At a local gun show today, I and several other attendees and dealers, got into the discussion of politics and the upcoming elections. The discussion went on for awhile with the majority of the folks supporting Fred and one staunch Paul supporter. It came down to who is electable against Hillary and should we vote our principles or for one who has the greater chance of beating the greater evil if it came down to Romney or Guiliani. The Paul supporter then started on a tirade about secret government meetings to combine Canada, US, and Mexico into one giant super-nation under UN control. At that point the rest of us rolled our eyes and walked away.
And that is why Paul won't win. His few but diehard supporters "scare the white people".
15 comments:
Why roll your eyes without debunking the veracity of the claims? On the other hand, with the European Union a reality, why assume this is a tinfoil hat conspiracy?
What do you and your eye-rolling friends know that has escaped Vicente Fox, who has called for a "long term" North American Union, and revealed that he and Bush have agreed to work for a common currency?
I'm curious about what specifics in the ground-breaking reporting of Jerome Corsi you have proven to be false?
I also find it curious how all the proponents of not wanting to "scare white people" rally under the banner of incrementalism, yet when evidence of an incremental plan is presented you denounce it as something to roll your eyes at.
So I'm going to do you the courtesy of assuming you are better schooled in this than I or you would not be offering such definitive opinions.
Please educate me on how the uncontrolled border, the push by corporate globalists like Bill Gates for unlimited H-1B visas, the Security and Prosperity Partnership established by Fox, Bush, and then Canadian PM Paul Martin, and NAFTA are not threats to American sovereignty, and why we should disregard not only quotes by Fox, but also the "Toward a North American Community" report produced by a Council on Foreign Relations task force.
In short, prove to me that you have the requisite depth of knowledge on this to justify my adopting your recommendation to join you in rolling my eyes at anyone who suggests there may be a regional plan here.
So besides this one meeting where the presidents allegedly agreed to combine their nations and some quotes by Fox (not exactly the most reliable of sources), what actions on this have been taken? Show me the funding that has been applied to it. Legislation of any kind in any of the three countries. Show me that this is anything more than a conspiracy theory.
I've given you some very specific actions that have been taken and you have ignored them--along with apparently anywhere from 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in this country, and well publicized movements such as Aztlan, federal funding for La Raza, politicians pandering for drivers licenses and even voting rights, and the Bush sellout to give them all amnesty and not call it amnesty (and, like you, ridiculing the theory that this is intended to lead to a union)... As for funding, I said it is an incremental plan--the beginnings are included in the immigration bill that got stalled--because some people are taking this seriously and NOT rolling their eyes. I'd get you more information, but that will have to wait--for some reason, the White House has not been forthcoming with documents pertaining to Department of Commerce working groups on the SPP--even though a Freedom of infromation Act filing was made, the request was answered incompletely, leaving out stuff like:
Constitutive Documents
Memoranda of Understanding
Letters of Intent
Agreements
Initiatives
Budgeting Documents
Meeting Minutes
Meeting Schedules
So you'll have to excuse me if I can't produce hard copy specifics in my conpiratorial ramblings. But in fairness, you really should address what I've asked of you before you demand more of me--and as for Fox not being a reliable source, by what authority do you state that, especially in light of all the evidence to the contrary?
And I suppose House resolution HCR 40 sponsored by Rep. Virgil Goode urging Bush "not to go forward with the North American Union or the NAFTA Superhighway system" is just a reasponse a "conspiracy theory"?
But what am I doing--as I said at the outset, your making such definitive assertions means you must know more about this than I do, and I clearly asked you to please educate me so that I can roll my eyes, issue dismissive opinions without reference sources and help derail the candidacy of the only candidate out there with a proven track record of Constitutional fidelity, too.
Instead of just scaring white people and gun owners, which is what conspiracy nuts like me do.
Be careful with your logic, David. Bill Gates supports the visas because they provide more workers for Microsoft, not necessarily because they ease the way for the North American Union. With more workers from India able to stay in the US after they finish their degrees, M$ has a greater labor pool to hire from. With greater talent comes greater stock prices, which becomes more money for his charity work.
His support for something that eases the way towards a NAU does not necessarily translate into support for a NAU directly. A better argument would be supported by a direct quote from Gates supporting such.
Personally, though, I would be happy if NAU meant nothing more than Northern Arizona University.
I think you misunderstood.
The "quotes by Fox" are references by David to Vicente Fox former president of Mexico and former executive of Coca Cola. It sounds like you were thinking it meant the Fox news network.
The reality is that it is in the best interest of multinational companies and organizations to have a multinational jurisdiction in which to operate. It makes life easier for them, it makes business more profitable.
Why people discount that this is happening is beyond me.
Ah yes, the "NAFTA Superhighway" (AKA NOSCO) that, according to the "groundbreaking" Corsi is supposed to be 4 football fields wide. Based off of a highlighted line on a map of already existing roads. It's supposed to be done by 2010. Where are the bids?
All there are are improvements to trade structure. Working for a company that sells internationally and having spent hundreds of man-hours researching, developing, and modifying products to meet differing standards even if they function the same, uniformity on many requirements is not a bad thing.
No, I meant the president Fox.
"Hundreds of man-hours."
Cool.
