NationStates Jolt Archive

The Council of Foreign Relations has published and is steering by influence the way for the North America Union. National sovereignty and rights will have to be removed in order to facilitate a larger multi-nation governing body. Do you believe that CFR's suggestions jeopardize the sovereignty of the United States of America?

It's obvious that the CFR is the first step towards the new world order.

(actually I don't know what the CFR is and I haven't really heard about the NAU either, so I really don't care)

I don't know who they are, or what this North American Union is. So I don't know/care.

I don't know who they are, or what this North American Union is. So I don't know/care.

Same here, explanation?

It's probably four hippies in a Seattle office wishing the world was a nicer place between lattes. :p

Edit: Okay, so they're in Washington D.C. and New York. Doesn't mean they don't like their fancy coffee. :p

no it doesnt.

the cfr cannot impose a north american union on an unwilling population so it matters not a whit what proposals they might think up.

no it doesnt.

the cfr cannot impose a north american union on an unwilling population so it matters not a whit what proposals they might think up.

The group of high postions and influence steer the gov't and the interests. Their "think tanks" produce the instructional direction on how to implement such changes through out the world and in the US.

Such as:


The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration

April 2007
The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration
Author:
Gordon H. Hanson, Professor of Economics, University of California, San Diego

Council Special Report No. 26

This report examines the economics of illegal immigration and finds that the fiscal benefits of illegal immigration offset its costs. Further, the report finds that the flexibility provided by the illegal immigration system that benefits the U.S. economy cannot be provided by the legal immigration system.

HOW THE FART CAN WE HAVE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION SYSTEM!!!!

The suggestions and implementitive directions of this group is a threat to our Country and they are not going to ask us "because we will say NO!" They will just tell us that they had to do it, it was in our best interest, that they know better then us. That is not America, By the People for the People.

The Council of Foreign Relations has published and is steering by influence the way for the North America Union. National sovereignty and rights will have to be removed in order to facilitate a larger multi-nation governing body. Do you believe that CFR's suggestions jeopardize the sovereignty of the United States of America?

These are false, paranoid statements unsupported by the facts on the ground. Please back up these unsupported claims.

no it doesnt.

the cfr cannot impose a north american union on an unwilling population so it matters not a whit what proposals they might think up.

Agreed 100%

These are false, paranoid statements unsupported by the facts on the ground. Please back up these unsupported claims.

He can't.

The group of high postions and influence steer the gov't and the interests. Their "think tanks" produce the instructional direction on how to implement such changes through out the world and in the US.

Such as:


The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration

April 2007
The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration
Author:
Gordon H. Hanson, Professor of Economics, University of California, San Diego

Council Special Report No. 26

This report examines the economics of illegal immigration and finds that the fiscal benefits of illegal immigration offset its costs. Further, the report finds that the flexibility provided by the illegal immigration system that benefits the U.S. economy cannot be provided by the legal immigration system.

HOW THE FART CAN WE HAVE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION SYSTEM!!!!

The suggestions and implementitive directions of this group is a threat to our Country and they are not going to ask us "because we will say NO!" They will just tell us that they had to do it, it was in our best interest, that they know better then us. That is not America, By the People for the People.

are you suggesting that without this analysis there would be no illegal immigration?

i thought not.

just because someone thinks up good reasons why we might want to have a north american union (would it include the caribbean islands?) doesnt mean we have to have one.

Sovereignty was designed to protect Germanic princelings ability to dictate religion to their subjects by whatever means they felt appropriate, without fear of external consequence. It is intrinsically tied up in artificial constructs of the Nation-State, and the maintenance of that construct, and the abilities of the Nation-State to abuse its own people.

Face facts, sovereignty is overrated, and we'd be better off if the concept were to be substantially weakened.

Face facts, sovereignty is overrated, and we'd be better off if the concept were to be substantially weakened.


Where is the money going to come from to support universal healthcare, the social programs of Canada and Mexico, subsidising Mexico to become on par with the per capita income. Out of our paychecks,in increases of goods and services and increases in fines and penalties and more laws to fine and penalize from. when you get paid less and they take more out and things are more expensive it leaves you with very little.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/186749/Cuddy-NWO-timeline
http://www.scribd.com/doc/206840/2007-CFR-D-W-Drezner-The-New-New-World-Order
http://www.scribd.com/doc/191627/1974-CFR-R-N-Gardner-Hard-Road-to-World-Order-OCR-by-MatRoX
http://www.scribd.com/doc/203446/2005-05-CFR-NAFTA-NAU-Building-a-North-American-Community

I can read between the lines and hear your scarcasim, but you are unwilling to read between the lines thru their lies and hidden agendas.

It jeopardizes our sovereignty exactly as much as we are willing to allow it to.

If the proposed NAU is to function, some powers currently attributed to the sovereign nations of Canada, the USA, Mexico and Panama (if Panama is invited to join) would have to be surrendered to the NAU. The question is, how much do we wish to turn over? I would be in favour of turning over tariff and customs control, extradition courts and immigration rules to such a body, but not foreign or military affairs portfolios.

