isn't one gigantic gulag run by and for Dutch Royal Shell and Siemens AG?

http://time2getbusy.com/

It says "Christian rap genre" on his site, not "researcher".

Remember Mork and Mindy, and that character Exodor, who was going to start a cult using rock and roll? That memory just popped into my head for no reason.

You're stuck in the belief that the extreme left and the extreme right are equally bad... and that might be theoretically true, except that there is no extreme left in the US with any power.



Because the EU was not created by and for Shell and Siemens? I didn't say that multinational unions are intrinsically evil, I said that NAFTA is built on the foundational assumption that multinational corporations need to be immunized from inconvenient regulation that that bastard Democracy might impose. And it is, therefore, bad.

I'm not attacking you or trying to appear as a know it all. I'm trying to help you. Worldnetdaily has a history of misrepresenting facts with the intent to mislead their readers. Other news sources do not. Perhaps you would like to try those some time. They may not support the