Why is the North American Union a bad idea?

[DeadheadForPaul]

Before anyone posts any knee-jerk reactions, let me clarify my question. Obviously we support free markets and oppose government intervention. I'm asking this because I honestly know nothing about the proposed NAU and nothing about the European Union

Would the U.S. have to follow any laws under this pact which would threaten our gun rights, raise taxes or eliminate citizenship of the 3 individual nations? Does it directly benefit any particular corporation(s)?

I ask because in theory, the NAU sounds like a good idea if it simply removes trade barriers. Most of the opposition has come from isolationists and anti-free traders so I want to know the exact reason as to why we oppose the NAU and exactly how it threatens our sovereignty

thanks guys

[graystar]

I think because it will add another layer of government. Look at the EU - local govts, national govts, and now a european government.

If some had their way they would go the world govt too.

[angrydragon]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=4969

[paulitics]

Before anyone posts any knee-jerk reactions, let me clarify my question. Obviously we support free markets and oppose government intervention. I'm asking this because I honestly know nothing about the proposed NAU and nothing about the European Union

Would the U.S. have to follow any laws under this pact which would threaten our gun rights, raise taxes or eliminate citizenship of the 3 individual nations? Does it directly benefit any particular corporation(s)?

I ask because in theory, the NAU sounds like a good idea if it simply removes trade barriers. Most of the opposition has come from isolationists and anti-free traders so I want to know the exact reason as to why we oppose the NAU and exactly how it threatens our sovereignty

thanks guys

Because it would supplant America's constitution with a less democratic one that serves the wealthy elite. America as we know it today would cease to exist. Not to mention it would be horrible for the middle class, and would not be true capitalism, but ravenous globalist capitalism that interferes with the political process, hence more closely alligned with fascism.

[qednick]

Here's your answer on the European Union...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2699800300274168460

...and why the NAU will be BAD!!

[Erazmus]

I guess some quick answers would be:

* Diminishes sovereignty
* Eliminates borders = less security = huge strain on a welfare state as everyone in North America is now a citizen of the NAU
* The constitution would be nullified (as will the Supreme Court) because you’d have a higher authority than the U.S. This would basically mean writing a new constitution :eek: , a new NAU Supreme Court :eek: , and a new NAU currency :eek:

I could go on. But the links in the other forum are probably better to look over. They can explain more efficiently.

[Quantumystic]

Before anyone posts any knee-jerk reactions, let me clarify my question. Obviously we support free markets and oppose government intervention. I'm asking this because I honestly know nothing about the proposed NAU and nothing about the European Union

Would the U.S. have to follow any laws under this pact which would threaten our gun rights, raise taxes or eliminate citizenship of the 3 individual nations? Does it directly benefit any particular corporation(s)?

I ask because in theory, the NAU sounds like a good idea if it simply removes trade barriers. Most of the opposition has come from isolationists and anti-free traders so I want to know the exact reason as to why we oppose the NAU and exactly how it threatens our sovereignty

thanks guys

Allow me...

First and foremost, it is supported by the NeoCons. Who've publicly demonstrated that they'll throw their own wife under the bus for what they want (Giuliani, Gingrich, etc).

Specifics. The SPP/NAU is NOT "free market". Free Market would be EQUAL opportunity for everyone, and true market competition. This is about ELIMINATING competition, and regulation, for a Priviledged Few that wish to establish Absolute Monopolies Worldwide.

This is NOT an "improvement" for U.S. Sovereignty. It is the DeFacto Abolition of it. Right down to a new shared monetary unit called the Amero, and the Authority over the U.S. military being reassigned to the proposed new leadership trinity known as the Triumvirate.

Underlying the whole thing is this... North American Inland Ports Network (NAIPN)

http://www.nascocorridor.com/pages/ports_network/nafta_map_corridor.jpg

Aside from all the other more obvious aspects, what I find interesting about this projection map is the Port of Entry at the U.S./Mexican border... Laredo/Nuevo Laredo.

This area has been so dangerous for so many years, that neither the Sheriff of Laredo nor U.S. Border patrols will engage the drug cartels of Nuevo Laredo. Mexico has likewise been powerless to re-establish control in this truly lawless area.

U.S. law enforcement can hardly summon 1,000 agents for a protracted "war" of atrition against these cartels that lasts indefinitely. And even if they could, they'd still be severely outnumbered and outgunned against an enemy that is utterly ruthless.

So WHY would anyone even suggest this area?

Could it be an "extreme circumstances"-"war on drugs" justification for a MILITARY operation to "neutralize" a "national security threat"?

Cheney/Bush have been just waiting for an excuse to begin exercising (illegally) Martial Law. Is this the plan?

Bush's Immigration bill was patriotically defeated. But he's never let that stop him before. WHY would he now?

