For those of you who haven't heard of it yet, our government alongside the Mexican and Canadian government, have decided to put aside their differences and become one nation: the North American Union.
That's right, no more America, no more United States, no more borders. Sounds good at first, doesn't it? We won't have to worry about illegal immigrants as much because they're all citizens now, and everyone will be paying taxes instead of just those that are now legal. However, with this Union, we can see a few apparent downfalls. By widening our borders and thus increasing population, punishment and law enforcement may get a little hectic. Think about it, now we have a police force for our United States, what will we do when we acquire more people? My only guess would be to combine the US police force, Canadian Mounties, and.... well, whatever the Mexicans have to form one united safety enforcer.
I'll also be intrigued to see how our economy will go. According to a 2005 estimate (I think it was wikipedia), the average income of Mexico is around 1/4 of America's average income. It makes sense to me when I think about it. I'm not sure what Canada's is, but if you combine all three, I believe we'd have a drop in average income, thus hurting the economy. Also, Mexicans aren't as dependable consumers as Americans are now. All Americans do is consume really.
One last note on this North American Union. The idea of uniting surrounding countries is nothing new. In fact, it's quite the trend now. There are plans for an African Union, Asian Union, and every other Union to cover the span of the earth. With this, trade could be easier and there'd be no more UN to mess with things, there'd only be a few Unions to deal with, no little countries. For Christians and other believers in the Tribulation period, this would be prime for the Anti-Christ to come to power. He can easily become the head of all the Unions and have literally every nation of the world revere him as their ruler. He would probably then institute the Mark, which I'll discuss in a little bit below.
On another note, not directly related is the microchip. It's a fairly neat idea at first glance. Everyone will receive a bar code and/or computer chip in their hand and there will be no more need for money or credit cards, you just scan your hand. That solves that, right? No more losing your credit cards or having your money stolen, it's all on your hand. However, with this also means more government involvement. If you begin to do something the government doesn't like, they could simply make your chip void and you wouldn't be able to purchase any goods, including food.
Another side to this that most Christians will know, is that this concept is mentioned in the Bible. It's called The Mark and is known by other names too I'm sure. People will need to make a choice whether or not to take this mark and thus giving the governent control over them. I won't go much more in depth with this unless prompted to do so, just thought I'd mention that it's Biblical.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
oh geez...sounds like we are in some serious trouble here doesn't it now?
nice bit about the anti-christ btw...haha
but yeah that would be a scary thought...I think the world would end...rather rapidly.
Yeah, that's very likely where the 7 year tribulation would fall. It's supposed that by 2010, the NAU will start. So, my guess would be that that's when the 7 year tribulation starts and in the year 2013 (half way through the tribulation) the Anti-Christ will come to power. But that's just me.
you are right...have you read the left behind series?
I never did read the books or watch the movies because I know there's fiction mixed in with all of it and many people tend to take the fictional parts as truth as well. The concept of the series is good though, a good way to give a "best-as-possible" description of what it will be like.
oh I was just wondering...I have four of the books...but yes I do agree that being able to discern what is fact and fiction can be somewhat difficult here
I think there are some in our government who want a NAU. But you WAY overstate the case. Nothing has been decided yet. The Security and Prosperity Partnership is not even a legal agreement. It is an initiative by the Executive Branch of our government that might be moving us towards the NAU but it has never been ratified by Congress as either a law or a treaty.
I doubt very seriously that we will have a NAU by 2010. It takes 2/3rds of Congress to ratify a treaty and it is very hard to imagine our current bi-polar Congress being able to come up with the votes to make such a thing happen.
Not even NAFTA was passed as a Treaty. They could never muster the 2/3rds vote to pass a treaty so it is merely a law that was passed with a 50% vote and can be changed or repealed with a 50% vote. There is a big difference between a law and a treaty because a Treaty essentially carries the same weight in law as the Constitution whereas a law is subservient to the Constitution.
I think we need to be viligent against the NAU but I don't think it is just around the corner either.
From what I've read, an agreement between President Bush and the leaders of Canada and Mexico has already been made without the other branches of the government's knowledge. They of course know about it now, but they've already met and discussed it. I doubt it will be here by 2010, that's just a number I had read. Our country isn't subject to such quick change. One possiblity is that our new president will decide to go forward with the idea. Another figure I've heard is that Muslims plan to destroy/take over America by the year 2020. That's their plan, but whether or not it will happen, no one can know. I know these things aren't completely factual because it's the future, I just wanted people to know of the possibilities that could arise in the future, however near it is.
I think you are talking about the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). It was agreed to by the Executives of the three countries a couple of years ago and there have been some ongoing initiatives since then. It was about establishing a common defensive perimeter so that terrorists got stopped before the entered Mexico or Canada long before they got to the US border, and it is about harmonizing regulatory law. Regulatory law is made by the Executive Branch within the framework and bounds of legislative laws written by Congress so it is within the power of the Executive Branch to change regulatory law without involving Congress.
It makes a lot of sense to have a common defensive perimeter around our continent and I approve of working with our neighbors who are allies to achieve this defense. It also makes considerable sense in the furtherance of trade to have similar regulations on things like product safety and quality. That allows economies of scale that lower costs and therefore increase everybody's wealth. I approve of that too although I would not favor lowering our standards to Mexico's. A lot of Canadians are complaining that they are being forced to lower their standards to our more lax standards.
There is an argument that the SPP is a step towards a Union like the European Union (EU). I think there is certain merit to that argument. The EU started as a free-trade agreement for steel and coal which was a lot like NAFTA and it progressed in baby steps towards first an economic union and more recently towards an increasingly intrusive on national soverighty political union. I think we need to be on our guard against that.
