North American Union? No, Not Quite

Underground Politics ^ | Dec. 8, 2007 | self

[underground]

If being against the North American Union makes you a conspiracy theorist,
Does being for it make your a conspirator?

The thing is, even talking about it may land a bad label on you and the media has done little to expand knowledge of this topic.  In fact, the media strategy has been to denounce any mention of this as an election-year conspiracy theory.  Opinions range from: the end of U.S. sovereignty; to a completely bureacratic attempt to increase trade & security; to the inevitability of globalist one-world government.  The truth is probably some little bit of each.

Full Article: Security And Prosperity Partnership of North America

[underground]

The main source for my article is a White House press release. I know this topic is uhh, controversial, but I think that's because people are imagining completely different things when they talk about it.

The official government releases are logical and moderate, but I also cover some more radical proposals from the CFR, including "unlimited North American immigration" and a continental border security replacing internal national boundaries (No U.S.-Mexico border whatsoever) For now, these more extreme plans aren't being publicly adopted or endorsed by any politicians or candidates.

[wolfcreek]

You mentioned that CFR is just a group of intellectuals who have no power to make policy and must go through the same process of Congressional approval everyone else would.

1. Might they just concentrate on getting the *right* candidate into office to achieve their goals?

2. Seems I remember one of the facets of the SPP was to circumvent Congress in order to swiftly facilitate it’s policies.

[underground]

You mentioned that CFR is just a group of intellectuals who have no power to make policy and must go through the same process of Congressional approval everyone else would.

1. Might they just concentrate on getting the *right* candidate into office to achieve their goals?

The evidence would indicate this is the exact plan, actually. The only candidates who don't have a positive association with the CFR are Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo. Of course, each one is attacked by the media as an isolationist and written off as not having a chance - when in fact they each have a unique and not-quite isolationist foreign policy.

2. Seems I remember one of the facets of the SPP was to circumvent Congress in order to swiftly facilitate it’s policies.

This won't exactly work because Duncan Hunter got a bill passed that would not allow federal funds to be used in implementing SPP strategy. I think this is why the latest Aug. 21 meeting ended with a lot of proposals that can be worked on for free or almost no cost: sharing energy technology, training emergency workers to work on cross-border disasters, and setting up better cross-border communications.

I'm probably more pro-immigration and pro-freetrade than the candidates who are making a big stink about this, but I have to wonder why the ones who favor the SPP and NAU plans don't want us talking about it very much?

The media tends to say anyone who is against the increased co-operation is a conspiracy theorist, but they completely ignore the people who are for such a move - including our own White House.

[wolfcreek]

“This won’t exactly work because Duncan Hunter got a bill passed that would not allow federal funds to be used in implementing SPP strategy”

I think that’s what I said......”circumvent Congress”

They’ll use NGOs and multinationals to get the results they want. This has already begun on several levels.

Congress takes too long to make decisions and are suppose to answer to their constituants. Wouldn’t want anyone standing in the way of *progress*.

[wolfcreek]

I believe he is describing CFR.

“...those who formally rule take their signals and commands, not from the electorate as a body, but from a small group of men (plus a few women). This group will be called the Establishment. It exists even though that existence is stoutly denied; it is one of the secrets of the American social order. A second secret is the fact that the existence of the Establishment - the ruling class - is not supposed to be discussed. A third secret is implicit in what has been said - that there is really only one political party of any consequence in the United States, one that has been called the ‘Property Party.’ The Republicans and the Democrats are in fact two branches of the same (secret) party.”
Arthur S. Miller, George Washington University