The Most Important News Event of 2008? SPP, CFR and the NAU

[HotHotHeat]

Next week, the leaders of Canada, USA and Mexico will meet in New Orleans for a closed door summit on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America.

The SPP was conceived by business and political elites as a vehicle for expanding and deepening the North American integration process entrenched under the NAFTA model. While its long-term (unstated) goal of a unified business friendly continental market may be ambitious, its strategy for getting there is slow and covert—small incremental steps out of the public eye and away from parliamentary scrutiny.

http://www.canadians.org/integrateth.../Apr-16-2.html

The fact that these meetings are being held in private rooms, away from the public eye raises more than a few questions about the intentions of the three governments. Odds are we won't even hear that the meetings are taking place through traditional media outlets.

Here's the other side of this story.

The SPP works closely with the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). Every president dating back to JFK have been members or have been associated with the CFR.

The 2008 elections are no different. Here is the list of Presidential nominees who are members of the CFR:

Democrat CFR Candidates:

Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson

Republican CFR Candidates:
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Fred Thompson
Newt Gingrich

The CFR is the moving force behind the push to create the North American Union and Amero currency.

Check out the video on this page from liveleak.com

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7fb_1195569887

Vicente Fox has already confirmed the plans to create a common currency on CNN.

This is not conspiracy theory, although undoubtedly it will be passed off as just that by members of this board.

I thought this issue should be revisited with the upcoming summit. Hopefully this convinces some of the people that dismissed the idea of the NAU coming to fruition in the last thread.

My motivation to make these threads is that the creation of a NAU would mean the creation of a 21st century constitution, and considering the undemocratic process of our politicians thus far, I am terrified to think about what this new constitution would look like for our rights, sovereignty and safety.

The scope of these events is so large it's almost too much to comprehend at once.

These are uncertain times.

[StoneCole]

I gotta' be honest I've kind of been looking forward to the union.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

My motivation to make these threads is that the creation of a NAU would mean the creation of a 21st century constitution, and considering the undemocratic process of our politicians thus far, I am terrified to think about what this new constitution would look like for our rights, sovereignty and safety.

The scope of these events is so large it's almost too much to comprehend at once.

These are uncertain times.

See the problem isn't that you believe in the NAU, that's fine. It's this part here where everyone, or atleast myself, has alarm bells go off as it pertains to conspiracy theory.

edit- As for this thread, we all know how this is going to end -_-

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

See the problem isn't that you believe in the NAU, that's fine. It's this part here where everyone, or atleast myself, has alarm bells go off as it pertains to conspiracy theory.

edit- As for this thread, we all know how this is going to end -_-

Fair enough, your confidence in our governments is stronger than mine.

Lou Dobbs has a piece on the NAU meetings coming up on CNN.

[Azure]

Well, I don't have confidence in the government.....probably less than HHH does, but I still find it hard to believe that our government will do something like that without the approval of the people.

That being said....I did go and look at the goals that the SPP has set.....and its not that it scares me.....but man, you have to wonder why so many politicians are onboard.

Thing is....I would fully approve of a union that would get Mexico going, create jobs....so that their economy becomes self dependent. IMO, that would help both Canada and the US. But not a common currency....or 'one' government.

Free trade is good though....and other partnerships.

[getbak]

Why would they give the common currency a lame name like the "Amero"? If it ever happens, it'll be called the North American Dollar.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by getbak

Why would they give the common currency a lame name like the "Amero"? If it ever happens, it'll be called the North American Dollar.

It's mean to be a play on the "Euro," I heard. I don't think it's been finalized as being labelled the "Amero."

One need only look at EU as an example of what to expect if the NAU does happen. Conspiracy theories aside, there's very little we as the common public will be able to do to prevent it.

[simonsays]

The only thing that always leaves me scratching my head about the NAU and the 'Amero' is that America has pretty much never done anything to weaken their sovereignty. Now obviously as the strongest partner in this union they'd get to call their share of the shots, but why would they want to incorporate foreign minority dissent when they pretty much call the game however they see fit to begin with?

[Vulcan]

I can see parts of this being advantageous for Canada but the inclusion of Mexico will be a disaster for the ordinary man. We'll have no control over our immigration and we'll be flooded with cheap labor, ruining and breaking our unions. Now I know a lot of you are anti-union but the demise of our unions will just be the first knife in our way of life. This looks to me like the true elitest plan.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Fair enough, your confidence in our governments is stronger than mine.

