grimmeissen
Administrator
Join Date: 1/14/2004
Posts: 1217
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2008 5:18:37 PM
|
|
|
As members of the online community, you are sure to come across numerous outlandish claims about politics, economics, and humanity that seem to have no basis in fact--the so-called conspiracy theories. While educating myself on government and economics, I have managed to distance myself from the wild conspiracies such as those that believe the 9/11 attacks were the direct responsibility of U.S. government actions. However, there is one "conspiracy theory" that you may hear about on the internet that is, in fact, not a conspiracy at all. The ridiculous claims surrounding this issue are actually written about and published in major political newsletters, discussed by influential think tanks, and are being acted on directly by major powers in our government. The topic which has garnered so much attention from politicians in public, while they still claim it is some sort of conspiracy, is the plan for a North American Union with the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
Before you write me off as a conspiracy nut, consider the history of this topic and the driving forces behind it. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is a major political think tank in New York City that has attracted many famous members including Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Jesse Jackson, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and even Angelina Jolie. The CFR publishes a bi-monthly journal called Foreign Affairs, which discusses many of the ideas about globalization and U.S. foreign policy that originate from the think tank. Right in the pages of the newsletter for public eyes to see, many CFR members, Washington politicians, and celebrities have explained how they think American policies should be molded. One topic which has been given considerable attention--an agreement between the three North American countries to form an economic alliance and to open up the borders for easier access, trade, and travel.
Richard N. Haass, the current president of the CFR has been one of the strongest proponents of globalisation, even recommending that the United States give up some of its sovereignty in order to be a part of a more perfect system of "global governance." In an article he wrote that appeared in Foreign Affairs, Haass stated that "states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function." He continues to declare the necessity of possibly "reducing or even eliminating sovereignty" in order to come together in the fight against global climate change and other matters. If you think that conspiracy theorists are off the wall, just read some of the things this guy writes.
Now, it is important not to write this kind of discussion off as some nutjob president of a think tank giving his opinion. The CFR is not just a minor entity that publishes radical ideas in a newsletter. It is a major driver of American foreign policy, with numerous members at high levels of government, and many in the "powers that be" who subscribe to its ideology. Consider this fact; of the major candidates who have run for president this year in both parties, nearly all of them are either members directly or have advisors who are. Barack Obama is a member and has given speeches at CFR dinners. Hillary Clinton is not a member, but her husband Bill is. John McCain and Fred Thompson are members and Mitt Romney has authored articles on foreign policy in the newsletter. Mike Huckabee is not a member, but has declared Mr. Haass to be "an old friend" who is "very knowledgeable about international affairs." There is only one candidate from either party in the 2008 race who is not involved with the CFR at all and actually speaks out publicly against them-Republican Congressman Ron Paul from Texas.
You might ask if this discussion from an influential think tank has made its way into actual government policy. In 2005, a joint dialog between the United States, Canada, and Mexico was founded between George W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and Mexican President Vicente Fox called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The dialog was mainly created out of background work and analysis done by the Council on Foreign Relations. The SPP has many stated goals that intend to build upon NAFTA to open up trade and to increase cooperation between the three nations. Some of the goals include creating a common border for defense, opening up the internal borders for easier trade, creating work visa programs with Mexico, and the construction of a super highway that would gobble up large tracts of private American land to allow trucks to drive from Mexico all the way to Canada. If this does not sound like a North American Union to you as it does me, then perhaps I must be relegated to the level of one of those kooky conspiracy theorists.
To look into the future on this issue, consider the European Union. The EU started as trade agreements, easier border crossings, and international cooperation. As many citizens of European member countries will explain, they were not supportive of the complete union of all countries into what has basically become a large nation of nations. However, the politicians continued to push for open borders and economic cooperation-resulting in much of the wealth and sovereignty being removed from the wealthier states (Germany, France, etc.) and being moved to the poorer states in Eastern Europe. The result in Europe has been the move to a single currency, a single economy, and the movement of immigrants from all around Europe into the more advanced cities and regions. With that in mind, consider what would happen to us in a situation where Mexico is given equal or even preferential treatment over American or Canadian businesses. The result, as was the case in Europe, will be a massive change of economic concentration towards Mexico, and a major influx of Mexican immigrants flooding the U.S.A. and Canada.