"In the interests of National Security", watch for a DeFacto Military Occupation of the Laredo/Nuevo Laredo area at the border. Probably media-spun as a "support mission" of U.S. Law Enforcement. "Securing our borders". "War on Drugs". All the usual rhetoric.

Then watch to see WHEN the military actually leaves. Completely. Because once Bush has military commanders directly under HIS authority controlling that border, he won't care what laws Congress passes.

The military will let through WHOEVER Bush says to. Local law enforcement will be shut out by the military and the Feds. Local media coverage will get the same. And national media will mostly do what they've been doing for the last 6 yrs.

This is the "toehold" of not just a Police-State... but a Military Police-State that can then easily expand into a North American Union.

If you're against Amnesty, and Illegal Immigration... I suggest you examine this very seriously... and ask yourself... is this concept Strategically Plausible?

[Bossobass]

The plan for a one world government is that of the international bankers to consolidate their power and wealth.

J.D. Rockefeller said, "Competition is a sin."

One bank. One currency. One energy source. One armed force. One puppet government. One Health Care system. Total control over the population, including it's size, reproduction rate and assurance of no possiblity for an uprising.

The NAU is just another step toward that goal. Bush is in the driver's seat and he and his boys have the pedal to the metal.

To me, as a person who has studied Rocky, Rothschild and this sort of specific history for 30 years, it's excruciatingly obvious.

RP is a wealth of info on this subject. That's why I strain at every joint to spread his message of FREEDOM!

Bosso

[Swmorgan77]

Before anyone posts any knee-jerk reactions, let me clarify my question. Obviously we support free markets and oppose government intervention. I'm asking this because I honestly know nothing about the proposed NAU and nothing about the European Union

Would the U.S. have to follow any laws under this pact which would threaten our gun rights, raise taxes or eliminate citizenship of the 3 individual nations? Does it directly benefit any particular corporation(s)?

I ask because in theory, the NAU sounds like a good idea if it simply removes trade barriers. Most of the opposition has come from isolationists and anti-free traders so I want to know the exact reason as to why we oppose the NAU and exactly how it threatens our sovereignty

thanks guys


It's a bad idea because the basic principle of republican government is that you divide power (instead of centralize) and handle issues at the lowest (most accountable) level of government possible.

[ThePieSwindler]

The plan for a one world government is that of the international bankers to consolidate their power and wealth.

J.D. Rockefeller said, "Competition is a sin."

One bank. One currency. One energy source. One armed force. One puppet government. One Health Care system. Total control over the population, including it's size, reproduction rate and assurance of no possiblity for an uprising.

The NAU is just another step toward that goal. Bush is in the driver's seat and he and his boys have the pedal to the metal.

To me, as a person who has studied Rocky, Rothschild and this sort of specific history for 30 years, it's excruciatingly obvious.

RP is a wealth of info on this subject. That's why I strain at every joint to spread his message of FREEDOM!

Bosso

Bush is really just a pawn behind the true global elite. Otherwise, you are correct. Karl Rove and the elites behind the scenes made bush, funded bush, etc. Also, bush is not as stupid as he lets across - he is actually fairly articulate and smart, especially when he was governor. However, he has been given so much scripted information that he sometimes tends to botch it. Or perhaps its a sinister front to make people, like Michael moore, attribute Bush's "failures" to stupidity and not a real, engineered intent.

[Broadlighter]

It's about managed-trade, not free-trade.

Sorry to be so knee-jerk, but it boils down to that. It further strengthens central control of all of the commerce between the three nations. It also embeds debt currency deeper into our pockets.

[ThePieSwindler]

The plan for a one world government is that of the international bankers to consolidate their power and wealth.

J.D. Rockefeller said, "Competition is a sin."

One bank. One currency. One energy source. One armed force. One puppet government. One Health Care system. Total control over the population, including it's size, reproduction rate and assurance of no possiblity for an uprising.

The NAU is just another step toward that goal. Bush is in the driver's seat and he and his boys have the pedal to the metal.

To me, as a person who has studied Rocky, Rothschild and this sort of specific history for 30 years, it's excruciatingly obvious.

RP is a wealth of info on this subject. That's why I strain at every joint to spread his message of FREEDOM!

Bosso

Bush is really just a pawn behind the true global elite. Otherwise, you are correct. Karl Rove and the elites behind the scenes made bush, funded bush, etc. Also, bush is not as stupid as he lets across - he is actually fairly articulate and smart, especially when he was governor. However, he has been given so much scripted information that he sometimes tends to botch it. Or perhaps its a sinister front to make people, like Michael moore, attribute Bush's "failures" to stupidity and not a real, engineered intent.

But ANywAYS, its hard for most people who are stuck in the mainstream thought to comprehend any of this - they just lock up and tune it out and cry conspiracies, and it falls on deaf ears. The NAU, however is real, and dangerous, whether you believe in the NWO or not, and it is very replete with evidence from both independant sources AND THE ORIGINATORS OF THE CONCEPT!. THEY SAY IT THEMSLEVES ON THEIR OWN WEBSITES!

