Posted on 10/22/2006 9:18:12 AM PDT by WatchingInAmazement
Modern mass production with interchangeable parts was a good idea in the automobile industry a century ago. But is it a good idea to homogenize national cultures, either in the interests of economic prosperity, or to further the socialist ideal of a one-world government?
Carol Derbis drew my attention to the potential dangers of the proposed North American Union, which aims at making NAFTA into an analog of the European Union, eventually uniting Mexico, Canada, and the United States on political and cultural grounds, as well as on economic policies.
As she writes, we must have full and public Congressional hearings before the proposal goes much further.
Chris Adamo addressed the issue last year, as did Jerome R. Corsi in this article earlier this year.
Those who fear the worst say that President Bush intends to abrogate United States sovereignty. That seems unlikely, but any surrender of our own Constitutional rights to a supranational agency, however limited the surrender, is a very bad policy. Our experience with the UN makes that abundantly clear.
Apart from the huge controversy over illegal immigration from Mexico, there are plenty of other negatives to consider.
Foremost among them is spotlighted by this website's Statement of Purpose:
The View from 1776 presents a framework to understand present-day issues from the viewpoint of the colonists who fought for American independence in 1776 and wrote the Constitution in 1787. Knowing and preserving those understandings, what might be called the unwritten constitution of our nation, is vital to preserving constitutional government. Without them, the bare words of the Constitution are just a Rorschach ink-blot that politicians, educators, and judges can interpret to mean anything they wish.
As relatively little has been elaborated about the North American Union concept in the media, one can only conjecture about the exact intentions and methods. Whatever the specifics of the proposed North American Union, it can be said that it has the potential to promote further cultural disintegration in our nation, which is as lethal a danger as Islamic jihad.
Liberals (and it has to be said that most Republicans as well as Democrats have evident left-leanings) have been educated in our colleges and universities to accept the social sciences view that human beings respond only to material factors. Thirst, hunger, the need for clothing and shelter, and the sexual urges are said to be the ultimately controlling factors in human society.
One has to be oblivious to history, however, to believe that the list of social influences is limited to the atheistic materialism of socialism. Our colonial ancestors were definitely motivated by the economic issues of taxation to issue the Declaration of Independence. But there was a far deeper ethos underlying their action: the centuries old English tradition of inalienable natural-law rights of individuals to be free from the arbitrary exercise of power by the sovereign. Those conceptions grew out of the Judeo-Christian moral traditions that constituted Western Civilization.
Moving in the direction of a political and cultural North American Union is to unwind the very substance of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.
Still waiting for Rush, Sean and Bill O'Reilly to comment on the North American Union.
If it ever becomes more than a paranoid fantasy, I'm sure they will.
Glenn Beck has featured it both on radio and TV. After the elections, Rush and Sean will probably deal with it too. I think that right now, their focus is on the Nov. elections. My guess is that O'Reilly will comment on it soon as well. Perhaps he is waiting to confirm more of the information on this.
LOL, NAU is pretty much a done deal. NAFTA laid the foundation. Don't believe me, just look at our borders and look at the plans for the Trans Texas Corridor.
The will precipitate itself into general consciousness and acceptance over a period of the next one or two generations in the same manner as general environmentalism precipitated itself and became generally accepted. One tree or minnow at a time -- one foot of highway at a time. One piece of property taken by eminent domain at a time.
Yup. Just make sure you take pains to create enough wealth to insulate your family for generations to come.
I'm working on it.
Newsflash. There are already roads connecting Mexico and Texas.
Heck, you can drive all the way to Canada from Mexico. Paved road, most of the way.
Interesting, dont you think, that the only people who support this agenda are those who deny it's existence?
Corsi went from an agreement meant to speed trade and legal travel between the three nations to the Senate testimony of a member of the Council on Foreign Relations to come to his conclusions. The guy from CFR did endorse such an idea, but he is one guy from an extremely liberal think tank composed of throwbacks to the Carter and Clinton administrations.
I think it was a pretty shoddy piece of journalism and suspect it was meant to sell books, not expose the truth.
Now if Hillary gets elected things might change, but Corsi's conclusion was way off base.
And...and...there's INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS too! They go through state lines! Plus those dreaded back county roads too with the letters! OMG we're dead!
Not really. Lots of people don't support the "agenda" and still deny its existence.
Does it pain you to recognize that if it wasn't for Corsi and O'Neill, Bush would've been a one-term president like his father?
He'll be disappointed in the lack of pictures.
"Interesting, dont you think, that the only people who support this agenda are those who deny it's existence?"
"Not really. Lots of people don't support the "agenda" and still deny its existence."
Really, and exactly how does one not support the agenda of something that does not exist?
Actually, I read his article, the precursor to the book he wants to sell. His conclusion could not be supported by the evidence presented in the article.
He based his conclusion on two main events.
The first was the signing of a security and trade agreement between the three countries. The concept of the security agreement was to come up with a way to safely speed the movement of goods across borders.
The second was the Senate testimony of Robert Pastor regarding the CFR's plan for a "Building a North American Community."
The problem with Corsi's conclusion is that he says the security agreement was following the blueprint laid out in the CFR report. It should be noted that the CFR group wrote the report after that agreement was signed. The CFR group wrote their report in response to the March 2005 agreement.
CFR is a left leaning think tank whose board of directors reads like a who's who of Clinton and Carter rejects. It is not the kind of group the Administration is going to consult on foreign affairs.
Watch out for black helicopters.
Some Internet sources claim that this report, depsite its own language rejecting a political union, would create a North American Union.
Scary stuff
You're playing word games. I don't support a north american union, and I deny that one is in the works.
I looked that up. I didn't check them all, but the "right" is more than represented.