On the issue of the North American Union (under any name), be sure to educate yourself and find out what is true and what is not. It is not hard to get past the conspiracy. You merely need to read the actual writings of the CFR and the actual agreements of the SPP to realize that the coming union is not only a reality, but is already underway. And finally, consider for yourself whether or not you will vote for the politicians who have aligned themselves with these organizations and seek their "thinkers" to help develop American policies.
Lou Dobbs Discusses a North American Union on CNN
|
|
mccracken
VIP Member
Join Date: 1/16/2004
Posts: 262
Location: USA
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2008 7:12:22 AM
|
|
|
Don't those silly geese know that the escalation of treaties lead to the escalation of major conflicts.
The complex and expansive treaty system of the first half of the 20th century was the reason those wars escalated to the point the did.
On a completely unrelated subject, did you see Huckabee say he wanted to close the IRS? It was on a commercial before the Super Bowl. There's nothing like seeing a preacher lie on Sunday.
Check it out.. check it out... and then pick it out....... Then show me my dinero!!!
|
|
grimmeissen
Administrator
Join Date: 1/14/2004
Posts: 1217
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2008 7:55:21 AM
|
|
|
Thomas Jefferson always said, "commerce with all, alliances with none." That seems to be a good motto we should try to follow.
In any case, I see unions like this as only propping up the poor countries and pulling down the richer ones. If "globalisation" is merely just an effort to create parity in the world as if this was some kind of sports league, then I want no part of it.
The importance I tried to stress in this article is that there is no conspiracy with the CFR. They are pretty much out in the open with their views knowing that anyone who would raise an objection probably isn't paying attention.
As for Huckleberry, he's been stealing Ron Paul's positions all throughout the campaign and he's failing miserably at it. "Get rid of the IRS" sounds like a great thing to say in a television ad, however, he wants to replace it with a ridiculous sales tax. Unfortunately, anti tax people just hear the phrase and don't know what's behind it, whereas Ron Paul says get rid of the IRS and replace it with nothing.
|
|
SeekerDarksteel
Corporal Sucka
Join Date: 10/11/2005
Posts: 25
Location: Champaign-Urbana
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2008 11:25:30 PM
|
|
|
Sadly, I think the worst effect the national sales tax would have wouldn't be the increased tax burden on people who currently play little to no income tax, but the psychological effect people would have seeing prices 30% higher than before. Sure, people's income would go up, but all our current personal savings are predicated on the idea of an income tax. There will be significant lag between when prices jump and when people are able to begin operating with their increased incomes.
And can you imagine the possible ways to game the system? People getting low/no interest for 6 month or 1 year credit cards and maxing em out in the month before the tax change over? Tons of people buying pricey commodities before the tax increase? It would be a massive shakeup to retail chains for probably 3 to 6 months. Maybe the spike and subsequent recession would balance out, but it certainly couldn't be healthy for the economy. Not to mention the imminent budget shortfalls as people manage to essentially avoid paying taxes for a period of time. Now I don't mind the government getting less money, as long as it isn't spending the money it isn't getting, but we all know how likely that would be.
|
|
mccracken
VIP Member
Join Date: 1/16/2004
Posts: 262
Location: USA
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2008 8:51:08 AM
|
|
|
I don't think it would be that drastic. Considering that the state/local governments are heavily funded by sales tax anyhow, the tax increase wouldn't be that great. That's why anyone in the know eats in Greenwood when they go to the Colts games. That way you save on the 3% sales tax jump when you cross into Marion county.
Before sales taxes got that high there would be a public outcry against political muda. People would really dig into the numbers and find out where the waste was.
Everything would eventually balance out nicely. States like California where everyone loves the handouts could tax themselves to death, while more fiscally responsible states would have reasonable rates.
Check it out.. check it out... and then pick it out....... Then show me my dinero!!!
|
|
grimmeissen
Administrator
Join Date: 1/14/2004
Posts: 1217
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2008 9:06:59 AM
|
|
|
So Huckleberry's tax system aside, what are your opinions on the CFR and their continued drive for this great global society.
Any organization whose president makes a statement like "states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function" is a messed up group. It would be bad enough if we just had one of these elitist think tanks spouting things like this, but it's made even worse by the fact that anyone who's anyone is a member of the CFR.
