Secret takeover of the USA

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
"Is our government working quietly to create the equivalent of a North American Union -- much on the lines of the European Union?

Some charge that such a Union will eventually override our Constitutional government, our judicial system, our economic system and even our currency, which, some speculate, will be replaced by something called the Amero.

Can it be possible?

Others say such charges are just another trumped up conspiracy theory of a lunatic fringe.

I can't possibly address every issue and describe the complete history of the situation in our short time together, but I can go over the highlights and give you an idea as to why many of us are greatly concerned and in fact believe we are entering the fight of our lives.

Here's a quick run down.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese021307.htm

These are just a very few of the details concerning the SPP. We believe it is the beginning of the creation of a North American Union much on the lines of the European Union.

The game plan is very much the same. The excuse for the EU was trade. But today, according to the former president of Germany, 84% of that nation's laws now come from the European Union.

It begins in secrecy and slowly builds incrementally. But step by step a structure is put into place run by communitarian law and regional governing councils of appointed, well connected, yet unknown and unreachable officials hiding behind public/private partnerships, not answerable or responsive to citizens.

This is why we fear the creation of a North American Union.

The United States is the most unique nation on earth. We are the only nation which was created to protect our natural rights.

The greatness of the American system arises from the fundamental principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That means that public policy must be enacted only by elected representatives of the people. This principle ensures that the people can remove and replace policy makers who make policy with which the people disagree.

To harmonize this land with nations which do not share our values and governing principles can only result in a lessoning of our liberty and our quality of life.

To do it in secret, refusing to allow us to engage in debate before such massive changes take place is nothing short of treason."
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
Canada and Mexico would probably end up being controlled, not the other way around... and America isn't the birthplace of democracy... nor does it have the closest system to democracy, you guys are seriously underrepresented at the polls, you should change it up so someone winning 51% of the votes in just enough states can't be pres. (I believe the electoral college system would allow for a 51% winner in just five-seven states to beat someone with 49% in those states, and 100% in the rest.)
 
OP
ScreamingEagle

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
Such charges are just another trumped up conspiracy theory of a lunatic fringe.
"What is a conspiracy theory? There seems to be a lot of them because every time I write about another government program or policy, the denials begin as someone starts smirking "conspiracy theory" and calling me a fringe wacko. It’s getting tiresome.
http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/main.htm

They say it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that the Bush Administration is creating a North American Union. "They" all shake their heads at this one, with smiles on their faces and they simply say no, there is no effort to create a North American Union. The Bush Administration’s Security and Prosperity Partnership is not using a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) report as a blue print for the plan, and certainly not, there are no plans to throw out the dollar for a common North American currency called the Amero. The SPP, says the "Myths and Facts" section of the SPP web site (put there to calmly put down those darn conspiracy theorist) is not an agreement nor is it a treaty, In fact, no agreement was ever signed," the document proudly states.

The Truth. On March 23, 2005, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin met at the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas in what they called a "Summit." After the meeting, the three heads of state then drove to Baylor University to announce their "signing" of an agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

Today, 20 working groups operate out of offices in the Commerce Department preparing policy papers, memorandums of understanding, and trilateral declarations of agreement, laying the foundation for how the agreement will work. Each working group has a counterpart in the other two nations. The Bush Administration refuses to release the names of the members of the working groups. Members of the groups and top Administration leaders including the Secretaries of Defense, State and Homeland Security have attended top level meetings in Canada and Mexico to discuss SPP policy such as "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."

Yet, all of these very expensive meetings and travel expenses, paid for by the Administration have never been authorized by the U.S. Congress. Officially, Congress has never been informed of the activities of the SPP, nor have they been approved. It’s all been created behind the scenes with the use of the President’s Executive Order pen.

A key participant in the organization of the SPP is Dr. Robert Pastor, a member of the CFR and author of a 2001 book entitled "Toward a North American Commission" which outlined in detail the creation of a North American Union, including the creation of a common currency he called the Amero.

In May, 2005, the CFR published its own version in a report called "Building a North American Community." Pastor had a guiding hand it writing that report as well. Yet, the Bush Administration continues to deny there is any connection to Pastor’s book or the CFR report, even though Pastor is a major player in the implementation of the SPP.