It jeopardizes our sovereignty exactly as much as we are willing to allow it to.

If the proposed NAU is to function, some powers currently attributed to the sovereign nations of Canada, the USA, Mexico and Panama (if Panama is invited to join) would have to be surrendered to the NAU. The question is, how much do we wish to turn over? I would be in favour of turning over tariff and customs control, extradition courts and immigration rules to such a body, but not foreign or military affairs portfolios.

Exactly. This idea that some governmental body that gets its power FROM US is somehow capable of taking that all away and giving it to someone else is ludicrous. If we don't want to, it's not happening.

Where is the money going to come from to support universal healthcare, the social programs of Canada and Mexico, subsidising Mexico to become on par with the per capita income. Out of our paychecks,in increases of goods and services and increases in fines and penalties and more laws to fine and penalize from. when you get paid less and they take more out and things are more expensive it leaves you with very little.

New World Order timeline? Go back to the swamp, troll. We don't need 9-11 for trooth morons, and we don't need NWO conspiracy theorists. If you must know, Americans already pay enough for universal health care to our HMOs, who then cheat us of our health care when we need it most. Paying for it would actually increase our GDP per capita by increasing the number of people in the workplace at any given time.

I can read between the lines and hear your scarcasim, but you are unwilling to read between the lines thru their lies and hidden agendas.

Because you're paranoid and are seeing things that just. aren't. there.

I don't see any problem with what they are advocating. The NAU is a good thing. Get over this sovereignty crap.

I don't see any problem with what they are advocating. The NAU is a good thing. Get over this sovereignty crap.

It most certainly is not.

The group of high postions and influence steer the gov't and the interests. Their "think tanks" produce the instructional direction on how to implement such changes through out the world and in the US.

Such as:


The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration

April 2007
The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration
Author:
Gordon H. Hanson, Professor of Economics, University of California, San Diego

Council Special Report No. 26

This report examines the economics of illegal immigration and finds that the fiscal benefits of illegal immigration offset its costs. Further, the report finds that the flexibility provided by the illegal immigration system that benefits the U.S. economy cannot be provided by the legal immigration system.

HOW THE FART CAN WE HAVE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION SYSTEM!!!!



So you object to one word in a unsourced summary of a report published by the CFR?

I note the language you object to doesn't seem to appear in the official summary (http://www.cfr.org/publication/12969/) of the report.

The suggestions and implementitive directions of this group is a threat to our Country and they are not going to ask us "because we will say NO!" They will just tell us that they had to do it, it was in our best interest, that they know better then us. That is not America, By the People for the People.

Try being specific. What exactly are the suggestions and implementative directions to which you are objecting? How exactly are these being implemented behind the backs of the American people?

*snip*

Did you bother to read the crap you linked? Care to make an actual argument from any of it?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/186749/Cuddy-NWO-timeline

Meh. The point appears to be that ideas of global organizations have been floated over the years from 1912 to present. And that conspirators didn't totally invent the "name" of the New World Order, even if they have created the "concept" largely from whole cloth.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/206840/2007-CFR-D-W-Drezner-The-New-New-World-Order

This article appears to be cited merely because of its title. The content of the article is innocuous.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/191627/1974-CFR-R-N-Gardner-Hard-Road-to-World-Order-OCR-by-MatRoX

Again, this 1974 article appears to be cited merely because of its title. I'm not impressed.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/203446/2005-05-CFR-NAFTA-NAU-Building-a-North-American-Community

This appears to be a rather moderate plan for some cooperation between the United States, Canada, and Mexico where the three nations share interests.

Please feel free to point out where any of the recommendations in this report are dangerous or impinge on U.S. sovereignty.

I can read between the lines and hear your scarcasim, but you are unwilling to read between the lines thru their lies and hidden agendas.

Again, please be specific. None of the spam you cite really supports your assertions.

yes, i don't care.

Fuck the CFR.

The NAU is a good thing. Get over this sovereignty crap.

THE HELL IT ISN"T!!

Look, the US is different from Europe. A European style Union just won't work over here. Why??

Because the US isn't founded on the nation-state principle, where everyone of a common ethnicity binds together, like in Europe. Hell, people of English ancestry only make up 7.2% of the population. We, if nothing else, are founded upon our laws and legal traditions, most notable the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, which spells out who we are as a nation. This isn't some silly issue of sovereignty and ethnic determinism like in Europe. This is about giving up the Enlightenment ideals our nation was founded upon (don't listen to the Christians) for the sake of an economic union.

Yes, with an end to our sovereignty comes an end to the civil and political right's progress that the US has been making for the last 400 years (since the settlement of Jamestown).

I'd say AIPAC is more dangerous.

One of the only pressures for a state to provide any justice at all is competition from other countries; if they under-produce justice then people will threaten to move themselves and their assets to another place. To establish this kind of union would allow far more leeway for a powerful state with the reduced threat of people voting with one's feet. I don't particularly care if it threatens the United States' sovereignty, but I know it is against my own interests and thus oppose it.