Except Ron Paul of course.
|
|
mccracken
VIP Member
Join Date: 1/16/2004
Posts: 262
Location: USA
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2008 10:23:55 AM
|
|
|
Nice transition back to the topic.
I have always been fiercly nationalistic. In some circles, like the CFR, that's a negative.
The global system will not work in the long run. If our own federal government has taught us anything, it's that too strong of a central authority is a bad thing. Not everyone should be governed the same way.
If the South would have squeaked out a W, more Americans would understand the importance of state's rights.
There is no reason to cede rights of any kind to any authority unlelected by the people they exert authority over.
Sort of like taxation without representation, except governation without representation.
Check it out.. check it out... and then pick it out....... Then show me my dinero!!!
|
|
grimmeissen
Administrator
Join Date: 1/14/2004
Posts: 1217
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2008 12:53:00 PM
|
|
|
That's the kind of response I was looking for.
The federal government of just the United States is terrible. What makes them think that an even bigger government with leaders from multiple countries would be so much better.
You bring up a great point. Indiana people have a much different philosophy than say California people, but since our federal government has so much power, we have to deal with laws made by the large California crowd.
Consider the NAU situation. Those same people in Indiana might now face laws that are based on opinions in Guadalajara or Quebec.
|
|
SeekerDarksteel
Corporal Sucka
Join Date: 10/11/2005
Posts: 25
Location: Champaign-Urbana
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2008 1:31:17 PM
|
|
|
I don't have any inherent problem with the concept of more trade. The idea of a massive superhighway on its own doesn't bother me. Trade and infrastructure aren't inherently bad. What worries me is the idea that somehow we would give leverage to other countries on matters of our own policy.
To paraphrase V, people should not be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people. When you all of a sudden give any kind of power to someone who isn't directly beholden to the electorate you open the doors to abuses. (Not that we as an electorate are keeping our current government well beholden, but all the more reason not to add another layer of abstraction to the government). Could you imagine of a country like Sweden wanted to force their concept of universal health care on us through some kind of union? Canada might happen to be ok to partner with, but any other country I would be very wary of ceding any sort of power to. It's better to say no unions with other countries to guarantee that they couldn't influence US policy than to hope that they happen to agree with the policies we already have.
|
|
grimmeissen
Administrator
Join Date: 1/14/2004
Posts: 1217
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2008 2:37:14 PM
|
|
|
The problem with the superhighway is that eminent domain will be used to steal private property in order to build it.
Free trade is one thing. NAFTA is managed trade, not free trade.
The North American Union would basically be forced trade. It's all a way to bring the USA and Canada down a little bit and Mexico up a lot, to create some utopian dream society where everyone is involved.
I don't even like the current system where one region or state in the USA can force national policies down on the other states. Let alone a system where other countries could do it.
|
|
SeekerDarksteel
Corporal Sucka
Join Date: 10/11/2005
Posts: 25
Location: Champaign-Urbana
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2008 7:23:10 PM
|
|
|
Right, but I consider the eminent domain thing is a completely different issue. I wouldn't oppose the concept of the superhighway simply because it may be a necessary component to support the level of trade due to the union, but eminent domain, as well as questions on whether or not it's a necessary or good investment are something else entirely.
On the issue of forced trade, that's part of what I meant by giving leverage to other countries to affect our policy. I have no problems with the idea of increasing the amount of free trade, but any and all trade policies, as well as any other policies, should be decided by us, not by any sort of NAU.
|
|
mccracken
VIP Member
Join Date: 1/16/2004
Posts: 262
Location: USA
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2008 11:57:46 AM
|
|
|
Eminent domain is a wicked beast. I've never really liked the idea of other people being able to violate personal property rights.
It seems squirelly.
If people can vote to take my land or a government can unilaterally take my land, that just seems wrong. Heck, unilaterally, bilaterally, dodecalaterally--it wouldn't be right.
I think if people viewed things more along the lines of personal property rights things would be simpler.
I don't believe the government, any government, should regulate/control the economy. Why does JFK have the right to keep me from buying Cuban cigars?
Check it out.. check it out... and then pick it out....... Then show me my dinero!!!
|
|