North American Union.....

[seanx]

Hey MicKulz, what's your take on this subject? I personally feel it will destroy our economy and the US will lose it's sovereign status as a country in the world. How can we combine with Mexico if it's government is so corrupt and it's people are fleeing it to come here already? Shouldn't we fix that problem first?

www.channelingreality.com/NAU/NAU_Main.htm

[Mickulz]

It will never ever happen.

It is not even worth the time to discuss honestly.

[seanx]

but hasn't Bush and the Canadian Prime Minister (whoever that is) and Mexico's President already sign the paperwork to put this plan into action?........and that highway right through the center of our country is being built right now.......so why do this if it isn't going to happen?

[seanx]

and by the way, I just like getting your opinion on this stuff since you are also into the whole geo-political stuff, like me.........not too many people I know even have a clue about anything.......let alone current events or history

[Mickulz]

The US people would never stand for it. Much like the Canadian people would never stand for all of us joining them.

Remember, they still have issues with the French that are not resolved ;-)

[sayten]

Canada would never unify with peasants such as us.....

[seanx]

......and a high ranking member in the current administration just had another meeting in Canada with the members of the Mexican and Canadian gov'ts on how to continue moving forward with the plan.........so if it's not going to happen then why all the meetings, signings, treaties, building of the superhighway, etc.

plus nobody has yet to explain or make a guess why illegal aliens are being allowed to flood uncontrolled into our country.............I guess it's another "conspiracy theory" that isn't happening

on that note, in Kmart the other day while I was waiting on the woman in front of me to purchase a hat, babydoll carrier and a pack of gum, I had the fortunate occassion to witness she and her friend, with their three kids, converse in Hispanic among themselves......and then come to the register and argue in broken English that the babydoll carrier is 20% off from 4 bucks to 3.20 and force a price check after the m anager had to come over to understand her........then after 10 minutes of no price check they just give her the 80 cents off the item.....meanwhile I'm trying to get through the line and pick my kid up from track practice on time........were they illegal? I don't know....did they speak English? not very well.....what does this mean? not a f*cking thing but everything is starting to annoy me nowadays with all the shit going down


Mexican Migration Project Director Calls for a North American Union

JBS.org | February 1, 2007

According to Princeton University sociologist Douglas Massey, director of the Mexican Migration Project, the way for America to solve its immigration problem is for the U.S. and Canadian governments to pay for Mexico's infrastructure and "social projects" — leading to an eventual North American Union.

At Terra.com, a Spanish-language news publication, an article reported on activities that took place in none other than Washington, D.C. (The translations that follow are mine.) How many of you saw this one on the nightly news?

According to Luisa Fernanda Montero, who reported the story for Terra.com, Douglas Massey, director for the Mexican Migration Project, stated that not only was the United States' immigration policy "negative and counterproductive," but also that Canada and the United States have a financial obligation to build up Mexico itself.

Massey commented that NAFTA was deficient because it focused solely on commercial relations for businesses, and left out the people factor. According to the report, Massey offered this nice sound bite: "You cannot integrate a market without involving people." Of course not. That is why Americans who cherish their nation's independence are opposed to "integrating" their economy under NAFTA, because ultimately it will lead to a political integration of Mexico, the United States, and Canada.

In Massey's view, the immigration policies of the United States have created all kinds of problems for the "migrants," causing their families to no longer be centered in two or three states, but to be scattered across 15. And now, Massey stated, because of supposed heightened border security, we've trapped all of these migrants inside the United States, who are fearful of returning home because they might not be able to come back.

So, since Americans collectively created this problem through our government, now "we" have to solve it. And what is the solution? Why, look to the European Union as a model.

As reported by Terra, Massey noted, "The U.S. and Canada should look for a real form of integration with Mexico which will allow it to grow in terms of social and infrastructure attention, and arrive at levels that will diminish the flow of migrants within an integration process similar to what has developed in Europe." In other words, Americans should solve their immigration woes by adopting the European Union as its model.