[LibertyEagle]

New articles...
"Pro-Immigration Forces Back North American Union"
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/9/140357.shtml?s=al&promo_code=36D4-1

"Coming soon to U.S.: Mexican customs office"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50500

[DeadheadForPaul]

Ok, so to clarify...

1.) Would the Constitution essentially be thrown out or ignored?
2.) Would the NAU open the borders or would it maintain them?

If the NAU simply resulted in less limitations of trade, I would be all for it, but if our rights and borders are threatened by this, then clearly it's not a good idea

[kalami]

If the NAU simply resulted in less limitations of trade, I would be all for it, but if our rights and borders are threatened by this, then clearly it's not a good idea

I think this sums it up.

[Erazmus]

Ok, so to clarify...

1.) Would the Constitution essentially be thrown out or ignored?
2.) Would the NAU open the borders or would it maintain them?

If the NAU simply resulted in less limitations of trade, I would be all for it, but if our rights and borders are threatened by this, then clearly it's not a good idea

1) Our constitution would essentially be nullified because it would be superseded by a higher government.

2) There would be no borders.

[LibertyEagle]

Ok, so to clarify...

1.) Would the Constitution essentially be thrown out or ignored?
2.) Would the NAU open the borders or would it maintain them?

If the NAU simply resulted in less limitations of trade, I would be all for it, but if our rights and borders are threatened by this, then clearly it's not a good idea

1. The Constitution would be no more. You only have to look at what has happened to the EU for the answer to your question.

2. No borders. Why do you think there has been a refusal to enforce our immigration laws and secure our ports and borders?

[SeanEdwards]

I think that if the US was thoroughly ronpauled for a few years, that some kind of expansion of the U.S. might not be a necessarily bad thing.

Imagine a North America of many smaller states unified under a relatively weak Federal government under strict Constitutional control, as the founders intended. There's no reason that model has to stop at fifty states. If Ron Paul was leading the Federal government, I really wouldn't be that worried about a closer integration with our neighbors, much as I don't worry about the integration between California and Nevada.

Anyway, just something to think about. I'm not endorsing this current fascist/corporatist powerful central authority that is on the table. The EU model is not one I agree with. Just throwing out a different idea for discussion.

[kalami]

I would be for some loss of sovereignty if we still retained democracy

[PatriotOne]

Ok, so to clarify...

1.) Would the Constitution essentially be thrown out or ignored?
2.) Would the NAU open the borders or would it maintain them?

If the NAU simply resulted in less limitations of trade, I would be all for it, but if our rights and borders are threatened by this, then clearly it's not a good idea

We can look to the European model when they formed the European Union. It's the same Globalists behind both the EU and the NAU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement

The 1985 Schengen Agreement is an agreement among European states which allows for the abolition of systematic border controls between the participating countries. It also includes provisions on common policy on the temporary entry of persons (including the Schengen Visa), the harmonisation of external border controls, and cross-border police co-operation.

A total of 30 states – including most European Union states and three non-EU members Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland – have signed the agreement and 15 have implemented it so far. The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom only take part in the police co-operation measures and not the common border control and visa provisions. Border posts and checks have been removed between Schengen area[1] states (see Customs Control section for details) and a common 'Schengen visa' allows tourist or visitor access to the area.

[LibertyEagle]

I would be for some loss of sovereignty if we still retained democracy

WHAT?????

[PatriotOne]

I think that if the US was thoroughly ronpauled for a few years, that some kind of expansion of the U.S. might not be a necessarily bad thing.

Imagine a North America of many smaller states unified under a relatively weak Federal government under strict Constitutional control, as the founders intended. There's no reason that model has to stop at fifty states. If Ron Paul was leading the Federal government, I really wouldn't be that worried about a closer integration with our neighbors, much as I don't worry about the integration between California and Nevada.

Anyway, just something to think about. I'm not endorsing this current fascist/corporatist powerful central authority that is on the table. The EU model is not one I agree with. Just throwing out a different idea for discussion.

I've often thought that in theory, a One World Government might not be such a bad idea. But when you research the actual people behind this, that's when I get downright terrified. The things they have done and the intentional pain and suffering they have caused around the world make me sick to think about these people being in control of my life.

[kalami]

WHAT?????

It would be like adding another state. Free trade area with our rights intact.

[guntherg16]

Here's a link to the NAU Special Report from the New American Magazine.

http://www.jbs.org/files/tna/tna20061002.pdf

Here's a link to the JBS' NAU site.

http://www.jbs.org/nau

[DAZ]

It would be like adding another state. Free trade area with our rights intact.

But the less sovereignty part that you mentioned earlier would pretty much guarantee that our rights would not remain intact. Think about how much the Federal government has trampled on the rights and powers of the individual states. Then extrapolate that up one level.