Robert Pastor, a leading intellectual force in the move to create an EU-style North American Community, told WND he believes a new 9/11 crisis could be the catalyst to merge the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
Pastor, a professor at American University, says that in such a case the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP – launched in 2005 by the heads of the three countries at a summit in Waco, Texas – could be developed into a continental union, complete with a new currency, the amero, that would replace the U.S. dollar just as the euro has replaced the national currencies of Europe.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53378
*Predicted response from the Unsane Clone Posse: "Blah blah blah, it doesn't exist because I don't believe it exists, blah blah blah blah...."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
No no no. Don't you know that
December 16, 2006 - 19:21 ET by ThoughtPoliceNo no no. Don't you know that liberal universiites are the death of this country? Not only do they profess the rights and liberties of all americans such as free speech, but they also promote OUTRAGEOUS conspiracy theories like this!!
Please, take your "conspiracy theories" to a site where they will be appreciated, like tinfoilhatpurplekoolaidufosightings.com
(too many emoticons to use here...)
Not only do they profess the
December 16, 2006 - 19:30 ET by mikejNot only do they profess the rights and liberties of all americans such as free speech
You mean like the liberals that routinely shout down, interrupt, intimidate, throw pies, rush the stage and verbally abuse, every speaker that they don't agree with? That the type of free speech and liberty you are talking about?
Pow! Right in the kisser....G
December 16, 2006 - 19:46 ET by bigtimerPow! Right in the kisser....
Good one there mikej!
To the point and so true!
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
It's all true, I heard it on
December 16, 2006 - 19:23 ET by tracheostomyIt's all true, I heard it on Art Bell.
-PJ
http://www.draftcondi.us/
complete with a new currency,
December 16, 2006 - 19:52 ET by Jack Bauercomplete with a new currency, the amero,
Would the Oreo be a better currency bet?
Then as it become worthless, at least you could eat it!
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
At least quote me correctly:
December 16, 2006 - 21:17 ET by UnsaneAt least quote me correctly: none of you "North American Union" conspiros can yet tell me how you are going to push this past Ottawa and Mexico City, much less the far reaching majority of Americans. Those who continue to espouse this nonsense merely tell me that they in all likelihood have not spent a nanosecond of their lives outside the United States, or even their home state, perhaps; and additionally, refuse to study history or the culture of the nations bordering the United States.
None of that is my fault. If you cannot do that, and WANT to live in fantasy land, I cannot help you.
If we were heading to some ballyhooed "union" with these countries, then why is it that if you even travel to Canada and Mexico, our own government is going to require passports of its own citizenry, much less the citizens of Canada and Mexico?
Why did the Canadians THROW A FIT when it was RECOMMENDED that they harmonize their customs regulations with the United States? Did you even see the Liberal leadership convention in Montreal? The rhetoric bandied about there did not suggest to me the Canadians are ready for some political union with the United States?
Why did the Mexican presidential election come 380,000 votes away from elevating to power an isolationist Leftist who has not even once left Mexico for any reason?
You know, some conspiracy theories are just too big to take on or espouse.
Final insult: from everything I have seen, this "SPP" is nothing more than the ISG, only focused on NAFTA. Or...is that what this evil conspiracy only WANTS me to see?????????? (insert music from a B-horror flick here)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
A "conspiracy" is b
December 16, 2006 - 22:29 ET by Ten7sA "conspiracy" is by definition secret and illegal. That many influential members of the foreign policy community believe that a NAU is favorable and that they are working toward that end is neither secret nor illegal; it is a simple fact. The Council on Foreign Relations, an organization with a virtual revolving door to high level US Foreign Policy Leadership, has many publications discussing a NAU modeled on the EEC/EU and how to get there (incrementally and opportunistically using trade and security, etc. as was done in Europe). And the fact that the SPP and the proposed NAFTA Superhighway follow the CFR recommendations to some degree is also not in question.
Some argue that it will never happen. Fine, but that's a separate question, a question for fortunetellers and handicappers. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts at hand, namely that many in Foreign Policy Leadership circles are working toward regionalization. (BTW, I've lived and traveled extensively outside of the United States, although I don't see what that has to do with the matter at hand, as the CFR position papers/ Congressional Records/ etc. etc. can be easily accessed at any good library.)
The CFR consists of a bunch o
December 16, 2006 - 23:20 ET by UnsaneThe CFR consists of a bunch of pie-in-the-sky foreign policy ivory-tower types with no grounding in The Real World. So just saying "CFR!" does nothing but cause me to shrug.
I am now placing, again, a wager on the table: as I have history and culture to fall back on, I feel pretty damn confident that there is going to be a United States so long as I am living on this earth, and I have quite a few decades to go yet. But let's start at 2010: I say there will be a United States in 2010. What the actual wager can be is totally negotiable.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Hmm, Pie-in-the-sky? ivory-to
December 17, 2006 - 13:34 ET by ThoughtPoliceHmm, Pie-in-the-sky? ivory-tower types? Please, can you keep your technical prowess to yourself, I don't think many can comprehend such mastery of he English language.