Finally, Massey proposed: "The U.S. and Canada must identify a source of money to offer Mexico certain subsidies during a ten-year period, to invest in infrastructure and social projects, so as to arrive at a minimal level for a new North American Union." ("EEUU y Canadá deben identificar una fuente de dinero para ofrecer a México ciertos subsidios durante un periodo de diez años, para invertir en infraestructura y proyectos sociales y llegar a un nivel mínimo para la nueva unión norteamericana.")

Even as elites from the three nations have met away from the media spotlight to plan out the next step of developing NAFTA , so-called "conservatives" insult, belittle, and accuse concerned Americans of peddling "conspiracies theories" about the North American Union.

[Mickulz]

Illegal Aliens come in everywhere. I would also venture a guess (and that is all it is) that there are more illegals from other countries than Mexico in the US.

They can have all the meetings and treaties they want. I can tell you will 100% certainty that a North American Union will not happen. For one, we are less that 2 years away from a new President, and whoever it is (Republican or Democrat) will distance themselves far away from the Bush policies.

The fact is Mexico would fuck up the agreement. There is just no benefit for us (or Canada even) to join Mexico. It would just be us paying more for them.

I have given a lot of thought to conspiracy theories and such a lot lately, and even admitted that some of them could be possible, but this one is just dead to me.

[seanx]

I appreciate your optimism on this subject, Mickulz......but here is just an example of how you might want to dig deeper (check out what the candidates support and who is the money behind them):

Presidential Frontrunners Would Surrender America's Borders
by Chuck Baldwin
February 6, 2007






Looking at the potential presidential frontrunners for both the Democrat and Republican parties reveals that virtually everyone of them would surrender America's borders. Not one of the presidential frontrunners from either party would protect our borders against illegal immigration. Just the opposite. They would continue George Bush's policy of wide open borders, including his determination to grant amnesty to illegals. In other words, when it comes to protecting our borders, there is not a nickel's worth of difference between the two major parties' leading presidential contenders.

Democratic presidential frontrunners include John Edwards, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Republican frontrunners include John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani.

In fact, virtually every Democratic candidate, and even the vast majority of Republican candidates, would provide no relief to America's border problems. And, yes, that includes Sam Brownback and Newt Gingrich. Notable exceptions include Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo, with Tancredo at the head of the class.

Obviously, should Hunter, Paul, or Tancredo miraculously win the White House, the push for a North American Union (NAU) complete with a NAFTA superhighway and a trilateral, hemispheric government, would be stopped dead in its tracks. For this reason, the GOP machine (and the insiders who control it) will never allow someone such as Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, or Tom Tancredo to obtain the nomination.

It's time the American people faced a hard, cold reality: no matter who the two major parties nominate in November 2008, the push for open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAU will continue unabated. In other words, anyone one believes that unimpeded illegal immigration (and related issues) just might be the biggest threat to our national sovereignty and security (and count me as one who does) will not be able to vote for either the Republican or Democratic nominee in 2008. It's time to start preparing for that reality now.

Does that mean that Republicans should not do everything they can to help Tancredo, Paul, or Hunter gain the nomination? Of course not. If the vast majority of the GOP rank and file would get solidly behind these three men, one of them might have a chance of succeeding. However, the track record of the GOP faithful is not very reassuring.

Instead of supporting principled, uncompromising men of integrity, such as the three men named above, Republican voters will doubtless buy into the party mantra of pragmatism and help nominate another spineless globalist such as currently occupies the White House, which will leave us exactly where we are now.

So, here is the sixty-four million dollar question: What will principled conservative voters do in 2008? My hope and prayer is that after failing to receive their party's nomination, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter (or at least one of them) will leave the party and bring their (his) followers to the Constitution Party (CP). In all likelihood, the CP will have ballot access in over 45 states. It is already the third largest political party in the country and is currently the fastest growing political party in the nation. A national leader such as Paul, Tancredo, or Hunter would provide the CP with a very attractive alternative to the globalist candidates being offered by the two major parties.