Myself, I've got over twenty years developing and implementing policies and procedures, that is, "standards," for major corporations, everything from engineering, to quality, to manufacturing, accounting, procurement, and all administrative functions, 16 of them in the defense electronics environment, where I produced all supporting command media as well as the quality system manual resulting in ISO 9001 registration of our system on our first attempt--so I do know a tad about the value of standardization in a "global economy."
But I asked you to educate me since you're sure enough of yourself to roll your eyes and make definitive assertions, while I'm still clinging to conspiracies that Michael Medved dismisses with undisguised contempt as "lunatic" (albeit I am open minded enough to ask for constructive redirection if I'm wrong). But we should also probably dismiss the American Policy Center and the folks doing yeoman's work at Corridor Watch. And we'll ignore $2.5 million "earmarked" by the DoT for environmental studies, and the $3.5 million authorized for the planning effort between TxDOT and Cintra-Zachry, and--good call on that "4 football fields" by the way, since 1,200 feet is what the 4,000 page TxDOT Environmental Impact Statement of April 2006 was based on. We'll also ignore all other off-topic diversions like security and inspection concerns, particularly for Chinese cargo loaded in Mexican ports, the bypassing of American ports and the effect on the economy to domestic workers, soft target/dependency vulnerability concerns, local economy effects, eminent domain, the CFR report I mentioned in a prior post that called for creation of a North American currency to "reduce the cost of trade, combat counterfeiting and facilitate trade..."
Hey, how'd you know? "All there are are improvements to trade structure," you assure me.
Truly? You know that for certain, or just giving me back what little has been "officially" released for public consumption and parroting? How? Tom Tancredo was unable to get the White House to respond to his request for the activities and names of working group members--so who has your source been to verify this claim you make with such certainty? I mean, shoot, if I go by what the SPP is telling us, there's not even a signed agreement, which kind'a makes me wonder why Canada's ex-PM wrote on his website that he did sign one...?
If you're going to roll your eyes and summarily dismiss Ron Paul, whose primary complaint about the SPP is that it "was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way," I'd have to ask what about that statement is wrong, and why you would desire things any other way?
But the fact that Congress hasn't been privy to it kind of explains why no federal funds have yet been approved and bids put out, at the federal level, wouldn't you agree? And as I stated earlier, the Texas effort, where a development agreement has been made, is still in the planing stage, so it doesn't look like 2010 is realistic. But how one would jump from that to the apparent assumption that this means no plan exists is a leap in logic I can't follow--although, as I keep saying, I'm willing to learn if only someone will teach me.
And you might dismisss Fox as an unreliable source, but if so, you really should disclose what you know that has escaped Wall Street Journal editor Robert L. Bartley, who wrote: “Reformist Mexican President Vincente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grand that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper.”
So I guess my bottom line is, if you have enough inside baseball knowledge to dismiss all of this with the roll of your eyes, I sure wish you'd address every specific point I've made in these 3 posts and teach me so I can quit worrying--instead of just cherry picking a detail or two on this or that statement. But I hope you also realize that just dismissing it out of hand as you've been doing doesn't cut it in terms of meritorious argument--so unless you can give me specific refutation on each and every point I've raised here, it's hardly worth any more time trying to glean the information I've repeatedly asked for.
Oh, and Matt-as for Bill Gates, perhaps if there were not a pattern of support for all things globalist--from hobnobbing with the likes of Gorbachev and Maurice Strong, to attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, to sending wife Melissa to the secretive Bilderberg meeting, to pledging $3/4 Billion for immunizations administered by the same UN/WHO agencies that ban preventive chemicals against malaria, to funding abortions through the UNFPA, I might not be inclined to view his specific actions here in the context of the whole. And while I don't have a quote for you, I'd suggest the fact that he's the single largest shareholder in the Canadian National Railway Co. ought to count for something. If you think US sovereignty is more important to him than global expansion, nothing I say will change your mind.
You forget about Fox's admission on Larry King Live of the "amero," the currency of the union. In order to get Americans to accept something like that their "money" has(d) to be devalued, how's the dollar doing against the Canadian dollar these days?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/08/lkl.01.html
KING: E-mail from Mrs. Gonzalez in Elizabeth, New Jersey. "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"
FOX: Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea...
KING: It's going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?
FOX: Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.
long long term is code for incrementalism, baby steps.
Now, if you'll excuse me I have to go roll my eyes and bury my head in the sand.
David, thirdpower is a skeptic and skeptics are every bit as unbending as true believers. They will never believe anything they do not want to, no matter how much evidence you supply. Up to an including showing them absolute proof. Skeptics are just as fanatical as the true believers. Arrogant, self-centered and generally not too bright.
So bill, you're a "true believer" then?
I said on my site I'm not trying to pick a fight with him, but disagree with him on this. As I said there, I believe he is a good man and sincere, just a lot less radical than I am, which happens to account for 99.9% out there, I believe. On this particular point, I think it is wrong to dismiss the evidence summarily without giving equally compelling explanations for all of the pieces of the puzzle that appear to form a pattern--and that are borne out by documented statements and actions among the principals.
For my part I am trying to keep my advocacy fact-centered, but know my style is often construed as aggressive and cynical. I repeat--I'm not attacking Thirdpower the man--I am contesting his statements.
David,
Thank you, I appreciate that. I don't see the pattern lining up the way you do. I can also see much less dark designs in the reports that have been cited to date.
Sorry 3P,I meant you-tube vid. not did!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA
Post a Comment