Don't worry. Keep practicin
December 17, 2006 - 14:33 ET by UnsaneDon't worry. Keep practicing your English skills and you can have the same level of mastery I do one day.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Diving for the dictionary
December 17, 2006 - 14:38 ET by dagdaThoughtpolice, you need to speak for yourself. If you need to use a dictionary when reading this blog, then so be it. Maybe you will expand your vocabulary. I used to watch Bill Buckley live, without a dictionary, and had no problems. No one here uses a vocabulary at that level.
Most of us try to dummy down our word selection so liberals will understand us.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
The members of the CFR travel
December 17, 2006 - 18:30 ET by Ten7sThe members of the CFR travel in circles of influence and power. Its more than just a think-tank. Its a network among the financial and political centers of power. Just look at the CFR Board of Directors, each and every one have held one or more high-level leadership positions in government and/or high-level leadership positions in finance/banking. Call them what you will, they are not to be offhandedly dismissed.
What makes a nation?
December 17, 2006 - 23:13 ET by UnsaneOK...then let me ask you this:
What makes a nation?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
You're changing the subject.
December 18, 2006 - 13:25 ET by Ten7sYou're changing the subject. But I guess I'll play along.
Do you mean "nation" or "nation-state"? You asked about "nation"; so I'll assume that's what you meant. "Nation" comes from "natus" meaning "to be born", also found in "innate", "natal", "native" etc. "Nation" is quite literally "born of" or "a group of people of similar descent". More loosely its understood as a group of people of the same culture, language, ethnicity, religion, history, etc.
Not a subject change at all, stay tuned
December 18, 2006 - 13:29 ET by UnsaneActually, this IS the subject. Now, this being determined, is a nation born of a gaggle of elites, or is it born of what a LARGE, wide-ranging group of people agree upon?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Re united north america
December 18, 2006 - 13:46 ET by misterbillI am preparing, particularly for the Mexican integration. I wish to work in that area. The step I am taking is to go back to school to study Spanish and Corruption. Corruption is the better paying part, but it helps to steal when you speak the same language.
In actuality, the best part o
December 18, 2006 - 13:56 ET by UnsaneIn actuality, the best part of being bilingual is the ability to steal from people blind, ask tourists who have been south of the border. :-) With me knowing only Deutsch and По-Русский, I am not well prepared...
(I am all about a Constitutional Amendment making English the official language of government myself. If just that much is done, the primacy of English is assured no matter what else happens.)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
First, a "nation" i
December 18, 2006 - 14:27 ET by Ten7sFirst, a "nation" is always born of ancestors or Forefathers of a specific culture. Do you mean "does" or "ought" rule a nation-state? "Does" rule, yes, there are examples of nation-states ruled by a "gaggle of elites". "Ought" rule, my opinion is that a clique of elites should not rule; I'm a republican in the broadest sense.
I'm not really thinking about
December 18, 2006 - 21:03 ET by UnsaneI'm not really thinking about who or what rules a nation in that sense. For the sake of this argument I am taking it back to the very beginning of the founding of a nation.
Can those Forefathers you mentioned just create a nation out of whole cloth, or do their ideas of nationhood have to be accepted by others around them? Another way of putting it: do the masses matter at all? Do they have any inputs into what makes a nation?
The reason I am asking these questions is simple: if you think the elites, and the elites alone, make the nation come into existence and sustain it, then you are more apt to believe that the masses don't matter, and that this "North American Union" can just magically happen on the elite's whim. Which I do not and cannot accept: even if we all wake up on 1 January 2010 and find that this ballyhooed "Union" has come to pass, I wouldn't expect very many people in the three nations involved to just sit quietly and let it happen smoothly with no problems. In my mind, both the elites AND the masses have to make the nation.
If this "Union" is being plotted by a bunch of hoity-toity elites, and there is nothing we can do to stop it:
1) Perhaps we can run this by the Canadians and see what they think. They won't be happy: Canadians have no other national identity other than "not being American". If it is just apple pie easy to get the Canadians to jump on board, perhaps someone can explain why the Canadians are guaranteed to throw a fit over any effort that looks like they'll be made more American, or efforts that LOOK like they will be further integrated to America.
2) If this is just an apple pie easy thing, why did Mexico come 380,000 votes from voting in an isolationist who has never even spent a single day outside Mexico?
The CFR, whoever and whatever else can babble on and on all day on this, but at the end of the day, they will need to convince the majority of a combined population of 430 million people in three countries that this is a good idea. Good luck with that. This is fiction and nothing more. Care to make a wager?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
"the very beginning of t
December 19, 2006 - 17:06 ET by Ten7s"the very beginning of the founding of a nation"
Do you want to start with the Pilgrims, the Anglo-Saxons, the Norman Invasion, Romulus and Remus ...? A nation is founded by ancestors aka Forefathers.