By nature, I am not a single issue voter. However, I am sensible enough to realize that there are currently a handful of issues that will literally make or break America's future. And right now, the illegal immigration and emerging North American Union issues are at the very top of the list. Further failure on these issues will mean the end of America as we know it. And I mean very soon.

Regardless of what Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo ultimately do, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who believe we must protect America's borders, stop the burgeoning North American Union, and secure our national sovereignty must be prepared to abandon the two major parties' presidential nominees in 2008 and support an "America First" third party candidate. Even a virtually unknown candidate with limited experience, but someone who understands the issues and has the backbone to do what is right, would be head and shoulders above what the two major parties are currently shoving down our throats.

Better start preparing yourselves for it now, folks.

© Chuck Baldwin

[seanx]

Canadian, U.S. and Mexican officials held secretive meeting on integration

CanWest News Service | February 8, 2007
Kelly Patterson

Canadian, U.S. and Mexican politicians discussed using "stealth" to overcome public resistance to the integration of the three countries at a confidential meeting last year, according to documents just released under U.S. Freedom of Information laws.

08/02/07 "Ottawa Citizen" -- -- Top military brass, corporate executives and diplomats also attended the meeting in Banff, Alta., where participants discussed everything from the harmonization of food and drug standards, to common immigration policies, and the pooling of energy resources.
The secret guest list of the North American Forum included then-U.S. secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld, Canadian Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, Pengrowth Corp. CEO James Kinnear and Lockheed Martin executive Ron Covais.

Presentation outlines for the forum acknowledge that the concept of North American integration - which some call a "North American Union" - is unpopular, and note that it might be tough to sell as a concept.
"While a vision is appealing, working on the infrastructure might yield more benefit and bring more people on board ('evolution by stealth')," the notes said.

"Evolution by stealth" means using regulatory changes, such as food- and drug-safety benchmarks, which don't require parliamentary approval, to lay the infrastructure for North American integration. This allows for change with little or no public debate, critics say.

Media were excluded from the September forum, and Day, who gave a speech at the event, declined to reveal the contents of his talk.
"It was meant as a private meeting," said Melisa Leclerc, a spokeswoman from Day's office, although she conceded he attended "in his capacity as minister for public security."

"It is not encouraging to see the phrase 'evolution by stealth' in reference to important policy debates such as North American integration," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a Washington-based conservative watchdog group that obtained the documents last week.

But, former finance minister John Manley, who attended the meeting, said the forum was "not part of a nefarious plan to yield sovereignty to the U.S. .... It was just some informed private citizens and government officials having a conversation" on how best to co-operate to ensure their citizens enjoyed a safe and prosperous future.

In fact, he said, Canada comes out stronger than ever from such meetings, which force "some senior American officials to think about Canada for a few days."

However, Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians said the reference to stealth is "a very telling and important statement."

Many of the politicians who attended the forum have been pursuing "integration by stealth" for the past two years, she said, pointing to a little-known but top-priority agreement called the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

The accord, kickstarted by U.S. President George W. Bush, then-prime minister Paul Martin and former Mexican president Vicente Fox at a 2005 meeting in Waco, Texas, is designed to streamline everything from food and drug safety standards to counter-terrorism measures.

Government officials from the three countries are expected to meet in Ottawa later this month. However, Foreign Affairs spokespeople said they did not yet know when it would be held or who would attend.

The partnership's stated goal is to protect North America from security threats such as terrorism and flu pandemics as well as economic threats from new global-market giants such as China.

Many of the accord's measures are not contentious, such as plans to improve water quality, reduce sulphur in fuels, and co-ordinate efforts to fight pandemics and avian flu. But it also covers a host of hot-button issues such as plans to enhance data-sharing on high-risk travellers, revamp safety and environmental regulations, centralize the assessment of new chemicals and rework food safety standards.