Let's see: CFR BOARD OF DIRECTORS
http://www.cfr.org/about/people/board_of_directors.html
Richard N. Haass President
Former State Department Director of Policy Planning and lead U.S. official on Afghanistan and Northern Ireland (2001-2003), and principal Middle East adviser to President George H.W. Bush (1989-93).
Colin L. Powell United States Army (Ret.)
David M. Rubenstein Co-Founder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group
Carla A. Hills Vice Chairman; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hills & Company(This is one of the people picked by this administration to the "working" groups of the NAU)
Kenneth M. Duberstein, He previously served as chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan in 1988-1989. During the Reagan administration he also served as deputy chief of staff as well as both assistant and deputy assistant to the president for legislative affairs.
Thomas R. Pickering, He has held numerous other positions at the State Department, including executive secretary and special assistant to Secretaries Rogers and Kissinger
. Vin Weber, Mr. Weber served in the House of Representatives (R-Minn.) from 1981 to 1993. He is based in Washington, DC.
And then there are members of CFR, like Grover Norquist, this administrations "man" on immigration policy and Islamic affairs. And Tony Snow.
Will you please explain why, then, that Sen. John Cornyn has for years introduced legislation to implement such?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51222
and
Senate Bill 2941. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2941: This is the Cornyn Bill S. 2941 SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of the Fund shall be-- (1) to promote economic and infrastructure integration among Canada, Mexico, and the United States;
(2) to promote education and economic development in Mexico; and
(3) to reduce the wealth gap between Mexico and Canada, and between Mexico and the United States.
More: SEC. 4. PROJECTS FUNDED.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Fund shall make grants for projects to carry out the purposes described in section 3, including projects-- (1) to construct roads in Mexico to facilitate trade between Mexico and Canada, and Mexico and the United States; (2) to develop and implement post-secondary education programs in Mexico; (3) to install telecommunications technologies throughout Mexico; and (4) to construct other infrastructure that will carry out such purposes.
SEC. 5. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FUND.
(a) IN GENERAL- The terms of the agreement establishing the Fund shall, subject to the limitation in subsection (b), require the Governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States to contribute to the Fund.
Can someone tell me why this article is put in "chat", since it is from a news outlet, THE POST CHORONICLE?
Are you saying that there are no CFR members in the Bush administration?
Because it will bring well justified anti Bush comments. You should thank JR that it isn't put into the Smokey Backroom.
You're mischaracterizing his bill WHICH HE SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDREW.
CFR is not a government agency, but if you care to believe that in shadow governments, I would sell all your assets, convert to gold and move to a cave in Montana. It is the only safe place.
I mischaracterized nothing. SB2941 is not the one he was supposed to withdraw, but another bill, Senate bill 3622, mentioned in the WND article. According to Thomas it has not been withdrawn.
S. 3622: North American Investment Fund Act http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.03622:
S.3622 Title: A bill to authorize the President to negotiate the creation of a North American Investment Fund between the Governments of Canada, of Mexico, and of the United States to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy. Sponsor: Sen Cornyn, John [TX] (introduced 6/29/2006) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 6/29/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
http://www.govtrack.us/users/events.xpd?monitors=bill:s109-3622 Congress will next meet on Nov 9, 2006.
S.2941 Title: A bill to authorize the President to negotiate the creation of a North American Investment Fund to promote economic and infrastructure integration among Canada, Mexico, and the United States, and for other purposes.
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.02941:
Because there is not a kook section.
You manage your reading comprehension, I'll manage my assets.
So why then is the Trans-Texas Corridor being built? You better call them up and tell them about your newsflash.
You've arrived. That's enough to make this the kook section.
You need to visit the "other" TTC threads. OTOH, maybe you shouldn't. Those threads are in the "news" section and these are in the "chat" section.
While the poorly informed kooks like to focus on what Corsi, and others such as the above author, tell them to focus on, those that are better informed have a much broader knowledge on the subject.
Obviously, this issue, as it applies to Texas, is of great interest to you. Why then is this issue, as it applies to CA and AZ, not of interest to you.
How is developing the Mexican port of Luis Cardenas bad but developing the Mexican ports of Guaymas and Punta Colomet good?
How is improving the high priority corridor TTC35/I35 bad, but improving the I5 or the Canamex good?
How can locating an inland port in Kansas City be bad when CA has long established inland ports and will be building others? Or, what about the inland port known as Puerto Nuevo in Tucson?
Of all the kooks, the kooks from California are the kookiest.
Hell, you don't even need to leave the freeway. Just drive I-94 from Port Huron to Minneapolis-St. Paul, then I-35 to Laredo.
Set your alarm clock for 1 minute passed a Dem being sworn in as President.
And now for the "hypocrisy" category:
http://www.mexiconews.com.mx/21156.html
The Mexican government said Monday it will present the U.N. Human Rights Council with a resolution criticizing a U.S. plan to build hundreds of kilometers (miles) of additional fencing on the border. Mexican Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba, president of the 47-member council, said the resolution will denounce the fence for violating human rights and driving undocumented migrants to cross the border in more remote and dangerous areas. The United States is an observer but not a member of the council, which this year replaced the widely discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission. At the council´s first sessions this year, members failed to reach agreement on the most hotly debated issues, such as on human rights violations in Sudan. Last month, the U.S. Senate approved a bill to build 1,100 kilometers (700 miles) of border fencing. U.S. President George W. Bush has said he will sign it into law, despite pleas from the Mexican government for a veto. President Vicente Fox has called the plan "shameful" and compared it to the Berlin Wall. An estimated 11 million Mexicans live in the United States, about half them illegally.
Why don't WE file a complaint with the UN over Mexico's flagrantly anti-gringo immigration laws that lead to the poverty there of which they hypocritically complain? Their laws are detailed here:
http://www.directory.com.mx/immigration
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.