This is a big problem for me. For someone who wants to get into politics, I think that if I ever get there my platform has to be based on restoring trust. The amount of distrust that exists is just unacceptable.

[jammies]

The Canadian gov't cannot go into any kind of political union - NAU or other - without public approval. Remember the failed Meech Lake constitutional brouhaha where a proposal just to AMEND the Constitution got shot down by referendum?

Talk about NAU is just that - talk. It is not only impossible for this go ahead without public approval in Canada, it is even MORE impossible that it goes ahead without such in the USA. They also have a Constitution, and it can't be superseded by fiat - the legislative branch could propose it, and the executive approve it, but the courts would just throw out such a thing as unconstitutional and that would be the end of that.

If this is to be taken seriously, please explain exactly HOW the governments are going to implement this without serious restructuring of their respective constitutions, bearing in mind that such restructuring requires public input and approval - and not requires in the MORAL sense, but in the LEGAL sense.

Distrust of the government shouldn't lead one to embrace the impossible.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by jammies

The Canadian gov't cannot go into any kind of political union - NAU or other - without public approval. Remember the failed Meech Lake constitutional brouhaha where a proposal just to AMEND the Constitution got shot down by referendum?

Talk about NAU is just that - talk. It is not only impossible for this go ahead without public approval in Canada, it is even MORE impossible that it goes ahead without such in the USA. They also have a Constitution, and it can't be superseded by fiat - the legislative branch could propose it, and the executive approve it, but the courts would just throw out such a thing as unconstitutional and that would be the end of that.

If this is to be taken seriously, please explain exactly HOW the governments are going to implement this without serious restructuring of their respective constitutions, bearing in mind that such restructuring requires public input and approval - and not requires in the MORAL sense, but in the LEGAL sense.

Distrust of the government shouldn't lead one to embrace the impossible.

Forgive me for not taking your word on this.

There is no evidence to show Canadian or American governments are allowing for a democratic process as this moves forward.

Academic literature distributed in advance to conference participants about a common legal framework for the U.S., Canada and Mexico included proposals for a North American Court of Justice (with the authority to overrule a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court), a North American Trade Tribunal, a North American Court of Justice, and a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights for North America, also dubbed the North American Social Charter.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff134.htm

Why would they 'talk' without placing the necessary legal aspects where they need to be?

I'll leave it up to you to provide examples of where the constitutions of these countries would in any way prevent our nations from beginning a formal union with one another.

[ResAlien]

I'm with HHH. Kind of. I'm an anarchist at heart, but know that logically it won't work. No conspiracy theorist either, but if it sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. It's no surprise the "elite" have their groups to promote their own agendas. Realistically, the majority of this usually happens behind closed doors and we never hear about it.

edit: One day I will have a post that is concise, well thought out, on topic, and remotely logical. Today is not that day.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

edit: One day I will have a post that is concise, well thought out, on topic, and remotely logical. Today is not that day.

I still love you <3

[Azure]

Somehow I have a strange feeling that all the bitter people in rural Pennsylvania aren't going to be happy about this.

They'll probably take all the guns that they've clung too for just this situation, and start some term limits.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

There is no evidence to show Canadian or American governments are allowing for a democratic process as this moves forward.

What would you define as a "democratic process"? It's a conference, not an election - the government is SUPPOSED to investigate different policy options in such conferences. It would be a failure of democracy if they weren't, in direct opposition to what you are saying.

Next time Harper goes to a G8 meeting should he bring along Joe and Jane Sixpack so the "democratic processes" can be honoured? It's the same thing - the "democracy" we live in means we elect a government, not that we directly participate in all its actions.

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Why would they 'talk' without placing the necessary legal aspects where they need to be?

I'll leave it up to you to provide examples of where the constitutions of these countries would in any way prevent our nations from beginning a formal union with one another.

Did you know the USA has plans to invade Canada, plans that are periodically updated by their military planners? Oh noes, the USA is gonna invade - why else would they have such plans!