Most of the 300 policy recommendations within the accord may not require legislative changes, the Council of Canadians said.

[Mickulz]

Wow, they are now reporting the future before it happens huh? 08/02/07?

(checking my calendar)

Plus this meeting was all over the news when it happened. Nothing secret about. People just did not care at the time.

[seanx]

.....I believe it should be 02-08-07......but it is Canada and with the metric system.........it could be liters.......

[seanx]

interesting......

Latinos land 2 in 3 U.S. construction jobs

UPI | March 7, 2007

Latinos make up 13.6 percent of the U.S. employment population, but accounted for 36.7 percent of the 2006 U.S. employment growth, a study showed Wednesday.

Most of the jobs Hispanic workers landed were in the construction industry, the Pew Hispanic Center said.

In fact, two out of every three new U.S. constriction jobs went to Hispanic workers, the center said.

Hispanic employment increased by almost 1 million from 2005 to 2006, with foreign-born Latinos who arrived since 2000 responsible for about 24 percent of the total U.S. employment increase.

Undocumented immigrants accounted for about two-thirds of the increase in recently arrived Hispanic workers, the center estimated.

The center derived its estimates from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data, it said.

[seanx]

I hope more states do this........

Idaho House Passes NAU Resolution

JBS | March 14, 2007
Mary Benoit

The Idaho House successfully passed House Joint Memorial 5 by a voice vote on Monday. The legislation is a resolution that opposes U.S. participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) and the development of the North American Union (NAU). The legislation has been transmitted to the Senate for further consideration and will hopefully come to floor vote soon.

Idaho represents the 14th state to introduce anti-NAU and SPP resolutions. The other states include Arizona (S.C.M. 1002), Illinois (H.J.R. 29), Georgia (S.R. 124), Missouri (S.C.R. 15 and H.C.R. 33), Montana (H.J.R. 25), Oklahoma (S.C.R. 10), Oregon (S.J.M. 5), South Carolina (S. 416 and H. 3185), South Dakota (S.C.R. 7), Tennessee (S.J.R. 88), Utah (H.J.R. 7), Virginia (S.J.R. 442 and S.J.R. 387), and Washington (H.J.M. 4018 and S.J.M. 8004).

Only a few of the resolutions listed above have come to a floor vote in their respective state legislatures. The Arizona Senate passed S.C.M 1002 by a vote of 17-11 and has been sent to the House for further consideration. In Montana, H.J.R. 25 was passed by a landslide vote of 94-5 and has been transmitted to the Senate. The Utah legislature seemed the most promising with a House vote of 47-24 on H.J.R. 7. However, when members of the Utah Senate blocked the resolution from coming to a floor vote at the close of the congressional session, the resolution was essentially killed.

If the state Senate passes H.J.M. 5 in Idaho, it would represent the first state to successfully pass an anti-NAU resolution in both the House and Senate.

The introduction and passage of these resolutions will likely spark some debate in Washington on this issue. For the most part, there has been an almost complete media blackout on the intended political and economical merger of the United States, Canada and Mexico. Congress, with the exception of Virgil Goode's H.C.R. 40, has also denied knowledge on the President Bush-backed scheme to integrate the three countries participating in the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

[seanx]

anyone see that another border patrol officer got put in prison for doing his job?.............that's 3 now......notice a pattern?

[seanx]

...oh yeah and it was the same US District Attorney, Johnny Sutton, who prosecuted him..........can you say douchebag?

[seanx]

Lou Dobbs Pounds Away on the NAU/SPP

JBS | March 20, 2007
Mary Benoit

On March 13 CNN's Lou Dobbs once again aired his disgust with the Bush administration for signing on to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). In his broadcast, Dobbs took his comments one step further and blamed the American people for allowing this gradual sellout of sovereignty to be implemented in the first place!