We are supposed to believe that a man who has written passionately to advocate a North American Union, and travels the world advocating its establishment, now quietly sits in SPP meetings but does nothing to help promote or implement his ideas. It’s even harder to explain the near identical language in the SPP documents and Pastor’s book. No conspiracy here, just good old fashioned civil servants trying to make the government run better. Logic and the ability to read and to mentally process such information is simply to be suspended. Anything other conclusion is simply to be degraded as a conspiracy theory. "



Gurdardi said:
Canada and Mexico would probably end up being controlled, not the other way around... and America isn't the birthplace of democracy... nor does it have the closest system to democracy, you guys are seriously underrepresented at the polls, you should change it up so someone winning 51% of the votes in just enough states can't be pres. (I believe the electoral college system would allow for a 51% winner in just five-seven states to beat someone with 49% in those states, and 100% in the rest.)
Who the heck said America is "the birthplace of democracy"? What country are you from? The United States is a Constitutional Republic, a representative democracy. Read up on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

The point of the article is that all three countries - U.S., Canada, Mexico - would be rolled into one overarching entity (kinda like the EU) controlled by "policy makers" who are not necessarily elected by the people of any country.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
"What is a conspiracy theory? There seems to be a lot of them because every time I write about another government program or policy, the denials begin as someone starts smirking "conspiracy theory" and calling me a fringe wacko. It’s getting tiresome.
http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/main.htm

They say it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that the Bush Administration is creating a North American Union. "They" all shake their heads at this one, with smiles on their faces and they simply say no, there is no effort to create a North American Union. The Bush Administration’s Security and Prosperity Partnership is not using a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) report as a blue print for the plan, and certainly not, there are no plans to throw out the dollar for a common North American currency called the Amero. The SPP, says the "Myths and Facts" section of the SPP web site (put there to calmly put down those darn conspiracy theorist) is not an agreement nor is it a treaty, In fact, no agreement was ever signed," the document proudly states.

The Truth. On March 23, 2005, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin met at the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas in what they called a "Summit." After the meeting, the three heads of state then drove to Baylor University to announce their "signing" of an agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

Today, 20 working groups operate out of offices in the Commerce Department preparing policy papers, memorandums of understanding, and trilateral declarations of agreement, laying the foundation for how the agreement will work. Each working group has a counterpart in the other two nations. The Bush Administration refuses to release the names of the members of the working groups. Members of the groups and top Administration leaders including the Secretaries of Defense, State and Homeland Security have attended top level meetings in Canada and Mexico to discuss SPP policy such as "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."

Yet, all of these very expensive meetings and travel expenses, paid for by the Administration have never been authorized by the U.S. Congress. Officially, Congress has never been informed of the activities of the SPP, nor have they been approved. It’s all been created behind the scenes with the use of the President’s Executive Order pen.

A key participant in the organization of the SPP is Dr. Robert Pastor, a member of the CFR and author of a 2001 book entitled "Toward a North American Commission" which outlined in detail the creation of a North American Union, including the creation of a common currency he called the Amero.

In May, 2005, the CFR published its own version in a report called "Building a North American Community." Pastor had a guiding hand it writing that report as well. Yet, the Bush Administration continues to deny there is any connection to Pastor’s book or the CFR report, even though Pastor is a major player in the implementation of the SPP.

We are supposed to believe that a man who has written passionately to advocate a North American Union, and travels the world advocating its establishment, now quietly sits in SPP meetings but does nothing to help promote or implement his ideas. It’s even harder to explain the near identical language in the SPP documents and Pastor’s book. No conspiracy here, just good old fashioned civil servants trying to make the government run better. Logic and the ability to read and to mentally process such information is simply to be suspended. Anything other conclusion is simply to be degraded as a conspiracy theory. "





Who the heck said America is "the birthplace of democracy"? What country are you from? The United States is a Constitutional Republic, a representative democracy. Read up on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

The point of the article is that all three countries - U.S., Canada, Mexico - would be rolled into one overarching entity (kinda like the EU) controlled by "policy makers" who are not necessarily elected by the people of any country.
I'm with ya sir, the whole thing is out of control, and NO ONE knows for sure where it will land.

