It's been a long time since I'd talked about this. Really, I think I've explained my position on it fairly well... That being, it's a terrible idea, but I'm not buying into the idea that the government is stealthily trying to pull it over on us.
That said, plenty of people disagree, and some of those people happen to reside in the Missouri House and Senate, amongst other places. I have to say, I do like the idea of nipping the whole thing in the bud, which is what the resolutions which have been introduced intend to do.
Text of Missouri SCR15
PDF of HCR0033I
(SCR and HCR are the acronyms for Senate Concurrent Resolution and House Concurrent Resolution, unless I miss my guess.)
Other states are getting in on this as well. You can find links to their various resolutions at the bottom of this article on WND.
Showing posts with label North American Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North American Union. Show all posts
2007/03/13
2007/01/12
A North American Union? (part 3, Trying To Sift Through The Junk)
Yes, I'm still on this, unfortunate as that may be. This is really meant to be more of a preliminary "what I've found so far" while I try to keep digging, than anything else.
Are there really people out there who think such a thing is either a good idea, inevitable, or both? Sure. And are they agitating for it in any way? Yep. Google up one Robert A. Pastor and his book "Toward a North American Community" if you don't believe this.
Is there an active plan in the federal government to enact a North American Union? Not that I can tell. What I have found is a House Concurrent Resolution (number 487, of the 109th Congress, specifically), which was introduced on 9/28 of 2006, stating the following:
What about the NAFTA Superhighway, then? This is one I want to look into s'more, but from what little reading I've done, it looks like a pipe dream version of the North American SuperCorridor Coalition's improvement programs for existing interstates. From their open letter to congress:
And the Amero, or whatever name might be chosen for the consolidated North American currency? Frankly, I've slacked on this, primarily because it's the least worrisome to me if it were to come about. Since the dollar is just a government guarantee at this point anyway, changing the name of it, and using the same thing as Canada and Mexico... Maybe there are some deep, economic reasons not to do something like this, but I'm certainly not aware of them at the moment.
Here are my thoughts, as I have them collected at the moment:
Some people out there think this is a good idea. As far as various writers and bloggers have gone to expose that line of thought, good. It's certainly something that the public should be made aware of. Of course, most of them will probably just laugh and go back to their everyday lives, but that's life. Short version: Educating the citizenry about the possibility is a good thing.
On the other hand, attempting to tie this to the federal government or the Bush Administration in particular as some kind of underhanded way of setting up an NAU appears, at this point, to be speculation. As an abstract, it's possible, but I don't have any firm plank to lay on it as far as facts go. More to the point, if it's out there, I haven't found it yet. (Emphasis on the "yet" here. I'm not ruling out the possibility.)
Are there really people out there who think such a thing is either a good idea, inevitable, or both? Sure. And are they agitating for it in any way? Yep. Google up one Robert A. Pastor and his book "Toward a North American Community" if you don't believe this.
Is there an active plan in the federal government to enact a North American Union? Not that I can tell. What I have found is a House Concurrent Resolution (number 487, of the 109th Congress, specifically), which was introduced on 9/28 of 2006, stating the following:
- Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
- (1) the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;
- (2) the United States should not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and
- (3) the President should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.
What about the NAFTA Superhighway, then? This is one I want to look into s'more, but from what little reading I've done, it looks like a pipe dream version of the North American SuperCorridor Coalition's improvement programs for existing interstates. From their open letter to congress:
The “NASCO Corridor” is the existing infrastructure of Interstates 35, 29 and 94. No plans are in place for a mid-continent NAFTA Superhighway. Yes, it is true that since 1999, the federal government has directed more than $234 million in project funding towards the NASCO Corridor for current infrastructure improvements.
And the Amero, or whatever name might be chosen for the consolidated North American currency? Frankly, I've slacked on this, primarily because it's the least worrisome to me if it were to come about. Since the dollar is just a government guarantee at this point anyway, changing the name of it, and using the same thing as Canada and Mexico... Maybe there are some deep, economic reasons not to do something like this, but I'm certainly not aware of them at the moment.
