Theworldisnotenough wrote: “Show me one just one reason not to think that we are on a path to a NAU.”

My friend, you have it backward. The onus is on you, and those who believe as you do, to prove your assertion — which is that we are on a path to a North American Union — not for us to prove that we are not.

A web site such as spp.gov is not a convincing argument to prove your point as it simply does not state the intention to an eventual political, economic, and military union between Mexico, Canada and the United States. In fact, it does not even HINT of such a union, just about lowering trade barriers and coordination with pandemics and other such.

Neither are a few magazine articles that have been cited make similar assertions. Actual evidence is needed to prove your assertion that we are on the path to a NAU.

Extraordinary claims (like yours) require extraordinary evidence to back them up. And your side has proved none.

What kind of evidence is needed? How about any of the following:

Where is the legislation to form this NAU? After all, the President simply cannot create a merged 3-nation state by an executive order. Please provide the bill number. If we have a bill number for a unification, then we have a bill we can fight.

Where are the proposals from the Mexican and Canadians for unification? Where are the FORMAL requests from Mexico and Canada for unification with the United States? They HAVE been “let in on the secret,” haven’t they?

Where is the movement (legislation, memoranda, white papers, etc), for currency unification What will the new NAU monetary unit be called? Think back on how the Ero was conceived, and show us evidence that this is happening.

Where is the political movement in either Mexico or Canada to join in a union with the United States? Would they not debate in their legislatures such a momentus idea? And if they have, why haven’t the UN-loving, America-hating leftists at Time and the New York Times been running with it? Goodness knows, they’d be having repeated waking wet-dreams in their shorts if this were true.

If you are unable to provide concrete evidence (legislation, Mexican and Canadian government actions for unification, and so on), why should the rest of us worry about your concerns — or even believe you in the first place — absent any hard, quantifiable evidence other than YOUR interpretation of a few websites and online articles?

I’m sorry, but your case is not convincing.

georgej on November 24, 2006 at 2:09 AM

Maxx wrote: “But not all of the legislation has happened, I don’t think anyone has claimed that. What could happen in the future is the main concern.”

In other words, THERE IS NO PROOF of an impending NAU.

NADA. Zilch.

No legislation authorizing it, like there was for NAFTA, has been introduced. No Canadian legislation or Mexican legislation for the same. No creation of a “new money” unit to represent the new NAU’s money. No formal proposal or agreement from Mexico or Canada for political union.

Nothing.

Just a fear that somehow, some way, that George W. Bush is going to erase our sovereignty and fold the USA into union with Mexico and Canada by sneaking it through the back door.

Fears based upon some low-level inter-operating agreements such as “an agreement to implement a pilot program in El Paso and Chicago, for the safe, humane, and orderly repatriation of Mexican nationals.”

Or

Canada and the United States completed the 2006 Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET) Threat Assessment, which identified national security and organized crime threats along the Canada-U.S. border. The IBET Program has disrupted organized crime operations involved in bi-directional drug trafficking and human smuggling.

So, cooperation between the RCMP and the FBI to catch and prosecute drug smugglers and illegal alien smugglers is a threat to the SOVEREIGNTY of the United States of America? Now THAT is a stretch, don’t you think?

And making arrangements to make sure that people we deport to Mexico get back safely — a purely humanitarian concern — is ANOTHER threat to US Sovereignty? What do you recommend we do instead? DUMP THEM OUT THE REAR OF A C-130 AT 30,000 FEET AT THE BORDER?

Maxx, ladies and gentlemen.

It is one thing to keep a weather eye open. NAFTA certainly turned out to have some consequences that have not been to America’s short term advantage, and we should not repeat any mistakes. In addition, the last thing that I or any of us want is for our Constitution, and the government is created, to be subsumed into a new state against our willing and informed consent.

It is quite another thing to raise an alarm where there is no actual, certifiable, evidence-based, reason to be alarmed.

I will say it one more time.

Extraordinary claims — such as that there is a conspiracy to create a union between Mexico, Canada, and the USA — require extraordinary proof — such as legislation in Congress to create such, or a signed treaty, or public action by Canadian/Mexican governments and their legislatures, or even discussion in their media.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I remain unconvinced of your extraordinary claims absent any such extraordinary proof.

georgej on November 24, 2006 at 2:03 PM

Hiraghm wrote:

The entire issue, for me, is that the U.S. Constitution be the supreme law. If there’s to be a North American Union, then we can achieve it by allowing Mexico and Canada to provide their citizens with a republican form of government, and to apply for Statehood. I think that’s the objection most of us “moobats” on the right have. Not objecting to the idea of a united North America, but objecting to the implication that the United States wouldn’t rule such an institution.

I would categorize the above as a fair statement.

As I noted, there was some talk by several of the western Canadian provinces to leave Canada and apply for US statehood a while ago. Nothing ever came of it.

However, if Canada or parts of Canada were to petition to join the United States as states, that would be perfectly acceptable and it would be the job of Congress to determine whether or not to accept it.

The same for Mexico.

But this is NOT what some of the posters here discussing, because that would be an OPEN and well publicized discussion over a clear political and economic issue between them and us. It most certainly would not be a secret. In fact, it would be the political coup of the 21st century, and politicians, being the media whores they are, would be stampeding and elbowing each other aside to get at the microphones.

What we are being treated to is the supposed existence of a secret conspiracy to undermine US sovereignty through the creation of a “North American Union” where the USA (or it’s constitution) would not be supreme, but just a “member,” in a western hemisphere version of the European Union, where our sovereignty would no longer be supreme.

Absence any real evidence of the latter scenario, and NO evidence of the former, the only thing that a reasonable person can believe is that this conspiracy is little more than an unsubstantiated fear. We do ourselves a serious disservice by falling prey to our fears. We lose our credibiliy and the ability to convince America that what we say is reliable.

If that happens, then we will have marginalized ourselves to the point of impotence.

georgej on November 24, 2006 at 2:47 PM

Maxx, I’m not demeaning you. I’m asking you to provide hard evidence of a conspiracy to create a secret overgovernment (the “NAU”). With such evidence, we have the ability to oppose it. Without it, we look silly and marginalize ourselves.

BTW, I’m not blindly trusting anybody — including you. ;^)

georgej on November 24, 2006 at 3:34 PM

ScottyDog wrote:

There is no “conspiracy theory” here, whether about black helicopters or anything else. The evidence that supports the idea of a strategy aimed at ending U.S. sovereignty by creating a borderless world is in print, often by the authors of its own longstanding advocates, for those who can read plain English.

As you say, there no evidence that their ideas are actually being implemented. Just words. Which is why…

1. There is NO legislation being considered in Congress to create a NAU.

2. There are not even debates in Congress discussing such a merger of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

3. There is no discussion in Congress, in Mexico, or in Canada of Mexico or Canada petitioning Congress to join the United States as states.

4. There is no discussion in Mexico or Canada, that I can find, that is advocating a merger of them with the United States of America.

There have been Utopians from time immemorial. A world free of “nations” subserviant to a world government has been a dream for centuries. People write about it all the time, even science fiction writers. I do not take much stock in them — and neither do the majority of American citizens, because their dream-world simply hasn’t come about.

georgej on November 25, 2006 at 6:04 AM