Thanks to organized grass-roots activism more and more people are becoming aware of the plan to merge the United States, Canada and Mexico into a North American Union (NAU). Highlighted in the March 13 Lou Dobbs Tonight broadcast were the dozen-plus state legislatures who have introduced resolutions opposing the SPP and NAU. At the start of his show Dobbs announced:

Tonight, the escalating revolt against White House efforts to create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada. Many states are now demanding that the U.S. government abandon its efforts to integrate the United States with Mexico and Canada.

There have been a total of 14 state legislatures who have introduced resolutions opposing the creation of a North American Union. If enough states introduce and pass anti-NAU resolutions it would demand much-needed congressional attention.

[seanx]

Texas Legislature Takes on the NAFTA Superhighway


www.brenhambanner.com/articles/2007/04/11/news/news01.txt

Roadblock--Kolkhorst bill for toll road moratorium wins House approval

From Staff and Wire Reports Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:48 PM CDT



AUSTIN - A two-year moratorium on private toll roads that won preliminary approval Tuesday in the House would put the brakes on the Trans-Texas Corridor, a superhighway that a private firm received a contract for earlier this year.

The moratorium also would halt seven near-term projects in the state, said Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, the Brenham Republican who added the proposal to a House bill.

‘‘This is us tapping the brakes, looking before we leap ... into contracts that last 50-plus years,'' Kolkhorst said.

Her proposal would require the state to create a commission to study the effects of private equity toll roads and present findings to the state next year.

Rep. Mike Krussee, R-Round Rock, argued that without private toll roads, the state would need to raise the gas tax to pay for roads.

‘‘However well-intentioned, the moratorium adopted by the House would eliminate an enormous pool of non-tax money to address traffic and transportation needs,'' said Joe Krier, chairman of Texans for Safe Reliable Transportation. ‘‘Fewer transportation dollars mean fewer transportation alternatives, and more traffic gridlock.''


The state contracted with Spanish-American consortium Cintra-Zachry to develop and maintain the Trans-Texas Corridor, which is envisioned as a $184 billion 4,000-mile network of toll roads, rail lines and utilities.

The contract spans 50 years.

‘‘This is an issue about how Texas will build roads in the future and about whether profits paid by Texans will stay here in Texas ... or whether profits will be siphoned off to Spain, Wall Street or other areas,'' said Kolkhorst.

“This was a very good day for all of us that believe Texans should own and operate our highways and keep the money working for Texans rather than being siphoned off by investors from Spain.”

In total, planned private equity toll projects are expected to earn $300 billion in profits for the private firms, she said.

‘‘You never sell a producing well and I think that's what we're doing,'' she said, adding that those profits could be used in Texas to build more highway capacity.

Gov. Rick Perry, who has long championed the Trans-Texas Corridor, has urged the state to reject a two-year toll road moratorium.

‘‘There are no such things as freeways,'' he said in a statement last week. ‘‘There are taxways and tollways, and for 50 years we have tried taxways that have been underfunded by Austin and Washington and that have left local communities choking on pollution and brimming with congestion.''

[BT]

Ron Paul wants us to get out of bad trade deals like NAFTA, WTO, GATT. He he dead set against any sort of N.A. Union and globalism in general.

Vote Ron Paul 2008.

[rjz]

Mickulz...I thought you said "I spend more of my free time researching these things than you have since the last two elections combined."
Ummm....then why don't you know that this is real and is already happening.
Visit the official website for the NAU at www.spp.gov
I would have to disagree and say that you spend most of your time on hbgonline.com thinking off "cool" things to say.

[Mickulz]

Here is another problem I have.

When someone has a meeting it is always "secretive". The fact is, meetings happen all over the world, all the time, for different things. Meetings to talk about having common practices with other countries are a good thing. For example:

1. Food - If US, Mexico, and Canada had the same practices and policies on food administration, the risk of things such has Mad Cow Disease, E. Coli, and other issues might be lower. If we all agreed on proper protocol.