"their ideas of nationhood"
A "Nation" is a group people, literally and not a territory. A "Nation-State" is a territory controlled by a nation or "a group of people descended from the same ancestors" or more loosely "a group of people with the same language, culture, traditions, ethnicity, etc.". So the phrase "ideas of nationhood" doesn't make any sense. Do you mean, "ideas about how a nation-state should be organized and/or ruled"?
"do the masses matter at all"
I hate the Marxist term "masses". "Masses" or "hordes of undifferentiated people" do not exist. The Marxists uses the term "masses" because they wish to strip people of their identities.
"if you think the elites, and the elites alone, make the nation come into existence"
Ancestors or Forefathers (and Foremothers, of course) make a "nation come into existence".
All of the nations and nation-states that existed in Europe before the EU still exist. I don't see why you think that a NAU would make nations and nation-states disappear. The EU does however subject the citizens of the various European nation-states to various laws and rules, especially in the areas of commerce, security, and anything that affects the "common good".
"they will need to convince the majority ... in three countries that this is a good idea"
Those pushing for regionalization don't plan to bring it to a vote or referendum. They hope to opportunistically and incrementally bring it into being one step at a time, legally but without fanfare. For example, they've moved ahead with the NAFTA Superhighway with almost no publicity, quietly using private funding, commerce agreements, etc.
Funny that you tag me as a Ma
December 20, 2006 - 02:23 ET by UnsaneFunny that you tag me as a Marxist for my use of the term "masses", but I simply couldn't think of a better word. My posts on various topics sharply contradict the thinking that I am a Marxist. If I use "hoi polloi" or "common folk" next time, will THAT curry your favor?
Can just the "ancestors" or "forefathers" alone make a nation exist, or do people actually have to believe in that idea, that concept called a nation? Last I checked, the United States exists as a nation because we point to such things our Founding Fathers left us, such as the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the struggle to bring the nation to life in the form of the Revolutionary War.
Ideas of nationhood DO make a great deal of sense if you read a lot of history, especially the history of countries that have a great deal of trouble with the idea of nationhood, like Canada and Mexico. Canada has to identify itself as "not America" for it has nothing else to hang its hat on, and itself has a population that believes that IT is a nation (Quebec). Ideas of nationhood sound something like this: does the nation identify itself with a common struggle, identity, language, symbols, events, people and so on, or perhaps what its goals are. In the case of Mexico, it has a split personality: does it identify itself with Europe or Mesoamerica?
Actually, from what I gather here (PLEASE correct me if I am wrong), it is I who think that NAFTA is utterly harmless, unless one belongs to a labor union. It is those such as yourself that thing it is going to lead directly to some sovereignty sapping "NAU". Which to me is far fetched due to, once again, such deep annoyances (to both fearmongers and people who think that this "NAU" is a great idea) as history and culture. As I understand both forces, I take comfort in the fact that there shall be zero losses of sovereignty for this great country possibly as long as I shall live, and I have quite a few decades in front of me.
Also note the history of the EU. There was NO WAY it was coming without the tacit approval of voters every step of the way. There were plenty of moments when voters could have given the thumbs down to things like the European Commission or the European Parliament. The people of Europe embraced these things and seem content with it. Me, being an American citizen who is not in any way eager to team up with the socialists to my north and south, simply doesn't get it, but since they voted for these things in droves, what can I do about it? And even so, the Maastricht Treaty came close to getting scrapped on more than one occasion by voters. The EU Constitution was shot down by voters in France and the Netherlands. The integration of Europe has had voter input throughout, and even so, just note the northern tier of Europe for levels of integration: the EU presidency holder until 31 December, Finland, is all in; Sweden belongs to the EU but has its own currency; and Norway doesn't belong to either. Again, all due to voters.
About this alleged NAFTA superhighway that is supposed to bring about the destruction of this country: if you don't like it, cry to Governor Perry. He is the one pushing the thing called the "Trans Texas Corridor". A lot of people in TX don't like it, and not because it will allegedly bring about the end of America the way so many NAFTA haters believe it will: it's because it will be a toll road, and in spite of toll roads in Houston and Dallas, it rubs people the wrong way. Oh, and those pushing for regionalization, or whatever, are STILL going to have to push it by two countries with populations so insecure in their own national identities that they can only agree on one thing, they both fear the United States, especially the Canadians. They must STILL work against history and culture, things no one here wants to address.
Again, my offer of a wager is on the table. Why does no one want to take me up on it???
P.S. As much as I like NAFTA and the fact the free trade allows me to pay next to nothing for the basics of life, such as food and clothing, I think it would be great if we could close the border to illegal immigration. We can have both a free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico - I didn't see those countries take their customs agents from the borders and ports after it went into effect, did you? - and zero illegal immigration, if we could get some political leadership with the guts to do it.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
"Funny that you tag me a
December 20, 2006 - 18:32 ET by Ten7s"Funny that you tag me as a Marxist"
I didn't "tag" you as a Marxist. I simply said that the word you used is a word used by Marxists and that I don't like the word. And I don't care for "hoi polloi" much either, too elitist.
