CFR and the NAU . I am troubled....

I am trouble by the North American Union that we are headed toward. The ex-President of Mexico, Vincente Fox and the Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin , in interviews of late have set the date at 2010. The Council on Foreign Relations and Bush has for some reason, have kept this quiet. Can someone please help me wrap my mind around this.

It is also extremely relevant that Bracewell and Giuliani represent the Spanish Cintra group that want to build and own (for 50 years) the super highway. Help me..... My Country , our sovereignty......my faith and beliefs.....my childrens future........What does this mean ?

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 10/29, 9:20pm)

Post 1

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 12:11am

"Countries are benefited when they change these national sovereignty policies, and evidence suggests that North Americans are ready for a new relationship that renders this old definition of sovereignty obsolete."
Dr. Robert Pastor co-chairman CFR .
My question is : Why and how does this man hold so much power and do you agree with this conclusion ?

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 10/30, 8:54am)

Post 2

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 7:29am

Are we to lay down w/ belly exposed because of these threats of Iran ? In another thread here, there is talk of
" No, I do not respect your un-engaged mind and your un-examined "oppinions." I agree. We are about to allow a tri-lateral organization of elites led by the CFR, Rockefeller and Bildenberg erase our borders. People have issues with the word facism ? How about socialism ? People will use insults like "twerp" "pacifist" "conspiracy nut" to discredit the evidence ? I was confused as to why this President seemed hell-bent on discrediting our ground forces and was complacently running us into the ground monetarily, then I read about this 2005 meeting. We are being set-up. It is a F***ing crying shame. What would Ayn Rand do , witnessing this dismantling of this country she loved ? I'm sure I will be accused of "fearmongering" by those who have been gluttenously enjoying the fat of fear ,hell-bent on rationalizing their own gut and emotional reactions to 9/11,while our country has been manipulated by the shadows of the worlds movers and shakers, but at the very least, at the end of our days as the United States of America, when no one will have our Constitution to look to, except as a "out of mode relic" and "Just a godamn piece of paper" Quote George Bush) as the greatest blueprint of freedom the world has ever seen, some can at least say "I told you so.". My question is : What is the rational for allowing this to happen ?

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 10/30, 8:58am)

Post 3

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 1:21pm

Has any notable Objectivist scholar ever said anything at all about the CFR and NAU?

I know little about either but perhaps those who have studied the issue in depth can say something meaningful.

Post 4

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 1:28pm

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/

Perhaps this can help.....

Post 5

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 1:30pm

Unfortunately, much of it is fearmongering. Most of these issues relate to free trade, which is something all Objectivists support. I actually disagree with ARI which has come out with statements saying we should not even have any immigration policies! I think we need them for purposes of security, mostly.

However, of course Canadians and Mexicans are socialists and our own government has many socialist leanings, so naturally elements of their policies don't sound good to us.

But really, Bildeburgers? No, just the usual suspects and the usual stuff you hear from pols - nothing more sinister than the usual banalities, which are dangerous as they stand without adding some kind of mega-conspiracy into the mix.

Post 6

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 2:05pm

Kurt,
Yes, Socialism controlled by whom and using what means ? Why do you say fear "mongering" ? Why do most Americans know nothing about what is going to change the entire make up of what will have been their country ? Do you see it as incosequencial that we are about to enter into a North American Union ? What will you argue to discredit those who think it is important ? Is it fear "mongering of me to point out that the architec for this new world order, Robert Pastor, is very good friends with Jorge G. Castaneda , whom he co-authored a book with, an homage based on the life and work of Che Gueverra? etc. etc. etc.
Why are facts fear "mongering" ,in your "objectivist" opinion ?

Forget the Bilderburgers, if that is convenient for you, but "fearmongering"? I knew it was going to be said, but, jeezus, come on now.

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 10/30, 2:19pm)

Post 7

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 2:26pm

Mexico's President was in America recently and said that he is in favor of a shared currency (the "Amero") with the U.S., Mexico and Canada. There are certainly powerful people who are pushing this idea behind the scenes. Depending on how conspiratorial you want to get with it, some say the Fed is deliberately pushing the dollar into oblivion, by which we must be "rescued" from the crisis by the Amero. I don't know if I buy that, but I think that free market advocates can and should be skeptical of the combination of globalization and central banking.

Post 8

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 5:56pm

I'm not afraid. Bring it on.

Post 9

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 6:48pm

Theresa,
Do you mean that your not afraid to ask questions and are fearless in the facts of the matter being brought to light ? Or you see no reason to question or fear the NAU that is being put into place without congressional consent and feel confident in those that would be placed in power ? I don't understand.

Post 10

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 8:58pm

Gigi,

I really like how you "cut to the chase" with post 9.