But the SPP is just an Executive Branch agreement. It is not a Treaty or even a Law because it has never been submitted to a vote in Congress. And not even NAFTA is a Treaty because it never achieved the 2/3rds threshold. It barely passed as a law with a simple majority.
No decisions have been made and we are nowhere close to being on an irrevocable path towards a NAU. But it is proper to be aware of what our leaders are up to because there are certainly some that would like to head down that path.
Well, a mutual agreement for safety and trade within the borders sounds good to me. It would serve as another layer of defense (hopefully) for us. What I'm thinking will come soon is just the dissolving of the borders completely, as I've already stated. There's really no backing, it's just a theory. I think we're on a path similar to that of the EU, but somewhat different. We're definitely moving at a slower pace, which is probably why not many notice anything. The fact that this was being considered behind the backs of the people is what concerns me. This could just be the beginning; the government may start delving deeper into the realm of secrecy. Granted, they do keep many things secret from us as is, but they maintain a level of truth with the public about major matters that most people care about. It's better to be overprepared for something that won't happen than to be unprepared for something that will.
I am going to agree with jackbenimble on this one. It won't happen by 2010, and certainly you're thinking of the SPP. Connecting countries as unions is odd and won't happen for some time anyway. Chaulking this all up to the end times is dumb and is open to interpretation because no one truly knows what they Bible says about this, so I write it off as superstition.
And Muslims taking over by 2020 is hilarious, I don't know why they would or where you get this stuff from. It is possible, but I highly doubt it.
I must advice to leave religion out of this, politics and religion have no need together anyway, because both are corruptable and as we've seen time and time again.
I know the dates sound quite laughable, I don't have a source for them, I just heard them from certain individuals. I also know that making this seem as though it's absolutely, positively related to the end times is pointless, I know that. I'm just saying that certain aspects of this Union can fit into the setting for the end times; I'm not saying that they will.
The reason I bring up Muslims is because there is a slight indication that they will play a roll in the end times, according to the Bible. Somewhere in Revelation (I don't know exactly where right now) it says that many Christians will be killed by the sword (probably meaning beheading). One major people that use swords in such a way would be the Muslims (not all Muslims, mind you). There's not much of a debate against the hatred of Christians by Muslims, we can clearly see that, so this would also fit into Biblical prophesy. Politics and religion may not go together, but history and religion do. I don't like to mess with politics too much, too messy....
I'm glad you decided to write on this. I obviously agree with your views (shocker, huh?), and this is one of the major things I'm mad at President Bush for (talking to the Mexican President and Canadian Prime Minister about this). I definitely think this could play a part in the end times. It doesn't neccesarilly have to, but it certainly could. Disregard that remark about superstition. Son_of_diaster is probably not a Bible-believing Christian. That doesn't mean his opinion doesn't count, but it does mean you should just brush off that remark. By the way, this isn't fully, but it's slightly political. ...I'm proud of you!! ;) Haha.
Well, I'm not big on brushing off people's opinions and remarks, even if they don't line up with mine. I take what they say and test it to see if it's true or borderline true or just flat out wrong. Even the Bible says that we should test things for ourselves, such as seeking if He is real or not. It's a personal journey so you need to seek it out on your own, not just make your own view by the views of others. I do like reading commentaries and such, but humans write them which means their opinions are woven into them. I don't want my opinion to mirror that of someone else's unless it's absolutely true. So, don't necessarily brush off comments, just test their validity. In Son_of_disaster's case, it is slightly farfetched to believe those dates, but it is indeed possible. There's not much of a way that we could personally know when they plan on doing such things because we're not a part of Islam (or so I suppose....). So we can only speculate, not give completely factual information.
I was, but Christianity has way way to many paradox's to actually be believeable...along with all other religions.
I don't know of what you're talking about specifically, but many (if not all) of the apparent contradictions found in the Bible are easily explained away with further study. An example would be appreciated.
I said a paradox, not a contradiction.
One paradox is God's seeming inability to stop something that he knows will happen. At least early on in the Bible, we see God manipulating the Pharoah's mind. Now Christians believe that God instilled freewill, but by doing what God did to the Pharoah, that shows a lack of freewill. Another is the tower of Babel. In the Bible, I don't remember where, it says that God knew us before we were born. Before our names were written in the book of life, he knew us and what we would do. Yet we have freewill, but God knows exactly what we're going to do. A complex paradox. God allowed the people to build the tower which was strictly against his wishes, yet God knew they were going to do that, so God had no right to get mad. What God, if it exists, has created is what I call Determined Will (I'm sure there is another word for it). It is the seeming creation of free will, except for the part that it is already predetermined, thus it is a contradiction which manifests itself as a paradox throughout the Bible.
The dictionary says that a paradox is "a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth." - a contradiction basically. I will admit that it does seem very interesting the idea of a free will and an omniscient God. Then again, nobody can understand the concept of a Triune God either. My opinion, not based on Scripture or anything due to the fact that it's not necessarily stated, is that God can choose what he wants to know. In Christian belief, when one confesses his sins, God will never again remember them or bring them up, they are cast away, never to return. It's possible for Him to remember them but He won't. It might be the same case here, God could choose to foresee the events that would take place but chooses not to. Also, there's the idea of an eternal present. In this idea, God does not exist at any one time in history, but rather in all times. So, He would know what would take place because He's actually there, very hard to comprehend, but we are only human. There again, this is just opinionated, not backed by anything.