"Can just the 'ancestors' or 'forefathers' alone make a nation exist"
Yes, it is "a group of people descended from common ancestors" and (or more loosely) "a group of people with the same language, culture, history, traditions, etc." Nations occur. Nation-states are conquered and controlled; government is the order and form of control.
"the struggle to bring the nation to life in the form of the Revolutionary War"
You are confusing effect with cause. The Revolutionary War happened because our forefathers became a separate nation or people. The war was the result of a new reality, of a new people asserting themselves ("a new nation asserting itself"), demanding that they as a nation (a people) rule themselves.
"the United States exists as a nation because we point to such things our Founding Fathers left us, such as the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence"
Again you confuse cause and effect. The Declaration of Independence put everyone on notice that the nation was ready to assert itself, but a new nation, a new people emerged long before. Likewise the Constitution is the document that enunciates the order and form of government of the nation (the people). IOW, the Constitution became because of the nation, and not vise-versa.
"Canada has to identify itself as "not America" ... and itself has a population that believes that IT is a nation (Quebec). Ideas of nationhood sound something like this: does the nation identify itself with a common struggle, identity, language, symbols, events, people and so on, or perhaps what its goals are..."
What makes nations is quite clear. The French Canadians probably are a nation (having their own language, culture, traditions, history, etc.), but they don't have a nation-state and are a nation that exists with the country of Canada. So, you must mean, "ideas of how to order and rule a country which contains more than one nation" or "how to join two nations into one" or “how to assimilate citizens”. That is why multiculturalism doesn't work, will never work, and why assimilation is vital to the future of the United States.
"those such as yourself that that thing it is going to lead directly to some sovereignty sapping NAU...I take comfort in the fact that there shall be zero losses of sovereignty for this great country possibly as long as I shall live, and I have quite a few decades in front of me."
Why do you always return to the crystal ball? I've not put forward any guesses about the future. And your statement about the future is not a "fact", not even a guess, but a belief. And that's fine, but let's make sure we call it what it is, a belief.
“alleged NAFTA superhighway”
Its real, not alleged. And the “Trans Texas Corridor” is the first big step in the building of it.
“supposed to bring about the destruction of this country”
Now you’re just being obtuse. All I’ve said is that it is one step in instituting the need for more trilateral regulation.
“those pushing for regionalization, or whatever, are STILL going to have to push it by two countries”
Like I said before those who are promoting regionalization don’t plan to have a referendum. Any changes will come first as the regulation of commerce (remember what interstate commerce has done in the United States), and eventually an institution to arbitrate between aggrieved parties and adjudicate. This then necessitates both security and enforcement.
“populations so insecure in their own national identities”
In Europe, neither the nations nor the nation-states have disappeared because of the EU. In fact, the EU has been careful to “protect” the various national languages and “customs”.
Unfortunately I currently hav
December 21, 2006 - 23:16 ET by UnsaneUnfortunately I currently have an abysmally slow Internet connection, so I cannot respond to your post in detail, but I need to respond to the accusation that I am being "obtuse". Yet you follow that with quoting me on the "alleged NAFTA superhighway" (I stand by that, by the way) by saying "It's real, not alleged". Well, I hate to say this, but I live in TX. I tend to hear about major transportation projects such as that, and I would know a thing or two about it if it were some "NAFTA superhighway". So, who is really being obtuse? Not I.
Besides, conspiracy theorists and hyper-protectionists (who love the idea of paying huge money for the basics of life to subsidize labor unions and their members) can't even agree where this "NAFTA superhighway" is. Some say it is the Trans Texas Corridor, which, as memory serves, will include the present U.S. Highway 59. More or less it is another way to get I-69 extended through TX, something I have heard discussed for years. Others (like Pat Buchanan) say, from what I can grasp from his writing, that it will be I-35, because in his vision this theoretical highway is supposed to extend straight to Kansas City, which would follow the route of I-35.
My point is quite simple: try ALL you can, but going against the grain of history and culture is not something that can happen overnight. My offer of a wager still sits on the table; why won't anyone take it up? Are they afraid???
Finally: we have had the Pan-American Highway for decades now. I may be wrong, but I don't see that bringing us any closer to our Latin American neighbors in any way. Especially these days.
There are INFINITELY bigger things to worry about.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
"Well, I hate to say thi
December 22, 2006 - 01:16 ET by Ten7s"Well, I hate to say this, but I live in TX. I tend to hear about major transportation projects such as that...the Trans Texas Corridor, which, as memory serves, will include the present U.S. Highway 59. More or less it is another way to get I-69 extended through TX, something I have heard discussed for years. Others (like Pat Buchanan) say, from what I can grasp from his writing, that it will be I-35, because in his vision this theoretical highway is supposed to extend straight to Kansas City, which would follow the route of I-35."