2. immigration - If there were common policies between the 3 countries, immigration might be smoother and safer. For example, anyone who has every worked at the door of a bar, knows what a pain in the ass it is checking licenses from other states. You have a hard time knowing what is real or fake. I can not image that it is much easier at our borders. If there was more information sharing, it would be a lot easier to monitor illegals and terrorists.

All these things HAVE to come with a balance though. Any of these powers (and even current powers) can be abused. Also, everything has to have a starting point of discussion. The SPP is a prime example. It is merely a discussion panel. They have no authority to make a treaty or set policy. It is simple people gathering information to make recommendations.

Maybe I will be wrong about the "NAFTA super highway" but I still stand by my original thoughts that it will not be done.

As to your comments rjz, I have know and read about the SPP for well over a year now. I just know the difference between a discussion forum and a group that can set policy. The SPP is not very much different than us discussion our opinions here.

[rjz]

Maybe this will help...video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&hl=en

[BT]

Mickulz seems to be "100% certain" that the North American Union won't happen. And says "The SPP is not very much different than us discussion(sic) our opinions here."...Hmmmm

Excellent research and insights, rjz.

[Mickulz]

You are correct in my grammar/typo in my statement, but you are taking my statement out of the context.

My statement was simply that like us, the SPP has no power. It is merely a group of people who discuss policy and and ideas. Not that I think the SPP has the same views as us/me.

[BT]

Ok, I'll take your preceeding couple of paragraphs and see what it says:


"All these things HAVE to come with a balance though. Any of these powers (and even current powers) can be abused. Also, everything has to have a starting point of discussion. The SPP is a prime example. It is merely a discussion panel. They have no authority to make a treaty or set policy. It is simple people gathering information to make recommendations.

Maybe I will be wrong about the "NAFTA super highway" but I still stand by my original thoughts that it will not be done.

As to your comments rjz, I have know and read about the SPP for well over a year now. I just know the difference between a discussion forum and a group that can set policy. The SPP is not very much different than us discussion our opinions here."


Uh, your sentence still has the same meaning with or without the rest of the paragraphs so you can't claim I took it out of context. That kind of retort is becoming a more common disinformation tactic. The SPP has no power? President Bush, Prime Minister Harper and President Fox have no power? ....ppffft. Who are you trying to bamboozle? The NAFTA superhighway is being built this very moment. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, Mickulz, you'll avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion.

Masonic disinformation and dissembling is pretty strange.

[Mickulz]

I love it. The minute I express my thoughts, you jump on the masonic issue. Here is a news flash. Not all Masons agree on the same things. But, if we are going to play the "group dynamic" game, let us look at your wonder Dr. Paul.

1) Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.
2) YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
3) Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer

Is that a Christian in his pocket, or is he just glad to see me?

How about this:

1) voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol
2) voted NO on raising CAFE standards
3) voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR
4) voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refineries
5) voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore

Wow, a Texas rep voting in favor of Big Oil, go figure.

Seeing as Dr. Paul is a member of the RLC, which as stated by Paul himself is:

"The RLC doesn’t have an official platform like the major parties, because it is a political club and only affiliated with a major party. There is, however, an official list of RLC positions that emphasizes limited government across the board. The document was adopted at the 1996 RLC convention. Individual RLC members do not necessarily concur with every position, and it is not a requirement of membership to endorse it. It does seem to reflect the general views of the members."

So basically it is ok for Paul to be part of a group that has their own ideas, values, and agenda as a group. However, you attack of groups for doing the exact same thing.

