The government is keeping us distracted by a number of things. President Bush signed a formal agreement allowing the united states, Canada and Mexico without the approval of congress or the people of the united states are trying to merge us into one entity calling us the north American union in 2005. It is an open borders policy that will ignore enforcement of immigration laws. Only the people at the very top know about this union. With this union there will be total removal of independence and will result in a new currency called the ameroero along with a borderless continent. The American constitution will be obsolete. ppl behind the movement are the same ppl behind the mainstream media, who do not tell us what we are not supposed to know. The same concept as the European union, African union and the soon to be Asian union will bring along something as well. The same ppl behind all of the unions will in time merge the unions forming the final stages of a one-world government (plan that had been in preparation for over 60 yrs). the video that i found this information on can be accessed thorugh youtube.com its title is "Zeitgeist 8 (Part III: the men behind the curtain - d)"
User login
Like This Site?
If you would like to see ProgressiveU continue to grow, why not donate?
Have You Seen This Yet?
Recent blog posts
- Piltdown Man and AGW Global Warming; Scientific Fraud Unravels
- Not just because they don't want you to get high...
- Mai Evolving Understanding of the Nautre of Healing
- Unemployment vs. Un-willing-to-employ
- What would you do?
- Comics and Cartoons as a Source of Cultural History in the United States, Part 2
- A Healthy Dose of Ethics: Where does YOUR blood come from?
- Looking for a ProgressiveU Podcast Partner!
- The Snow Walker: A Review
- Twilightmania, Geekdom, and Other Random Things
Navigation
Who's online
There are currently 6 users and 286 guests online.
Online users
- sionadam
- son_of_disaster
- jackbenimble
- bleedingheart
- indiindigo
Progressive U Features
Poll
Do you agree with the decision to try suspects linked to 9/11 in New York?
Yes
29%
No
38%
Undecided
19%
No opinion
14%
Total votes: 21
Vote
That is as untrue as the bridge/road that would have extended from Mexico to Canada.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Presidente Vincete Fox admitted during and interview with Larry King a couple weeks ago that President Bush and he agreed to move towards this union in the long term. Over the last couple of years there have been a lot of high-level Mexican officials talking fairly openly about this in the Mexican Press.
Of course it is wildly unpopular in the USA so I would not expect our politicians to talk about it openly. Instead they will move forward in baby steps until one day we will wake up to Fate Accompli. It will be alot like slowly boiling a frog.
The European Union started as a free-trade deal for steel. Last week the Brittish Prime Minister Gordon Brown signed England onto the new EU Constitution, which is being downplayed as just another treaty (THe Lisbon Treaty), without the people even being allowed to vote on it as Tony Blair had long promised. Brittain is no longer a sovereign nation and their laws are now superceded by EU law.
Dont underestimate the perfidy of our elites! The Texas portion of the highway road is in progress.
I'm not sure that this stuff is true. But I'm not sure that it is untrue either. Why can't they be more open? I just don't believe that the President's of the USA, Canada and Mexico all got together last month in one of the most secure and secretive meetings in history to standardize the manufacturing standards for Jelly Beans like they tried to tell us. That swill is awfully hard to swallow.
Fortunately, only so much sovereignty can be given away by the Executive Branch without the involvement of Congress. I just realized a couple of weeks ago that NAFTA is not a proper treaty because Congress did not have the 2/3rds votes necessary to ratify it. Instead it was just passed as an ordinary law. That is important because treaties carry authority almost equal to the Constitutuin whereas ordinary laws can be changed or repealed.
I think we should be alert, viligent and only trust our government as far as we can throw Teddy Kennedy.
Here, I can happily agree with you. But I think that we should trust our government FAR less than we can throw Ted Kennedy. In fact, I'd have to say that a distrust of the government was a necessity.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
You can't throw Teddy that far, maybe 2 feet?
If this is true though, this is another ticking time bomb and nail in the coffin for the government, especially if we don't know about it and don't get any say whatsoever.
The North American Union is a term baited and switched with the term Security and Prosperity Partnership, a full fledged discourse between the Bush administration and the leaders of Mexico and Canada originating with the Waco Summit, that presupposes that NAFTA has been successful. Which makes me, wonder why not build on something of it has been successful? But no, I can count at least five spin offs or initiatives of the same ilk, which like frequentA said is distracting and for a person, like me, otherwise preoccupied by my own affairs, confusing.
To me the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" seems like a solution to a problem that hasn't happened yet. As it's already out there, I would bet that it coinciedes with something the PNAC crowd expects a big reaction to. Either that or a vast right wing conspiracy to make Lou Dobbs look silly.
About the movie Zeitgeist, there are a lot of things in it which could use closer scrutiny, which I think the title implies when interpreted as "guiding force". However anything presented in that movie should be followed through with your own investigation in terms of what is most important to you. I'm not debating any of it, but it is mostly based on stuff which due to the secretive or archaic nature of the information is difficult to prove or disprove. Consider this though; the recording of the JFK speech in the movie is different in context as presented in the movie. Aside from being edited so that what some would consider key elements were omitted, the speech itself in it's entirety puts it in the light of the president addressing the press in regard to self censorship. Let me me Google up the Mp3 and the transcript. Here-The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
Restoring Faith In Humanity One Acquaintance At A Time
"To me the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" seems like a solution to a problem that hasn't happened yet. "
We do have common security and prosperity concerns.
