Article

2007-07-16 Fifth Column

Big North American Union Meeting In August

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-07-16 11:26|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 Although I feel there are several legitimate grounds for impeaching Bush, this surely rises to the top of the heap. Talk about High Crime against the Republic. Totally undermining all precepts of our Constitution certainly qualifies. It's amazing what the elitists think they can get away with right out in front of the public, due to their abiding interest in Paris Hilton's latest troubles.

Posted by Woozle Elmeter2970 2007-07-16 12:48|| 2007-07-16 12:48|| Front Page Top

#2 the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico will sit down together in Montebello, Quebec to discuss making the borders between these three nations disappear.

So far, no one has asked the citizens of these three nations whether they want to do this.

Christalmighty! These traitors better not try to give away our soverneignty. They need to quit being stuck in the stupid mode. First it was the amnesty bill, now this $hit.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-07-16 12:53|| 2007-07-16 12:53|| Front Page Top

#3 January 20, 2008 is a year early.
Just saying.
It would have been nice to know which 14 states have passed resolutions.

Here they are, courtesy of a site called "Vive Le Canada" (Is that like a Canadian John Birch Society or something? A John Maple Society?)

Idaho represents the 14th state to introduce anti-NAU and SPP resolutions. The other states include Arizona (S.C.M. 1002), Illinois (H.J.R. 29), Georgia (S.R. 124), Missouri (S.C.R. 15 and H.C.R. 33), Montana (H.J.R. 25), Oklahoma (S.C.R. 10), Oregon (S.J.M. 5), South Carolina (S. 416 and H. 3185), South Dakota (S.C.R. 7), Tennessee (S.J.R. 88), Utah (H.J.R. 7), Virginia (S.J.R. 442 and S.J.R. 387), and Washington (H.J.M. 4018 and S.J.M. 8004).

I'm stunned, as a former resident, to see Illinois in the list. (Who knows whether it passed in Springfield after introduction?)

Posted by eLarson 2007-07-16 12:53|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2007-07-16 12:53|| Front Page Top

#4 Although I feel there are several legitimate grounds for impeaching Bush...

Yeah, the list just goes on and on. Since it is a slow day, perhaps you could enumerate the top ten for our enlightenment and amusement.

Posted by SteveS 2007-07-16 12:54|| 2007-07-16 12:54|| Front Page Top

#5 Personally, I would have little opposition to an expanded USA. However, that would mean the USA taking control of additional land in North America. If the Canadians and Mexicans don't mind, we should submit a timetable for induction
of specific parcels of land.
First, however, I would consider the addition of such states to our body politic. To ease this transformation, I would be sure to include equal parts Canada and Mexico with enough time to complete each expansion. Also, in order to keep the Senate within manageable size, smaller states would have to consolidate to free up Senate seats.
I expect Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont to join upstate New York as a state. Mass, Rhode Island, and Conneticut would become another state, Long Island, New York City and the lower counties of New York could join New Jersey, while West Virginia would rejoin with Virginia and the rest of that area, once Maryland and Delaware would be called Pennsylvania. That would give us 16 Senate seats to fool with. And sinse most of the Senators from those states are useless assholes anyway, it would be a fine move.
It's the president however who is the big fool in this case. One party hates him, the other party has lost respect for him, so he goes off site to trade what is not his for acceptance and recognition.
Mr. President, sir, go 'F' yourself with a chainsaw.

Posted by wxjames 2007-07-16 13:03|| 2007-07-16 13:03|| Front Page Top

#6 This is pure black helicopter stuff. In the US, treaties and other foreign agreements have only the force of the domestic laws implementing them If you don't like any particular policy, you can kill it here; there's no shadowy super-law that can stop you.

Improved trade infrastructure makes perfect sense, and is not inconsistent with securing the borders.

Posted by JSU 2007-07-16 13:09|| 2007-07-16 13:09|| Front Page Top

#7 JSU: The very basis of such efforts is predicated on evading such restrictions. The EU was slapped together in much the same manner. It uses a three-pronged approach of gradualism, incrementalism, and a strict avoidance of any democratic process that could derail it, to overcome resistance.

First they start by introducing "frameworks" for "economic union", in this case, NAFTA and the FTAA, which gives other nations access to each other's legal systems. This allows say, a Mexican company to sue a US company in US court, if the US Congress or President decides that they can't merge.

These paper agreements are then augmented by creating transportation and business systems that transcend the borders, such as the Mexico-US-Canada super corridor.

The really extreme stuff is poo-poo'ed early on: "We have no intention of introducing the single currency of the Amero (Euro)", or eliminating border controls, or having a single parliament (like the European Parliament) take sovereignty away from the national governments."

Importantly, they believe that if they can just build up enough momentum, then eventually they can steamroller over the opposition, as they did and continue to do in Europe.

It was a tremendous mistake for them to allow the hoi-polloi to vote on their constitution, and you see what it got them. So quickly they have decided to have their constitution anyway, just not call it that, and to heck with what the masses think.

The biggest irony of all is that the entire thing was based on a flawed axiom: that national borders really have to intrinsic meaning. The light never dawned that such borders arose for very, very good reasons, and that those reasons still remain.

The EU still exists. As did the Holy Roman Empire, its progenitor, the Holy Roman Empire. And there is a good chance that the EU may collapse as a governing body, as did the HRE, yet continue to survive, as a powerless and ineffectual joke, for another 900 years.

No reason we should make the European mistake.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-07-16 14:37|| 2007-07-16 14:37|| Front Page Top

#8 The vote in the Texas House was 137-2. The Texas Senate passed it with only four votes in opposition, but the Governor vetoed it in late June, thus opening the door to the seizure of the private property needed for the Trans Texas Corridor (TCC).

Doesn't Texas allow for a veto override? Or was the 137 to 2 vote just fer fun?

Posted by BrerRabbit 2007-07-16 14:47|| 2007-07-16 14:47|| Front Page Top

#9 I suggest that GWB do some serious thinking before trying any of this sh$$, if it's indeed on the menu. Our military swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution", not the government or the President. There are also some 200 million firearms in this country, and people that know how to use them. Trying to force this down the throat of the people would definitely result in another revolution - one far more deadly than the last one.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-07-16 15:58|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-07-16 15:58|| Front Page Top

#10 Might not be so bad if I could buy a house on the beach in Acapulco but I just can't believe that I would ever be safe under the Mexican legal system. I'd worry about drinking the water too.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-07-16 16:26|| 2007-07-16 16:26|| Front Page Top

#11 You people really are gullable. how do you get from a public works project that would benifit three countries to the U.S. giving up our rights to ???Mexico???

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-07-16 18:51|| 2007-07-16 18:51|| Front Page Top

#12 I dunno, Cyber Sarge. That whole amnesty deal really soured a lot of people. I mean, how was that "right for America"? What in the hell was he talking about? And look at Europe. Pretty weird.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-07-16 19:14|| 2007-07-16 19:14|| Front Page Top

23:59 JosephMendiola
23:57 Zenster
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:27 Zenster
23:26 ex-lib
23:22 Zenster
23:22 ex-lib
23:16 Jihad Trousers
23:14 gromgoru
23:04 Zenster
23:02 Jihad Trousers
23:01 Zenster
22:55 Zenster
22:53 Frank G
22:46 Frank G
22:46 RD
22:41 RD
22:37 whatadeal
22:31 Jihad Trousers
22:19 Angie Schultz
22:17 RD
22:11 RD
22:07 jds
22:02 RD