Call it what you will, the "fringe" will rule the day.
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
"

The United States is the most unique nation on earth. We are the only nation which was created to protect our natural rights.

The greatness of the American system arises from the fundamental principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That means that public policy must be enacted only by elected representatives of the people. This principle ensures that the people can remove and replace policy makers who make policy with which the people disagree."
***
I guess that doesn't say America created democracy, but it kind of implied it was democratic aberration in a world of undemocratic nations.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
***
I guess that doesn't say America created democracy, but it kind of implied it was democratic aberration in a world of undemocratic nations.
Never was a claim that the US created democracy, the Greeks did. While some town meetings had close to direct democracy, it never was seriously considered while creating the country, while fighting a war. The Parliamentary system was rejected.

Instead they came up with a meshing of democracy and republic, then federated it all. It fit our situation, size, etc. It's not for everyplace. As for the electoral college, it too fit and still does, our situation. There were concerns at the time of establishment, have been time and time again, yet always those that actually looked at 'why' came down to keeping it.

But you enjoy CA, we will try to lurch on.
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
If the US is comfortable killing it's way to democracy overseas, why not inch a little closer (sans violence) at home?
 
OP
ScreamingEagle

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
If the US is comfortable killing it's way to democracy overseas, why not inch a little closer (sans violence) at home?
"killing its way to democracy"? Damn right. Or I suppose you think Saddam was such a nice guy he'd set his people free and stopped threatening the rest of us if we only had just asked him nicely, right?

So you're living in California and don't think we live in a democracy? That I can understand...:rolleyes:
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
If the US is comfortable killing it's way to democracy overseas, why not inch a little closer (sans violence) at home?
Who says comfortable? Why would we want more democracy here?
 

NuclearWinter

Rookie
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
23
Points
0
Oh the "North American Union", or as I would like to call it, another step towards the New World Order, is very real. And is really coming. Unless people can somehow stop it.

Lou Dobbs and his crew at CNN have been looking into this matter for months now.

Here is a nice little video clip about the whole ordeal.

Just click on the following link to watch:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/070207Deceit.htm
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
We are more likely to face a fascist government usurping the Republic than a "North American Union".
 

NuclearWinter

Rookie
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
23
Points
0
How bout a little bit of both Bully?

lol.

Why not hey? They (those in Control) don't give a shit.

And the facts for both the Fascist Government which you speak of and the North American Union that Screaming Eagle presents here are both current and reality.
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
"killing its way to democracy"? Damn right. Or I suppose you think Saddam was such a nice guy he'd set his people free and stopped threatening the rest of us if we only had just asked him nicely, right?

So you're living in California and don't think we live in a democracy? That I can understand...:rolleyes:
So, expending enormous capital, human life, and energy to bring democracy to Iraq (let's assume you are 110% correct) is great.
So, why resist it internationally (UN) or at home (electoral college), if it's something worth killing and dying for?
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
Who says comfortable? Why would we want more democracy here?
I don't know, why would you?
It does seem bizarre to spend billions to increase democracy abroad if it isn't even that desirable at home...
 
OP
ScreamingEagle

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
So, expending enormous capital, human life, and energy to bring democracy to Iraq (let's assume you are 110% correct) is great.
So, why resist it internationally (UN) or at home (electoral college), if it's something worth killing and dying for?
Back to basics:

We did not attack Saddam and Iraq primarily to bring democracy to the country but to protect ourselves from their perceived threat. Your Democratic leaders agreed.

The attempt to bring some form of institutionalized democratic rule to the country of Iraq (which would be allied with America) vs allowing despotic rulers in the ME (who hate America) to take over is also for our protection.

The UN is composed of lots of despots and dictators who would love to bring America down. So why on earth should we follow the dictates of the UN?

What's your big beef about the electoral college? I thought we made it clear that the U.S. is not a true democracy but a republic. Our founders wanted to avoid mobocracy.
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
Back to basics:
The attempt to bring some form of institutionalized democratic rule to the country of Iraq (which would be allied with America) vs allowing despotic rulers in the ME (who hate America) to take over is also for our protection.

The UN is composed of lots of despots and dictators who would love to bring America down. So why on earth should we follow the dictates of the UN?

What's your big beef about the electoral college? I thought we made it clear that the U.S. is not a true democracy but a republic. Our founders wanted to avoid mobocracy.

