Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Sep 20, 2006.
Click Here To Read Article.
On the other hand, will not an NAU better compete with the EU?
Maybe if don't care much about the sovereignty of the United States...and you are willing to call the merging of multinational business and government something other that what it is, global fascism. How about public private partnerships? There's a nice sounding euphemism.
All this time I thought fascism was something Americans would readily reject, apparently I was mistaken.
Expound a bit. I don't see fascism in a NAU. And certainly not global - it's only one continent.
As for sovereignty, this remains a democracy. I double doubt that will change until voted away. Besides, for a "secret" meeting, this appeared to be fairly well covered. Darn, you'd think conspiracies would be more conspiratorial, wouldn't you?
An NAU would push this country into communism. Not going to happen.
We were never meant to be a democracy, but the powers that be have accomplished destroying our Constitutional Republic in an attempt to replace it with a democracy. The coming NAU will be ushered in through the FTAA and will do away with our borders and solve the illegal immigration problem by simply making it legal to come and go across the border.
I wonder what the speed limit will be on Bush's new NAU Superhighway?
Me, too -- but I also wonder if it will take my front yard! And, if it doesn't, how far will I have to drive to find a bridge to go under or across it? And, when I do, will it also be tool? Talk about living on the other side of the tracks!
But it will make it easier to move material across the NAU, right?
Well, so far, the Mexican plan is a green light with little information given to the public. Thank God for the DOT or we would already be seeing lots more deaths on our highways from bogus log books and unsafe 18-wheelers.
I would say that it would go the other way, into fascism, with the US dominant. Bush's advisors have stated this as their goal for the whole world.
Wow - getta load of this:
Good old Tom Tancredo - I hope he raises a ruckus.
Wow, they even have a "gov" web site - paid for by our tax dollars:
Yeah, right. Our freedom, our economic, and our democratics. Their opportunity.
I'm more concened about the sovereignty of Washington State than that of the USofA.
Then what do you see in a NAU? Everything is global. Don't believe me ask the international community...who is the international community anway?
Shame then as this was never meant to be a democracy.
There isn't much left to vote away now.
How much of this is being covered by the mainstream corporate "liberal" media? Got links?
The October 2nd issue of The New American is all about the North American Union. They even have a nice little map of the NAFTA Super Highway.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Bush Administration’s Efforts [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]to Cover Up the North American Union Myths, Facts -- Truth[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]September 20, 2006[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Tom DeWeese[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Conspiracy theories." "Fringe nuts." "Lies." "Myths." These are the words being used by officials of the Bush Administration and others to brand those who have reported on the activities of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), currently operating out of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Opponents have charged the SPP will result in the establishment of a North American Union, much on the same lines as the European Union.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In response to its critics, the SPP has added a "SPP Myths Vs Facts" section to its website at www.SPP.gov. According to the "Myths Vs Facts" document the SPP is simply a "dialog" among the three countries to "enhance prosperity." It goes on to say the SPP is not an agreement, nor is it a treaty. It says "no agreement was ever signed." [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The truth is, on March 23, 2005, President Bush met at his ranch in Crawford, Texas with Vicente Fox and Paul Martin (then PM of Canada) in what they called a Summit. The three heads of state then drove to Baylor University in Waco, where they issued a press release announcing their signing of an agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).[/FONT]
Read More Here
Vicente Fox and Paul Martin may soon regret signing that agreement with Bush. I don't think Bush can be trusted. What if this is a plot to DOMINATE Canada and Mexico, as in Manifest Destiny?
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]
Not going to happen huh? Now before you go into the "he's a liberal out to get Bush" routine it should be noted that Jerome Corsi is a neocon that has written many articles for the right wing Human Events online.
I would be interested in seeing that quote.
It seems you would be all for this union. Then when they have a North American King, your buddy George can run for that or be appointed, since he cannot run for POTUS again. (Praise the Lord).