The infrastructure for the "Trans-Texas Corridor" incorporates several highways and railways. And some of the most important hurdles that the "TTC" surmounts for the overall project are legal and regulatory rather than structural. But it does appear that a major expansion of I-69 is the first phase in the infrastructure upgrades for the North American Corridor project, a.k.a. "NAFTA Superhighway" system.
Can this at least get I-35 wi
December 23, 2006 - 14:42 ET by UnsaneCan this at least get I-35 widened? It is a bitch to drive to Dallas these days... :-)
(So much deep seated, intense, and overwhelming FEAR of one little, harmless, LOCAL construction project....)
Are you a protectionist by chance?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
"LOCAL construction proj
December 26, 2006 - 10:28 ET by Ten7s"LOCAL construction project"
Are you being sarcastic? That "little", "local" construction project includes a half dozen states from Port Huron, Michigan/Sarnia, Ontario, Canada to the Mexican Border in Texas. Might the tax dollars to "widen I-35" be spent elsewhere?
We have a confluence of powerful interests among multinational businesses, international/anti-national socialists, and narrow political and business opportunists, resulting in a situation that affects virtually everything in America from public education, health, and transportation to our language, our culture, our wallets and the law. And you equate this "perfect storm" (as J.D. Hayworth called it) to "one little, harmless, LOCAL construction project".
BTW, I don't "FEAR", but I just don't have my head in the sand.
No, you are heavily infused w
December 27, 2006 - 00:24 ET by UnsaneNo, you are heavily infused with fear. And finally, you admit it: this "NAFTA superhighway" that so terrifies you is otherwise known as I-69. (But the "NAFTA superhighway Chicken Littles" might shift that location back to I-35 when it becomes politically expedient for them, though I would seriously appreciate better coordination among them so I can take their arguments halfway seriously.) Why the "Trans Texas Corridor"? To pay for it via tolls, of course.
You might be surprised that, as a former active duty AF officer, and as a Reservist, I LIKE to keep my head way above ground level and constantly look for threats. Unlike you I am more concerned about China blinding our satellites, rogue states like North Korea, and Middle East lunacy than I am about this. but if you wish to make a mountain out of a molehill, I cannot help you.
And I was hardly being sarcastic by calling this a local construction project. That is in fact what it is. If it SO terrifies you, go cry to Governor Perry and TxDOT, as I stated before. (I have no clue about how the other states involved will pay for their sections of I-69.)
I-69 will follow the current U.S. 59, which I am sure will make Houstonians happy. The Southwest and Eastex Freeways can be a pain in the ass, as most Houston freeways are. I'd be willing to bet that this was one of the main reasons for the widening of the Southwest Freeway near downtown in the late 1990s and the reconstruction of the Southwest Freeway/West Loop interchange in the earlier part of this decade. If so, people in Houston are already reaping benefits - as am I, being a fairly frequent visitor to that city. :-)
However, perhaps you would join me in pushing for an Amendment to the Constitution that makes English the official language of ALL government actions and documents, serious educational reform (to include de-funding the Department of Education), and a serious crackdown on illegal immigration. Those, among other reforms, shall keep the United States on the cutting edge for decades to come.
But I close by asking once again, a yes or no question: are you a protectionist?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
"No, you are heavily inf
December 27, 2006 - 19:50 ET by Ten7s"No, you are heavily infused with fear"
To assume that you know someone else's thoughts and feelings better than do they is silly. So, let's get one thing absolutely straight. I'll be the authority on my thoughts and feelings, and you be the authority on yours.
"Unlike you I am more concerned about..."
Again, I'll be the authority on the nature and degree of my concern.
"I-69 will follow..." "perhaps you would join me in pushing for..."
Yes, I would be in favor of English as the official national language, education reform, and the activation of an array of laws, policies, and methods to enforce the borders, protect Americans, and repatriate Illegals.
But the TTC, I-69, and NAFTA Highway System boondoggles, the SPP, the NAU, the lack of resolve on solving the Illegal Alien problems, and much else are "the symptoms", and I've been trying to get everyone to see "the disease", the common denominator among all of it. And that is the confluence of powerful interests among multinational businesses, international/anti-national socialists, and narrow political and business opportunists on both sides of the border, interests which very often directly conflict with the interests of average American Citizens and which manifest in the lack of border security, the pursuit of distructive policies like a GWP, the pursuit of supra-national conventions like the SPP and a North American Highway System (aka NAFTA Highway System), ect.
"are you a protectionist?"
Not particularly.
A bit touchy this evening, ar
December 27, 2006 - 22:55 ET by UnsaneA bit touchy this evening, aren't we?
Guess what? I am going to be the authority on the nature and degree of your concern. After all, you never apologized to me for accusing me of liking illegal immigration back in late spring. Unlike you, I don't see a conspiracy around every corner and run in total FEAR of things like Interstate road construction projects. (Were you alive in 1956? I'll bet the Interstate Highway Act turned your hair snow-white at an early age...) Unlike you, I don't have a habit of talking down to others.