[rjz]

Whatever. You have to look beyond the simple Yes or No vote.
Who DO you support?
Anyway, there is a reason for an astounding grassroots effort to get the word out about RON PAUL.
I will not debate you. I can counter all of the votes you listed as to why Dr. Paul voted y/n. Here's a great site www.ontheissues.org
You can see where the candidates stand and also why.
Here's another great site where you can read exactly what RP thinks himself. www.ronpaullibrary.org

I belong to a local Ron Paul meetup group and the turnout is awesome.
Here's a comparison from meetup.com on meetup groups for candidates:

Ron Paul 2008
19,087 Members in 527 Meetup Groups, 3,742 waiting for a Meetup Group

Barack Obama
3,935 Members in 70 Meetup Groups, 1,440 waiting for a Meetup Group

Dennis Kucinich
1,204 Members in 43 Meetup Groups, 2,761 waiting for a Meetup Group

Hillary Rodham Clinton
827 Members in 30 Meetup Groups, 1,065 waiting for a Meetup Group

John Edwards
1,848 Members in 45 Meetup Groups, 2,419 waiting for a Meetup Group

In addition, Ron Paul leads the pack in veteran support from all military branches. studentsforpaul.org/ron_paul_us_militarys_1_choice

Wonder why the controlled media isn't covering more of Ron Paul?
Oh wait, i just answered that...they're CONTROLLED!

So, think what you will about Ron Paul, but at least give him a real wholehearted listen:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

In liberty,
rjz

[Mickulz]

Rjz;
I have given him a listen, and I find it great that you are passionate about it (btw..I dont htink posting the video in every board will earn your points here), I just do not agree with him. His ideology and mine are not the same. Again, I am not bashing him as a person. I just do not like when people tell me that someone is the best hope, or last hope. It is all about how you see the world and what you want. As far as the money goes..I will wait and see where that all is later in the year.

[seanx]

Here's an interesting take on the whole subject......conspiracy theories?................I think not.....

Media Hoax Attempts To Hide Advance Of North American Union
Establishment engages in mass public deception in desperate effort to hoodwink Americans into believing march towards global government is a conspiracy theory

November 28, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

The establishment media has promoted a consistent hoax and engaged in mass public deception by claiming that a plan for the political, social and economic integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American Union does not exist, despite overwhelming and manifestly provable evidence to the contrary.

A recent Boston Globe piece entitled The amero conspiracy is just the latest in a long line of public relations stunts on behalf of the establishment to attempt to hoodwink Americans into thinking that the NAU is crackpot conspiracy fodder on a par with bigfoot and alien abduction, when in reality a plan for merging the Americas is on the record and its protagonists have long bragged about their goal to destroy U.S. sovereignty in pursuit of world government.

Every time the agenda for full political and economic integration is advanced one step further, whether by treaties, lawfully binding agreements or rhetoric about what the next step will be, the establishment media steps in to scoff at such patently observable developments and label them "conspiracy theories".

The exact same thing happened before the emergence of the European Union, which was planned as far back as the early 50's by the Bilderberg Group to be a world government power bloc backed by a single currency . It was introduced, just like NAFTA, as a free trade agreement, before each incremental advance led to the creation of what the globalists had planned all along - an unaccountable, unelected beauracratic body where power is centralized and national sovereignty is sacrificed as every aspect of the economy and society is micro-managed by standardized EU protocols and regulations.

Media hit pieces against the North American Union "conspiracy" seem to hinge on the notion that the globalists pushing for it don't call it a "union" but a "community". This is akin to when David Rockefeller dismissed the notion that he was aiding the creation of a global government, instead asserting only that he believed in "global governance". The media are basically ninnying about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Whatever you want to call it - a plan for political, economic and social integration of the Americas is afoot and it is being rammed through with little or no say from Congress or the American people.

The planned introduction of the Amero, a pan-American currency lambsted in the Globe piece as another conspiracy theory, is common knowledge amongst all financial analysts worth their salt. Steve Previs of Jefferies International talked about it on a CNBC segment in November last year.



Just this week, renowned money manager Stephen Jarislowsky told a parliamentary committee in Canada that "we have to really seriously start thinking of the model of a continental currency just like Europe," as he advocated the creation of a North American currency to replace the Canadian dollar, the U.S. dollar and the peso.

Vicente Fox himself admitted the plan for a North American "euro-dollar" currency during an appearance on Larry King Live last month.