Okay. I didn't suggest you follow the UN, but that democracy sounds like a noble goal (one that your army is killing to achieve) so why eschew it at home? That question still stands. No matter America's 'true' nature of republic or democracy - you are fighting abroad and using democracy as a reason.

The electoral college is fine. As long as you don't believe it's democratic, or talk a good game of how democracy is so important that it's worth forcing on another nation. What is mobocracy?

Also - you don't follow anything the UN asks... unless it suits you... so why any beef with it?

And really - despotic regimes are America's footprint in the ME for the last 50 years or longer... why is it so important that people there have rights now? Why not in the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, or 50s?
 
OP
ScreamingEagle

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
Okay. I didn't suggest you follow the UN, but that democracy sounds like a noble goal (one that your army is killing to achieve) so why eschew it at home? That question still stands. No matter America's 'true' nature of republic or democracy - you are fighting abroad and using democracy as a reason.

The electoral college is fine. As long as you don't believe it's democratic, or talk a good game of how democracy is so important that it's worth forcing on another nation. What is mobocracy?

Also - you don't follow anything the UN asks... unless it suits you... so why any beef with it?

And really - despotic regimes are America's footprint in the ME for the last 50 years or longer... why is it so important that people there have rights now? Why not in the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, or 50s?
Again, we have been fighting in Iraq primarily for our own protection. Setting up a free and democratic country would go a long way towards that goal.

Unless you are referring to the topic of this thread (which is not overt U.S. policy), how are we eschewing democracy at home?

The electoral college is in place so small states are not overrun by large states with large populations. Mobocracy occurs when there is simple direct elections. If we elected a president on solely direct votes without the filter of the electoral college, we would have the large city populations controlling everything and the smaller, less populated states would have little or no representation.

We have a beef with the UN because much of the UN is opposed to the well-being of the United States despite our help.
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time

U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:

Egypt, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States, and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States, and receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States, and receives $143,699,000 annually.

Well, you get the idea .......

Perhaps it's time to get out of the U.N. and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are skimping and sacrificing to pay the taxes they receive as aid, and to buy their oil.

Disgusting isn't it?

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194893
Why are we more concerned now? Because the ME is getting to be more of a threat to us especially with the threat of WMDs. Remember Saddam had WMDs and was purported to have nuclear WMDs (which many believed) and of course Iran is going nuclear or don't you think so? Do you think the ME is going to become all nicey nice if the U.S. would just leave the scene? Or could you care less about what might happen, especially to our ally, Israel?
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
I'll just try and get at each point as I can.

Electoral college seems like the opposite of 'every vote counts' as those who live in large urban centres have less democatic right than the rural folks.

Someone can become Pres with an overwhelming majority opposed... that is undemocratic (which is only bad if you like democracy).

Iraq was threatening USA? Come on... American troops, ships, planes, missiles are all over that region... and Iraq was pretty bankrupt and decaying anyway, that is info the intelligence community had, in fact most of the world knew it. Also, after reading some quotes of Daniel Benjamin, from a Wash Post article (I believe) invading Iraq would destabilize the controls on any WMD, opening up a situation where proliferation and black market sales could occur (bad news I assume).
Plus, these days every small nation knows that nothing deters US aggression but having serious weapons... so the only possible protection (when International law is disregarded) is arming yourself to the teeth with the deadliest shit you can find. Which is why N. Korea is left alone, but goddamn imagine Iraq actually had nukes? They would still be run by Saddam... thousands of citizens would still be alive, homes still upright...

And as for Israel in the middle east... it's almost like poor little America surrounded by big bad Canada and Mexico. Except Israel is actively attacking arabs and violating the law... so there are REAL grievances against Israel, not just racist BS that jews should all die, there is certainly that - but a host of legal, honest issues that the Arabs around it have.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I don't know, why would you?
It does seem bizarre to spend billions to increase democracy abroad if it isn't even that desirable at home...
We are spending billions, I think mostly misspent, but not because democracy is bad. As I stated earlier, we do not have a democracy, but a democratic republic. It didn't come easy, nor is it easy to keep.

IMO, we would do better with spreading the idea of reform of governments, education on democracy/republic in education, capitalism.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top