I don't see a common denominator. Mathematics has common denominators, not humanity, especially not in conspiracies. Conspiracies of this sort are extremely painful to carry out to this day. I don't fear multinational business; they are only out to earn a buck for themselves and their shareholders. (Hell, I invest in multinational business!) I constantly worry about socialism but I can't see where this fits in. That would be perhaps the biggest reason NOT to merge with Canada and Mexico, as they are both considerably more socialistic than the United States, especially Canada. And as to those other factors: they can come to a screeching halt if the voting public would do us both a favor and wake the hell up in regards to illegal immigration. They CAN, you know. Not to mention throwing a few employers in the slam for a decade or so for hiring illegal immigration. I for one would LOVE to see that. Why do I have to bring proofs of citizenship everytime I get hired for a job and keep getting asked everytime I apply for one, if NOTHING happens to employers who hire illegal immigrants? Something CAN be done if more people bitched about it and DEMANDED more be done, as I have. (Until such time that happens, we deserve all the crap we can get.)
But sorry, here we part ways. Illegal immigration? Big problem. Selective law enforcement? Big problem. Can they be solved? Easily, if we forced our legislators to grow the stones to DO something. But the construction of an Interstate Highway, part of it being a toll road, is not the sign of the Apocalypse to me. I'm not going to drive up and down the Southwest Freeway and check the back of all the signs that read "FUTURE INTERSTATE CORRIDOR" for the dots that the black helicopters will navigate by in some ballyhooed end of U.S. sovereignty. I have bigger things to worry about.
On that note, does the existence of I-5 bother you? I know for a fact it winds up in Canada just south of Vancouver, and as I recall it reaches Mexico. Would the extension of I-35 from Duluth, MN to the Canadian border similarly petrify you with fear? Or would you feel better if NO Interstate highways even came within viewing distance of either border?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
"you never apologized to
December 28, 2006 - 15:54 ET by Ten7s"you never apologized to me for accusing me of liking illegal immigration back in late spring"
I don't remember it. But I do apologize for insulting you. I try not to get personal; sometimes I fail in that regard.
"I don't see a conspiracy"
Neither do I. I see a set of situations and circumstances that are influencing an array of powerful economic, political and ideological interests in a direction that could be damaging to Our Nation.
"I don't fear multinational business; they are only out to earn a buck for themselves and their shareholders. (Hell, I invest in multinational business!)"
The goal of maximizing shareholder wealth within the limits of the law can make a business take all sorts of strange positions. Did you read Alan Greenspan's comments given during one of his last speeches that addressed the potentially damaging effects that huge multi-national concerns could have on democracy? Its certainly something to be mindful of. By the way like Mr. Greenspan I am fairly neutral toward such entities but see potential pitfalls.
"if the voting public would do us both a favor and wake the hell up in regards to illegal immigration..."
Yes, we are in agreement here.
"FUTURE INTERSTATE CORRIDOR"
That is just one part, the result of different interests that flow in a similar direction, converging on a similar path. The NAFTA Highway System, the SPP, the NAU, the lack of resolve on solving the Illegal Alien problems, and much else are "the symptoms", and I've been trying to get everyone to see "the disease", the overarching cause. And that is this confluence of powerful interests among multinational businesses, international/anti-national socialists, and narrow political and business opportunists on both sides of the border, interests which very often directly conflict with the interests of average American Citizens and which manifest in - the lack of border security, the pursuit of destructive policies like a GWP, the pursuit of supra-national conventions like the SPP, etc.
I do thank you for your civil
December 28, 2006 - 20:44 ET by UnsaneI do thank you for your civility. I know that I am prone to get bitterly sarcastic...
But here we have to disagree. I suspect you look at the SPP like the European Commission. I don't see it. (I am stunned you have yet to mention the NADBank, which is more supra-national than anything else created under NAFTA.) Unless I see some signage indicating a "NAFTA Highway System", that's not raising even yellow flags with me. Business interests are controlled by people beholden to their own prejudices forged in their respective histories and cultures, and that is not going to easily go away.
Another thing to keep in mind are the circumstances that gave rise to the EU. They were very much NOT going to form any such institution until war intervened, and they lost about 20-30 million citizens or so; that 20 years after a war where they coughed up perhaps 15 million, not to mention the economic disruptions that followed. That, and they then faced the prospect of a hostile Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc on their doorstep. You might say circumstances FORCED them together, and that the EU evolved from there. The same forces are not at work in North America. My familiarity with Canada in particular pours very cold water, in my mind, on ANY notions of NAFTA, the SPP, etc, being anything more that what it currently is.
My discussion on nationhood ties into this in this way: even the EU has to pay attention to those aspects of their project. Some of the elites in Brussels are trying to come up with ways to bind Europe together as a nation. That is part of what the EU constitution was: a document with "European values". The rejection of that document by the French and the Dutch was especially hurtful to them in that regard.