One of the big initiatives of the SPP is to extend our security perimeter out from the US Borders to the exterior borders of our neighbors. The theory is to protect the whole continent, not just our nation. I'm fairly on board with this idea. Canada has been a lot more lax about immigration then we have and I have read reports that many Islamic terrorist organizations exist within their borders. At least one (The Milleniun Bomber) has been apprehended at our border on a specific mission to carry out a terrorist act. To the extent that we can convince our northern neighbors to be more viligant, both countries are better off. And then there are the narco-wars in Mexico which from time to time spill across our borders. It looks like Congress may soon allocate $500 million to help out the Mexican government with this problem which is largely caused by the US Prohibition on their product. In my mind terrorists in Canada and narco-cartels in Mexico suggests there is a security problem that needs to be addressed.
And with respect to prosperity, what is wrong with harmonizing our regulations? I have no desire to see our product safety standards lowered to Mexico's largely non-existent standards but as long as the harmonization occurs without compromising health or safety, it facilitates trade and adds to the wealth of all three nations.
I have no problem with the USA working with our neighbors, and in Canada's case, our ally on initiatives that make us (and them) safer and wealthier. Our government is supposed to be keeping us safe and their is nothing wrong with cooperating with or neighbors.
I have a huge problem with the USA signing up on programs whereby we surrender soveriegnty to extra-national governing boards who can make decisions that overrule the decisions of our courts and the laws made by our duly elected government. That would be a NAU and I totally oppose it.
Who Is going to be on this (these) extra-national governing board and how will they be selected and how will we get rid of them if they turn out to be corrupt or incompetent? My guess is that this type of government will be run by or at least dominated by special interests and particularly multi-national corporate interests. The Federal Government already has this problem. Why would anybody want an even more distant and unresponsive government? And how will they be selected? If I were Canada with only 20 million people I would be very concerned about the outcome of a Democratic selection. And frankly as an American I am pretty worried about letting 100 million Mexicans have much of a say either. They have done a rotten job of selecting their own leaders. Their government has refused to educate most of them and ignorant people are easy to manipulate.
So far, I think what has happened to date is fairly benign and helpful cooperation between 3 countries. But I fully approve of the viligence of those like James Corsi and Phillis Shafley because there clearly are globablists in our midst who would like to move towards union. It is important that we be viligent to avoid it and there is nothing wrong with raising public opposition against the very notion. If Union comes, it will be advanced in baby steps and we need to oppose every one of those steps that even slightly involves a surrender of sovereignty.
Regards,
Jack
Can’t quote you the exact text but I’m pretty sure it is unconstitutional to incorporate with other countries, which like a lot of the other effort the Bush Administration has been busy making seems to me like inroads to upend the Constitution, like maybe to adopt a new more global one. That’s how it seems to me.
Like "To me the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" seems like a solution to a problem that hasn't happened yet." seems to me, in the context of the entire paragraph to refer to “A Pearl Harbor style of event” being on PNACs wish list, hence the ready made “Patriot” Act. “Security and Prosperity Partnership” is likely to prove to be a triad of controverted terms as much as the “Patriot” Act has proven to be a controverted term. Security; no, more like the reaction of insecurity to the world view of the US as a global tyrant. Prosperity (the solution everyone wants to take credit for); for so few but taken as a whole it will translate into deprecated quality of life. Partnership, yeah right no problem as long as the US corporate structure calling the shots. If I knew what the equivalent of triad for four was I would explain how the “and” really means equals as in security equals prosperity for the military industrial complex. But oh well.
If you take an account of average US citizens, likely to benefit at all from immigration, don’t forget the immigrants from all over the rest of the world, you would have a minority. If you were to remove the top one or two percent financially situated wise, the offset would be further equal roughly to that number. I guess one valid security concern is that Mexico has so many problems that if they were to totally bottom out, like they will, they would prove to be a population ready to go to war with anybody for so little. They could even end up being bought by China.
Oh and thanks for the names James Corsi and Phillis Shafley.
Restoring Faith In Humanity One Acquaintance At A Time
There are certainly Constitutional Limits on the Powers of the Executive Branch of Government.
With respect to dealing with other countries they can conduct foreign policy which includes negotiating treaties which need to be ratified by Congress. I suppose they can sign other deals like the SPP but unless it is ratified by Congress it has no binding force in law. But that does not mean it cannot serve as a framework for the further conduct of foreign policy. The Executive Branch does not need permission with Congress to talk and then talk some more with other countries.
Most of what has been done under the SPP has been "harmonization" of regulations between the three countries. Congress has the power to legislate which means writing law. But they often write broad laws which grant the bureacracies under the Executive Branch power to write regulations that fill in the details on these broad laws. These regulations are usually published for public comment before they go into force. They are not set in stone and they can be changed from time to time at the will of the Executive Branch so long as they remain within the scope of the broad legal framework established by Congress. When regulations are changed they go back through the comment process before they can go into effect.
It is within the Power of the Executive Branch to modify our regulations to match Canada or Mexico's regulations so long as these new regulations stay within the framework of the laws created by Congress. It would be illegal to write new regulations that contrevened the laws written by Congress. In all likelihood, my guess is that most of the changes to regulations are probably being made by Canadians and Mexicans. Afterall we are the 900-lb gorilla in this deal.
With respect to security under the SPP, the only significant initiative I am aware of is the proposed aid to Mexico to fight the narco war and that is being appropriately and legally run through Congress.
Phyliss Schafley I believe was the conservative who led the fight against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) for women years ago. She is smart, tough and very determined and has been around for a long long time. James Corsi is kind of a new player on the scene. He is the guy responsible for swift-boating John Kerry and now he is attacking GWB. I appreciate him for both although he is kind of a smear artist who I think has a propagandist's flare for playing fast and lose with the truth. Kind of the Michael Moore of the right..