Here are my thoughts, as I have them collected at the moment:
Some people out there think this is a good idea. As far as various writers and bloggers have gone to expose that line of thought, good. It's certainly something that the public should be made aware of. Of course, most of them will probably just laugh and go back to their everyday lives, but that's life. Short version: Educating the citizenry about the possibility is a good thing.
On the other hand, attempting to tie this to the federal government or the Bush Administration in particular as some kind of underhanded way of setting up an NAU appears, at this point, to be speculation. As an abstract, it's possible, but I don't have any firm plank to lay on it as far as facts go. More to the point, if it's out there, I haven't found it yet. (Emphasis on the "yet" here. I'm not ruling out the possibility.)
2007/01/08
A North American Union? (part 2, the Corsi interview)
A quick recap of what I took away from the afternoon interview of Dr. Corsi on CPR:
The man has done a great deal of research into this topic, and honestly believes in what he's saying.
That said, he's still trying to connect various things together into the NAU mesh that seem more easily explainable as politically expedient (leaving the borders unsecured, for example) or grandiose for the sake of it (the T-T Corridor, and by extension, the consideration of the NAFTA Superhighway system). Again, that's not to say that these things cannot fit into the scheme of things. Simply, that it's a reason farther afield than one would normally go for motives for projects. Similarly, the charge that President Bush is working towards an NAU by allowing the open borders to continue. Possible, certainly. But how's this: It's easier to leave the border unsecured than to work towards its security. Doing nothing costs less money, and requires much less actual work, after all.
Dr. Corsi bounced around a bit during the interview, and tended to get exceptionally sidetracked from his points to go to his own defense against some of the recent articles against his point of view. It detracted from points he was trying to make throughout the forty-five minutes the interview ran.
Personally, I didn't get the connection of all of these points into a unified whole. It feels, as Pat put it, like "a big leap from what looks like diplomatic boilerplate to conspiracy to eliminate the U.S." I'll happily keep looking, but I haven't found the piece that fits in that void yet to create the circuit.
Anyone interested in hearing the interview, there will be a rebroadcast of the full CPR show at 9PM Eastern at 1510wwbc.com. The interview itself leads off the second hour and runs pretty much uninterrupted for 45 minutes. Naturally, I recommend listening for the same reasons that I give obligatory links instead of pasting in large chunks: No sleight of hand, and you value more the things that you work for.
As before, more to come.
The man has done a great deal of research into this topic, and honestly believes in what he's saying.
That said, he's still trying to connect various things together into the NAU mesh that seem more easily explainable as politically expedient (leaving the borders unsecured, for example) or grandiose for the sake of it (the T-T Corridor, and by extension, the consideration of the NAFTA Superhighway system). Again, that's not to say that these things cannot fit into the scheme of things. Simply, that it's a reason farther afield than one would normally go for motives for projects. Similarly, the charge that President Bush is working towards an NAU by allowing the open borders to continue. Possible, certainly. But how's this: It's easier to leave the border unsecured than to work towards its security. Doing nothing costs less money, and requires much less actual work, after all.
Dr. Corsi bounced around a bit during the interview, and tended to get exceptionally sidetracked from his points to go to his own defense against some of the recent articles against his point of view. It detracted from points he was trying to make throughout the forty-five minutes the interview ran.
Personally, I didn't get the connection of all of these points into a unified whole. It feels, as Pat put it, like "a big leap from what looks like diplomatic boilerplate to conspiracy to eliminate the U.S." I'll happily keep looking, but I haven't found the piece that fits in that void yet to create the circuit.
Anyone interested in hearing the interview, there will be a rebroadcast of the full CPR show at 9PM Eastern at 1510wwbc.com. The interview itself leads off the second hour and runs pretty much uninterrupted for 45 minutes. Naturally, I recommend listening for the same reasons that I give obligatory links instead of pasting in large chunks: No sleight of hand, and you value more the things that you work for.
As before, more to come.
A North American Union?