This being said, I simply am not going to see this as a threat(because I can't, even bringing my imagination into it)...unless someone proposes a customs union. (Good luck with that. We proposed such a union with Canada shortly after 11 September 2001 and they would have NONE of it; to Canadians, everything, to include the broadcasting/publishing of American media in Canada is a threat to their sovereignty.) Bring on I-69...if at the very least, so I can get down to the Rio Grande Valley faster. Have you ever driven down there? Talk about some desolate brushland....
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
"you have yet to mention
December 29, 2006 - 18:33 ET by Ten7s"I suspect you look at the SPP like the European Commission"
Its more analogous to the European Coal and Steel Community.
"you have yet to mention the NADBank"
Frankly, I thought about bringing up the essentially completed international harmonization of banking regulations (not specifically the NADB), the initiative to harmonize international financial reporting standards, and other circumstances in finance, commerce and business that are essentially pulling the drive for internationalization. But, my main point is general, encompassing also the political and ideological forces pushing internationalization, and the discussion was already getting bogged down in the particulars of the NAFTA Highway System (which is only one example of the results of both the pushing and pulling forces). So, I thought that complicated new elements might not be helpful to the focus of the discussion.
"the circumstances that gave rise to the EU"
The goal of a unified Europe dates back to the beginning of the Western Roman Empire. And of course, Hitler's attempt to unify Europe started WWII. Napoleon's attempt to unify Europe sparked a series Napoleonic Wars. And even the latest attempt from Brussels would like to associate itself with Charlemagne's successful Unification of Europe, though the EU is using the backdrop of America's military preeminence on the Continent. This is all an interesting but tangential subject, maybe for another time.
"My familiarity with Canada in particular pours very cold water, in my mind, on ANY notions of NAFTA, the SPP, etc, being anything more that what it currently is."
Perhaps you're correct, perhaps not. Currently, the circumstances seem conducive to ever increasing interdependence. OTOH, circumstances change. And with America's increasing idealism and with a global tendency toward irrationality, circumstances may change very, very quickly.
But its really hard to prognosticate future circumstances with any degree of accuracy. And my main beef is how current circumstances are exacerbating and preventing the solution of our Illegal Immigration and other problems. As someone said recently, 'A succesful EU in the long-term is unlikely, but the problem is the damage that's done in the attempt to bring it into reality and sustain it.'
More pennies for your thought
December 18, 2006 - 21:24 ET by UnsaneMore pennies for your thoughts:
"In March (2005), when Mr. Martin met Mr. Bush and Vicente Fox, the president of Mexico, in Waco, TX, the three leaders inaugurated a "Security and Prosperity Partnership", or SPP. This looks far less ambitious than the North American economic and security community proposed by New York's Council on Foreign Relations. Canadian opinion, it seems, is not yet ready for a common security perimeter or a customs union. (Unsane's note: perhaps someone can step forward and tell me what role the CFR plays in government. Oh, that's right, none...though I suppose they can dispense advice that no one has to hear. Never mind.) The SPP is little more than a forum for officials from the three countries to discuss a range of technocratic subjects, such as border security and health cooperation. (All italics by Unsane. Well, this looks like a "talk shop" that has not been empowered to do...well, a damn thing! Moving on...)
"However, small agreements can blossom into something much bigger: remeber the European Coal and Steel Community, which gradually metamorphosed into the European Union. (Unsane's note: the voters could have stopped that at anytime. Does anyone remember what happened to the EU constitution? Some governments MAY want to revive it, but it still has to get past the voters someway, somehow. The operative word in the preceding sentence: can. Let's move on...) Thomas d'Aquino, head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, hope for a similar evolution (well, I hope for getting paid $250K a year to post on NB, but I can keep right on hoping, for that won't happen; he clearly doesn't see the historical and cultural factors at work that will keep the big three on this continent apart for a very long time, but what do I expect, this guy's a mere businessman). From the integrators' perspective, one advantage of the SPP is the absence of any "big bang": the officials can operate below the political radar, without involving the U.S. or Mexican Congresses or Canada's Parliament (but let's see here...do you, or I, see a clamoring for greater unification among the masses? I don't. Hence the "integrators" can dream all they want. They also do not see the historical and cultural factors that create rifts between all three countries. I have no desire to team up with socialists myself. Next.) Nonetheless, says Mr. d'Aquino, "by 2010 the North America we know will have changed completely (sure it will; my offer of a wager sits on the table, guys. Next.) For precisely that reason, of course, many other Canadians are on guard against what they call "integration by stealth" (this because THEY fear further integration far more than Ten7s, LoD, or others, shockingly; but if you know Canadians and Canada than you would understand that). As in relations with Alberta and Quebec, navigating through the shoals will require political skills of the highest order. Does Mr. Martin's government have them? (Apparently not. He lost an election seven weeks after this was written.)" - The Economist, "Living With Number One", 1 Dec 2005
Well, don't expect me to lose sleep at night over this one. There are bigger worries. Because in the end, you still have to sell this to the populations of three nations. They can wish all they want but it ain't gonna happen, in 2010 or 2050, possibly ever.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Assumptions don't make facts.