In a subsequent appearance on The Daily Show With John Stewart, Fox also expressed his desire for the creation of a North American Union based on the model of the European Union.



Fox went further in a November 5 speech in which he stated that NAFTA must be ?expanded? along the model of the European Union, leading to the creation of a North American Parliament.

During an August press conference in Montebello Candada, where President Bush met with Mexico's President Felipe Calderon, and Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper to discuss the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the trojan horse for the NAU's implementation, Bush was asked point blank if he would categorically deny the existence of a plan to create a North American Union and a NAFTA Superhighway. Bush ridicluded conspiracy theorists who talked about the NAU, but he refused to deny its existence.

As JBS President John F. McManus points out , the Boston Globe hit piece makes its case for the non-existence of the NAU while omitting completely the actual evidence for its very real development, or failing to understand such things as the Council on Foreign Relations' publication Building a North American Community , which openly calls for "a common North American security perimeter, the development of a biometric North American border pass, and the adoption of a North American tariff."

In September 2006, high-level government officials, media heavyweights and corporate leaders met behind closed doors at a plush resort in Banff, Canada. At their gathering, labeled the "North American Forum," they discussed energy, security, border infrastructure, and North American "integration." We know about the secret meeting because a Canadian who attended the affair and didn't like what he heard blew the whistle and shared some of its documents. After the three-day session, attendee Thomas Shannon (a U.S. Assistant Secretary of State) told an audience in Canada, "The North American Forum is a parallel structure to the Security and Prosperity Partnership." Other U.S. attendees included former Secretary of State George Shultz, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (replaced at the last minute by Joint Chiefs Chairman General Peter Pace), former U.S. Trade Representative and NAFTA co-author Carla Hills, Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady (who has yet to mention the meeting in her column), and several other former cabinet officers and government officials. Counterparts from Canada and Mexico represented their countries. If nothing sinister was going on at this gathering, why was it conducted in secrecy?

No sooner had the Security and Prosperity Partnership been launched than the U.S. Commerce Department made space available in its offices for the personnel of 20 "working groups" to carry out the designs of the new organization. Of note is the fact that no one in Congress had been apprised of this development. Why bypass Congress if there's nothing to hide?

At the August 2007 meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, hundreds of helmeted, armed, and tear-gas-wielding soldiers and police guarded the site, the Montebello Resort in Western Quebec, to assure that the public would not have access to the proceedings. U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins assured the world in the Canadian press that "no one involved in these discussions is interested in, or has ever proposed, a North American Union, a North American Superhighway, or a North American currency." But Robert Pastor, who is the originator and purveyor of these very topics, was at the Montebello SPP gathering.

The standardization and centralization of policy into a North American Union framework is very real, a fact we personally came face to face with this week after our office received a letter from the Texas Workforce Commission demanding that we provide business information for the purposes of assigning a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code to our location.

The NAICS website reveals that "The North American Industry Classification System has replaced the U.S. Stan dard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. NAICS will reshape the way we view our changing economy."

"NAICS was developed jointly by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to provide new comparability in statistics about business activity across North America."

The fact that we received this letter and that businesses across America are being forced to submit census information for the purposes of registration in a North American database that includes Mexico and Canada is no "conspiracy theory," its another documented step on the road to full harmonization and integration.

The ultimate goal, to bring together the Pan American Union, the Asian Union and the European Union into a structure of world government, is also often scoffed at by the media as another conspiracy theory, but the agenda to end U.S. sovereignty in the interests of centralizing global power is a concept that has been pushed by elitists for decades and their intentions to do so are on the record.

Here are just a handful of quotes from top powerbrokers attesting to that fact, as well as warnings from those who oppose it.

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, 1992.

"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than f rom the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)

"Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order. Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations."
President George Bush Texas A&M University 1989

"There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international . . . network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies . . . but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."
Professor Carroll Quigley, in his book Tragedy and Hope, 1966.

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
- David Rockefeller

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future."
U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in his l964 book: With No Apologies.