Ridicule is the last resort of those who have lost the argument, as the skeptics clearly have like Allahpundit.

For, yes, there are thousands of pages of information in print documenting the growing assault on U.S. sovereignty, ranging from the review of U.S. court cases by NAFTA tribunals on down to this NAFTA-on-steroids proposed international super-corridor.

The fact that this is not reported openly by either the government or the media is what throws the naive, who think that if it’s real it’s on TV. Our national news media wouldn’t omit crucial information, now, would they?

And President Bush is a man of his word, right?

Maybe AllahPundit should read Michelle’s own Immigration Blog and learn about the NAU. There are several aticles posted on her site that talk about the NAU includng 5 years after 911.

Much has been written about the North American Union, most of this great investigative work by Jerome Corsi of Human Events. Despite the fact that solid conservative outlets such as World Net Daily and Human Events have reported on this, the right-…..

- Thomas Jefferson

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.

- Abraham Lincoln

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

- Abraham Lincoln

A veteran Republican lawmaker is accusing President Bush of pushing a behind-the-scenes agenda that will result in the United States being merged with Mexico and Canada.

White House press aide Alex Conant said Johnson has no reason for concern.

“This cooperative effort aims to make the U.S., Canada and Mexico more open to fair trade and less open to terrorism and crime,” he said.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=79763

Yes it is sounding like America is becoming more of an “idea”….and a bad idea at that

Mellen on November 29, 2006 at 8:38 PM

Well you know Mellen, here in America, if you don’t like it, you are free to leave it. But if the NAU becomes a reality, I wouldn’t even count on having that right.

Are the NAFTA superhighways being built so China can get its goods to us via Mexico ports without involving high-priced American labor? NAFTA opened the door for Mexican trucks and drivers on our roads. NAU or not, don’t you think this may affect you personally at some point?

As a small government type conservative it does concern me that apparently some decisions are being made by unelected government types in association with international corporations. Does anyone even know exactly who is behind the move to introduce the “Amero” as a currency? I believe it should concern anyone who believes in transparent government.

It concerns me even more that anyone who might be concerned at these events would be labeled “moonbats” or “morons” and subjected to ridicule for their defense of our system of government.

…As we are taught in grade school, George Washington is the Father of our nation. If the North American Union comes into existence as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) asserts, then we all better get prepared for a new hero. Robert Pastor is the person most likely to be proclaimed the father of the North American Union, a designation consistent with his decades-long history of viewing U.S. national interests through the lens of an extreme leftist almost anti-American political philosophy.

Dr. Pastor’s early professional career involved a working association with the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)…

In December 1993, President Bill Clinton nominated Pastor to be U.S. ambassador to Panama. Pastor’s nomination was approved by a 16-3 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his confirmation looked virtually certain. The nomination failed, however, and was withdrawn by the administration in February 1995, after then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R.-N.C.) swore to prevent a Senate vote on Pastor’s nomination. Helms, who had vehemently opposed the turn-over of the Panama Canal, placed much of the blame squarely on Pastor, declaring when he opposed Pastor’s nomination that Pastor “presided over one of the most disastrous and humiliating periods in the history of U.S. involvement in Latin America.” Helms also claimed that Pastor bore responsibility for what Helms saw as “a Carter administration cover-up of alleged involvement by Nicaragua’s Sandinista government in arms shipments to leftist rebels in El Salvador.”

Dr. Pastor has also co-authored a 1989 book with his long-time friend, Jorge G. Castaneda, who began his career as a member of the Mexican Communist Party…

…In his pressing enthusiasm for realizing the NAU, Robert Pastor argued in a 2004 article in CFR’s Foreign Affairs, entitled “North America’s Second Decade,” that the United States would benefit by giving up U.S. national Sovereignty. “Countries are benefited,” he wrote, “when they changed 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. Pastor himself proclaims that the May 2005 CFR task force report on which he was vice chair and principal editor was a “blueprint” for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)…

…Critics who argue that the NAU is a “conspiracy theory” are well advised to take a hard look at Robert Pastor. With U.S. policy toward Latin America, Dr. Pastor first approached the issue in writing (for the radical IPS, as we have noted), next as a university professor, and finally as a government official. Had John Kerry won the 2004 presidential election, Robert Pastor most likely would have emerged with a government position from which he could have pursued his NAU agenda. Given the re-election of George Bush, Dr. Pastor has surfaced within the CFR, an influential “think-tank” NGO whose history of impacting U.S. policy would suggest the CFR impact on SPP.gov could easily be more than academic.

Robert Pastor

Pastor is one of the main visionaries behind the North American Union. Of course, no one in the government would ever listen to him.

If he thinks I was right about John Kerry and about Harriet Miers and that GWB’s border policy is a complete failure, why does he think I am so wrong about GWB and the NAU? Go ahead and post that and let’s hear his explanation of why he suddenly thinks I have become delusional.

Jerome Corsi to debate moderator, addressing John Hawkins

The above quote is from the debate on SPP between John Hawkins and Dr. Jerome Corsi at Human Events. If you have not read this debate yet, I highly encourage you to do so.