December 21, 2006 - 15:07 ET by libertyordeathAssumptions don't make facts. You assume that this will be put to a vote. You assume that all Canadians and Mexicans know what the SPP is about, and assume that they have deemed it harmless/beneficial (even though you hadn't even heard of it, then automatically dismissed it as "conspiracy theory", now you defend it). You assume that our government, our protege Canada's government, and the Mexican crime family rulers as a whole actually care what its people want. Don't even think about the fact that plans for the EU have been discovered dating back to the 50s. But that kind of thing only happens in other countries, not ours, right?
So amusing. I am making solid
December 21, 2006 - 23:31 ET by UnsaneSo amusing. I am making solid reasoned judgments because I am doing something you refuse to do, perhaps because it might kill you: I study history, and having at least traveled through Canada and interacting with their people and knowing their mindset, I am applying what I know.
This WON'T be put to a vote because it will get shot down 99%-1%, and if done by force, MILLIONS of people will be quite LITERALLY up in arms. But if you accept that fact, your fantasy goes bye-bye, and you can't stand that fact.
I did my research on this super-evil SPP and am not sold on it at all. If you fear a committee of talking heads, I cannot help you. At all. And I don't deny it exists, I deny it is this hyper-secret cabal out to enslave people as YOU think it is. I accept it for what it REALLY is: next to nothing.
Our government, and Canada's, and Mexico's, are beholden to cultural and historical factors you simply REFUSE to even try to understand. Instead of taking the time to understand them, you throw a tantrum like a five-year-old. I cannot help you there either.
The plans for the EU were OUT IN THE OPEN from the beginning. What was there to discover? The EU could have been stopped at ANY TIME by its voters, but they all signed on. Well, not all of them. Norway isn't in the EU; Sweden, Britain and Denmark do not belong to the Euro. The EU constitution was SHOT DOWN by voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005! Read The Struggle For Europe for more details, if that won't kill you. I haven't the time or the bandwidth at the moment, but I will have more soon, and when I do I will continue to address these arguments in detail.
In the meantime, some people out there need to do a comparative political and cultural analysis between the EU and the three North American countries if they are so frightened over nothing. There are INFINITELY bigger worries out there than this fantasy. I offer a wager, your call as to what it will be. Why won't you take me up on it? Fear?
You on the other hand, wish to feel completely powerless, helpless, and extremely small, perhaps because you get some sort of peverse pleasure from it.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
CFR plays no role in governme
December 21, 2006 - 15:18 ET by libertyordeathCFR plays no role in government? Listen, I got some oceanfront property in Arizona, priced to sell...
http://www.youtube.c...
Having looked at some documen
December 27, 2006 - 19:47 ET by UnsaneHaving looked at some document you may have heard of called the United States Constitution, I don't see a role for the CFR in government. Try again.
The CFR can dispense much advice, but no one is obligated to listen. But then, I'm sure you will consider me a part of the CFR, for I occasionally read their publication, Foreign Affairs.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Weak. Stating an obvious fa
December 29, 2006 - 16:18 ET by libertyordeathWeak. Stating an obvious fact (it's not in the Constitution) doesn't save you from the fact that that's not what you were asking originally (for someone to explain what role the CFR plays in government). Typical straw-man tactic. You didn't watch the clip. Or you watched it and you are an idiot or a minion. Period.
So you've been to Canada before. Wow. I've got a large extended family there, and have been there too. That doesn't mean I know the mindset of the Canadian population better than you. Besides, you still assume it will be put to a vote, when the original post is about a professor that believes that an attack will hasten the union. You still want to make a wager? You assume this would be put to a vote, but I never stated that, only that people are pushing this plan forward. People with power and influence, who don't rely on your vote to get what they want. You can predict when an attack will occur, and what the ramifications will be? Please.
It is scarcely my fault that
December 29, 2006 - 17:03 ET by UnsaneIt is scarcely my fault that you are no student of history, cannot and refuse to understand the historical and cultural forces at work, and that you refuse to think critically. And that you get off on feeling as helpless as a newborn, like a powerless ant among elephants. I'd love to make that wager. For me it's like taking candy from a baby, or betting myopic Dallas Cowboy fans.
Nope. In response to your CFR post, where you whined about its role in government, I responded by pointing out the painfully obvious: that it has NO role in government. I think just to spite you I'll buy a copy of Foreign Affairs this evening; as they do have some interesting articles, I must admit...and more importantly, that non-profit organization will get a cut of the price of the mag.
Sleep with the light on!!!
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H6
January 4, 2007 - 14:38 ET by libertyordeathhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U
Let me guess, Lou Dobbs is a filthy liberal too.
Leftist populism
January 6, 2007 - 05:48 ET by UnsaneWorse, he is a Leftist populist who thinks it is a GREAT idea for me to pay outrageous sums of money for food and clothing. I LIKE paying $30 for my Dockers, rather than subsidizing a labor union for $100 a pair or whatever outrageous markup the protectionists can find.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
January 4, 2007 - 14:38 ET by libertyordeath