Ed
[cutting to the chase is cool]

Post 11

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 11:13pm

Thank you Ed, : )
I do ,sincerely, want to know what Theresa want's brought on and why questioning, accounting and the desire to understand all implications of the NAU etc.,is equated with being fearful or of promoting fear; or have I misunderstood ? I really don't know what she means. My ignorance on the NAU ,until recently, has definitely shocked me, unsettled me and made me extremely curious as to why barely anything ,of such enormous proportions ,such as this , is mentioned in the news. Maybe they think I read blogs, I do not.
Goodnight, Gigi

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 10/30, 11:15pm)

Post 12

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 10:46am

Thank you, all who responded . I hope to read and engage in more discussion on this topic. : ), Gigi

Post 13

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 3:15am

My ignorance on the NAU ,until recently, has definitely shocked me, unsettled me and made me extremely curious as to why barely anything ,of such enormous proportions ,such as this , is mentioned in the news.

I'm not afraid, shocked, unsettled, or any other emotion over it. Aliens don't scare me. I don't think the issue is "enormous," except, perhaps, in the minds of the fearful. Mexico and Canada don't scare me. Trade agreements with Mexico and Canada don't scare me, or shock me, or make me unsettled. The US won't become a part of Mexico. Mexico will become part of the US, and that's perfectly fine with me.

Why does this shock and unsettle you, Gigi? I don't understand why you'd be shocked or unsettled. What's the problem?

Teresa (why do some people think I misspell my own name?? No "h"!)

Post 14

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 5:11am

There's a similar "back-door," world-socialism scheme in regards to health products -- it's called Codex Alimentarius; and it could make your multi-vitamin illegal. Here's a link ...

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

This kind of back-door posturing for nationwide control of anything is insidious and potentially deadly (in the case of health products, at least). I think it's right to fear (and to counter) such things.

Ed

Post 15

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 9:07am

Teresa,
Very little news, very little reportage in mainstream media, and then happening upon an interview with ex-Mex-Prez Fox , saying 2010 is an agreed upon date of inception of the NAU...it came as a shock to me, as there has been little coverage. Unsettled because Mexico has it's own controversies and discontent. Extremely curious, because of a lack of disclosure w/ the American public and Congress, and , of course , not being completely ignorant of how the countries participating in the UE are fairing, wondering how Supranationalism will effect our policies and constitutional laws.
Mexico's Calderon is a devout Catholic whose party, the National Action Party, has opposed contraception and called abortion at any term a "WMD". NAU mandates and reforms will be commited through majority voting as policy for the NAU. ("aliens")
Ed has a great point. The regulations or directives in and for the EU are coming, more and more, from a the EU federal beauracracy. So far, as far as the NAU is concerned, there have been no interest in "checks and balances" shared with the public via congress for instance.
I just don't have the kind of unfettered confidence necessary in President Bush, to feel there shouldn't have to be more visibilty. He is negotiating this NAU with very little oversite or attention to what it involves, shared with the people . It doesn't scare me as much as it insults me. I want to know what is going on and what compromises this (not just some trade agreement) will request. Border security is yet another very important issue."scared" ,"afraid" ? I'm indignant, suspicious and selfish when I demand more visibilty.

Post 16

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 9:33am

I say fearmongering because it has all the hallmarks of it: xenophobia, distortion of the facts, free trade is bad, and people who hawk it are selling books, becoming "experts" or radio personalities, same as you see with UFOs or the like.

The thing is about the vitamin industry is they may billions on hawking unproven products - just look at that asshole con artist on TV, Trudeau I think? Utter bullshit being sold with some disclaimers thrown in after they get through with the lies and propoganda.

There are NO PLANS to integrate the US, Canada and Mexico. Yes we have people opposing rational border policy, including Vincente, but that isn't news to me.

Post 17

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 10:02am

Kurt, I hope your right.

Post 18

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 5:00pm

Very little news, very little reportage in mainstream media, and then happening upon an interview with ex-Mex-Prez Fox , saying 2010 is an agreed upon date of inception of the NAU...it came as a shock to me, as there has been little coverage.

There's no coverage because it's crap, Gigi. Why do you believe this stuff? This is exactly the kind of thing mainstream media would be jumping all over if it were true. But it's not true. The idea of a NAU isn't new, either. It's been boxed around for over 100 years.

Unsettled because Mexico has it's own controversies and discontent.

So?

Extremely curious, because of a lack of disclosure w/ the American public and Congress, and , of course , not being completely ignorant of how the countries participating in the UE are fairing, wondering how Supranationalism will effect our policies and constitutional laws.

Lack of disclosure from whom? At this very minute, the US the dollar is worth .693 cents across the pond, compared to the Euro's 1.00, which is worth 1.442 here. How do you think the UE is fairing? I got the rates here.
Which policies are you worried about, and how stupid do you think people are? Is the idea of liberty and freedom and profit such a fragile and feeble state of mind that worries over it have to be dreamed up? Is the leap to nationalism really just one small sweeping step to you?

Post 19

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 5:39pm