Friday was the first time I'd noticed the term. A North American Union (NAU) to rival the European Union. Frankly, it sounds unbelieveable at first glance, at least to me. Sure, there could be, and probably are people out there who think it'd be a great idea, and who would like to go forward with it. People against the idea cite it as the line of thought buried under such things as the Trans-Texas Corridor (a large roadway project in, naturally, Texas), and the workings of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPPNA; of which the stated goals are, from the Wiki article, 1) Cooperation and information sharing; 2) Improving productivity; 3) Reducing the costs of trade; and 4) Enhancing the joint stewardship of the environment, facilitating agricultural trade while creating a safer and more reliable food supply, and protecting people from disease.)
Now, frankly, that the T-T Corridor sounds like a road project to me, and the SPPNA sounds like a lot of government meddling wrapped around a core of security concerns that they probably should be working together closely on, given the current porousness of the borders, but I'm not seeing things here that read as "Let's actively merge the three countries and create an NAU." The fears of it, at the moment, seem a bit overblown. That's not saying that they can't be well-founded, but unfortunately, until the worry is timely, the chances are that it's going to be passed off as unfounded by the majority of people who'd rather not worry about a problem that doesn't exist.
To wit, recall the recent border or security issues and the way that the public has shaken out on them. Dubai Ports World, for example. Until it became a pressing, immediate issue, nothing was done or said, really. However, when the electorate realized it was an issue, they didn't let go of it until it was solved to their satisfaction. (Now, as individuals, some might not be actually satisfied with the outcome, but we're dealing on a larger scale at the moment.) Or, for another example, take the recent elections, with politicians practically falling over each other in their attempts to get to the right of their opponents on border security.
The fact is, the public at large doesn't seem ready or willing for such a radical change as the adoption of a North American Union. Equally, however, they are not far-sighted enough to see potential beginnings of such a thing and nip it in the bud. So, as I see it, if it's coming down the pike, we're not going to be trying to divert it until it'd require a great deal more effort... but it's an effort that'll be made.
(Note: I still want to do a lot more reading and study on this, so there will probably be further installations of posts on this NAU concept. One name I keep seeing come up, and really the only one that keeps being cited, is one Jerome Corsi. This one alone bears looking into, as in my initial readings, there has been almost sole reliance on his work on the matter.)
(Edit update: Pat, the Brainster, seems to be taking his licks at the issue over at his 'blog. Also, the man in question, Jerome Corsi, will be this afternoon's guest on Constitutional Public Radio, likely in the 4pm EST hour. I, for one, intend to be listening very closely.)
Now, frankly, that the T-T Corridor sounds like a road project to me, and the SPPNA sounds like a lot of government meddling wrapped around a core of security concerns that they probably should be working together closely on, given the current porousness of the borders, but I'm not seeing things here that read as "Let's actively merge the three countries and create an NAU." The fears of it, at the moment, seem a bit overblown. That's not saying that they can't be well-founded, but unfortunately, until the worry is timely, the chances are that it's going to be passed off as unfounded by the majority of people who'd rather not worry about a problem that doesn't exist.
To wit, recall the recent border or security issues and the way that the public has shaken out on them. Dubai Ports World, for example. Until it became a pressing, immediate issue, nothing was done or said, really. However, when the electorate realized it was an issue, they didn't let go of it until it was solved to their satisfaction. (Now, as individuals, some might not be actually satisfied with the outcome, but we're dealing on a larger scale at the moment.) Or, for another example, take the recent elections, with politicians practically falling over each other in their attempts to get to the right of their opponents on border security.
The fact is, the public at large doesn't seem ready or willing for such a radical change as the adoption of a North American Union. Equally, however, they are not far-sighted enough to see potential beginnings of such a thing and nip it in the bud. So, as I see it, if it's coming down the pike, we're not going to be trying to divert it until it'd require a great deal more effort... but it's an effort that'll be made.
(Note: I still want to do a lot more reading and study on this, so there will probably be further installations of posts on this NAU concept. One name I keep seeing come up, and really the only one that keeps being cited, is one Jerome Corsi. This one alone bears looking into, as in my initial readings, there has been almost sole reliance on his work on the matter.)
(Edit update: Pat, the Brainster, seems to be taking his licks at the issue over at his 'blog. Also, the man in question, Jerome Corsi, will be this afternoon's guest on Constitutional Public Radio, likely in the 4pm EST hour. I, for one, intend to be listening very closely.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