Being that Dr. Corsi had thoroughly rubbed Mr. Hawkins nose in, shall we say, “do-do” by round three, and that Mr. Hawkins was reduced to little more than sputtering ad hominem attacks by round four, his choice not to proceed to round five was probably a good idea. But it may have been an even better idea for the “SPP – nothing to see here Crowd” to have send someone to the debate with a little more intellectual firepower. Like they say, don’t send a boy to do a man’s job.

The debate timeline is very telling in regard to this point, if you look at it, you will see that Mr. Hawkins often needed days to formulate his reply, but once sent, Corsi was back to him within hours. This is particularly amusing in light of Hawkins boast at the beginning of round three, where he says “someone needs to pound this ridiculous concept until it’s “stepped on dead” and I’m just the guy to do it.” Yeah Right John, but please don’t do that again, you made me blow coffee all over my screen.

Keep in mind, this is the John Hawkins who believes allowing the fox to guard the hen house is a splendid idea, as his “through investigation of SPP” by questioning the officials at SPP, about SPP, proves.

Throughout the debate Corsi remained calm, polite and collected as he lobbed volley after volley, utterly devastating Hawkins. And of course, Mr. Hawkins quickly ran out of ammunition so he resorted to usual underhanded debating tactics of a loosing debater, thus putting an even bigger spotlight on how superficial his argument actually was. For example, Hawkins misquotes Corsi time and again, then attempts to ridicule Corsi via ad hominem attacks. Each attack designed to inflame emotions and prejudices rather than to bring any new substantive information to the debate.

In spite of these disgraceful tactics by Hawkins, who claims to be a conservative, you will see that the good Dr. Corsi dispatch’s little Johnny homeward for more cookies and kool-aid with little effort.

Granted, no matter how intellectual “the pick” would have been for the “SPP Apologist” side, he was bound to loose, no reasonable person could expect the abundance and overwhelming nature of the facts against them to be overcome. But at least a smarter “SPP Apologist” may have had the good sense to bow out more gracefully and refrain from the ad hominem attacks. Coming off like a six-year-old having a temper tantrum is not helpful in advancing ones point of view.

This is like calling the wetbacks who come flooding up here “heroes”.

If I hear anyone use this again, he/she is gone. I don’t want any slurs here under any circumstances. Okay?

You almost had a coherent take before going Kramer on me.

Your use of the word “wetback” is patently offensive to those of “their” children that are actually on your side of the border (debate). Moreover, since many Hispanics in the U.S. didn’t actually cross the Rio Grande on foot (or the Atlantic by raft), your choice of epithet is not only exclusionary, but hopelessly outdated. This is Hot Air, son, and you’re going to have to do better than reminisce on the 1700′s and fling race bombs like your name is Molotov. Tighten up, now.

P.S.: Is that a silent g in Hiraghm….like “phlegm”?

The snarky tone is tiresome when I think we should have concerns about any group whose meetings are secret and whose suggestions will be adopted by executive commissions over which Congress has no say.

Why is Bush more worried about the border security of a common border with Mexico and Canada than he demonstrates about our own soverign borders?

Seems suspicious to me and to plenty of other people as they learn of this pact.

Calling people names is a tool of those who can’t discuss the specifics of an issue — I thought conservatives were better than that. Guess I was wrong.

For a site that was founded by Michelle who is leading the fight for secure borders, the details of SSP should be upfront and personal.

And what if those latinos happen to actually be American? Why shouldn’t they be praised?

I’m about half a step from saying screw these comment threads.

This is like calling the wetbacks who come flooding up here “heroes”.

And the only difference between what ex-President Bush said and President Tancredo said (wishful thinking, I know) was that Bush praised latinos and insulted Americans, and Tancredo insulted latinos and praised Americans. I’ll take the latter, thanks.

Dear Governor Bush,

I certainly understand and appreciate your need and desire to try and create the illusion of Miami as a multiethnic “All American” city. Indeed sir, one of us is naïve.

The tolerance of diversity in a city or a country is an admirable characteristic until it becomes the primary characteristic of either.

Then it becomes a serious and dangerous problem for any society – especially for ours. America, because of the many places, cultures, races, and religious origins of our citizenry, depends on a few things to hold us together. One is the English language. That is something that fewer and fewer Miamians share.

Unfortunately fewer and fewer Miamians think of themselves as Americans. A fact that was hailed by Lisandro Perez who was identified in a Time magazine article several years ago as ” a Cuban-born immigrant and head of the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University.” He was quoted as extolling the virtue of Miami as a city where “there is no pressure to be an American.”

By the way, you should also pick up a copy of this week’s Time in which Miami is described as a “corrupt, exorbitant mess” where locals are fleeing in droves. Certainly the editor of Time will be on the receiving end of a defensive missive from you in the near future.

Governor with all due respect, I have simply said something most people (even in Florida if our calls and emails are a measurement of sentiment) believe is true. We, as elected officials, should encourage the discussion of this issue rather than castigate those who attempt to bring it to light.