It is similarly ridiculous to assume that just because the government is exploring the possibilities of a NAU that they are intent on some kind of fascist coup where we all end up as drones working for the transnational corporatist elite. It simply does not logically follow, it is a typical conspiracy theory where facts are taken completely out of context and given interpretations that are more the expressions of paranoia than any even remotely probable truth.

As far as proof of the constitutional blocks to such a plan, see here for Canada and note that any one of Quebec, Ontario, BC, two Prairie provinces, or two Maritime provinces can VETO any changes to the Constitution of Canada. So, even if somehow these shady characters managed to suborn Parliament to get their NAU into law, they would also have to convince all but two provinces to do the same. Provinces in which, by the way, this exact process (feds wanting to implement constitutional changes) failed in at least one previous occasion when issues that are not nearly as fundamental were at stake.

In the USA there is also a clearly defined protocol for amending the Constitution, which cannot just be ignored. You don't seem to understand that the legitimacy of these governments is entirely bound up in their Constitutions, and that these documents have real power that can't just be overridden by some committee without legal standing.

PS - I'm not saying there will never be an NAU, I am saying there are two paths to it: one, the countries involved go through legal processes (which include consultation with the people in democratic fashion) to make it happen; two, some kind of military coup or revolution replaces the legal governments with ones that have no roadblocks to forming such a union. In neither of those scenarios does it somehow happen under the table where you wake up one day and find out you are a citizen of the United States of North America.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by jammies

What would you define as a "democratic process"? It's a conference, not an election - the government is SUPPOSED to investigate different policy options in such conferences. It would be a failure of democracy if they weren't, in direct opposition to what you are saying.

Next time Harper goes to a G8 meeting should he bring along Joe and Jane Sixpack so the "democratic processes" can be honoured? It's the same thing - the "democracy" we live in means we elect a government, not that we directly participate in all its actions.



Did you know the USA has plans to invade Canada, plans that are periodically updated by their military planners? Oh noes, the USA is gonna invade - why else would they have such plans!

It is similarly ridiculous to assume that just because the government is exploring the possibilities of a NAU that they are intent on some kind of fascist coup where we all end up as drones working for the transnational corporatist elite. It simply does not logically follow, it is a typical conspiracy theory where facts are taken completely out of context and given interpretations that are more the expressions of paranoia than any even remotely probable truth.

As far as proof of the constitutional blocks to such a plan, see here for Canada and note that any one of Quebec, Ontario, BC, two Prairie provinces, or two Maritime provinces can VETO any changes to the Constitution of Canada. So, even if somehow these shady characters managed to suborn Parliament to get their NAU into law, they would also have to convince all but two provinces to do the same. Provinces in which, by the way, this exact process (feds wanting to implement constitutional changes) failed in at least one previous occasion when issues that are not nearly as fundamental were at stake.

In the USA there is also a clearly defined protocol for amending the Constitution, which cannot just be ignored. You don't seem to understand that the legitimacy of these governments is entirely bound up in their Constitutions, and that these documents have real power that can't just be overridden by some committee without legal standing.

PS - I'm not saying there will never be an NAU, I am saying there are two paths to it: one, the countries involved go through legal processes (which include consultation with the people in democratic fashion) to make it happen; two, some kind of military coup or revolution replaces the legal governments with ones that have no roadblocks to forming such a union. In neither of those scenarios does it somehow happen under the table where you wake up one day and find out you are a citizen of the United States of North America.

Great logic. War plans are now the same as economic and security integration?

No offense, but you're wasting your words attempting to explain the legitimacy of US and Canadian constitutional law. You obviously haven't done any research on this subject, so I'll leave you be.

Go read chapter 11 of NAFTA and tell me how democratic it sounds.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Great logic. War plans are now the same as economic and security integration?

No offense, but you're wasting your words attempting to explain the legitimacy of US and Canadian constitutional law. You obviously haven't done any research on this subject, so I'll leave you be.

Enlighten us. You're in law school and Con Law is part of the first year curriculum, so you should be able to run down the basics (Con Law II, if you've taken it).

[J pold]

How is this "The Most Important News Event of 2008"??

I can think of a number of issues of the top of my head that are much more noteworthy

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by J pold

How is this "The Most Important News Event of 2008"??

I can think of a number of issues of the top of my head that are much more noteworthy

I'd love to hear what's more important than a loss of our sovereignty. Other than that, I'm sure you're right.