North American Union (NAFTA) Would Trump US Supreme Court
- Thread starter Thin Black Line
- Start date
- Status
Just as surely as night follows day, there will be a regional court a la Brussels in North America if this train is not derailed.
See page 3 "Out of the Mouths" by Christopher Arkell;
http://www.europeanfoundation.org/docs/ej0705.pdf
------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Romano Prodi, the EU Commissioner ... has such a big mouth.
See page 3 "Out of the Mouths" by Christopher Arkell;
http://www.europeanfoundation.org/docs/ej0705.pdf
------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
fourays2
Member
and you may be correct. however the popularity in tin foil exists because a large section of the populus has a profound distrust of its .gov
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Yes, but this results in a situation where grave and legitimate criticisms of abuse at the hands of government are lost because there's a chorus of chicken littles drowning them out.
longeyes
member
And my point is just this: If the American military cooperates with the power grab, in defiance of the Constitution, then this country's in deep youknowwhat.
NineseveN
member
Justin said:
Dismissing such concerns as chicken-littleism is, in my opinion irresponsible. It’s not difficult to take that position and argue that there’s no smoke here so there’s no fire, but when you have a powder keg sitting next to the smoker’s lounge, I don’t think simply ignoring the potential for disaster because no such disaster has yet happened is a real smart play.
That’s where a lot of the division on the issue of gun control comes. There are so many firearms owners that don’t want to appear as “gun nuts” or “militia types” because they fear that it’s the image of gun owners that have the anti-gun types on their case. They don’t want to have that image, and thus, they don’t want anyone else to have that image, so they support ‘reasonable restrictions’, they sneer at us evil-black-rifle types because somehow, the fact that the anti-gunners are projecting stereotypes and racist or classist ignorance onto us is somehow our fault. A good friend of mien once told me, “If all black people look like gang bangers to you simply because of the way they dress, regardless of whether or not you truly know them to be a criminal, the problem is with you, not them, you’re ignorant, you’re a racist”; and he was right on the money. Ignorance breeds false impressions, there’s no use succumbing to simple desires to conform into a more pleasant image of gun owner or negro for the edification of the ignorant. And I feel that this is coming into play here at THR in threads like this.
When folks became alarmed at the first large instances of gun control in this country, they too were called ‘chicken littles’. First it was just those damn machine guns that only killers and militia types wanted to own…then it was firearms with certain barrel lengths, then it was firearms with certain superficial features and magazine capacities larger than some arbitrary number not even remotely rooted in logic or fact. Yeah, those stupid chicken littles, worrying about nothing, that wasn’t gun control, that was just to get rid of those undesirable and violent militia freaks that wanted to overthrow the government. Oh wait, no, it didn’t pan out that way now did it? What’s that you say? The hill seems slick? You bet it does.
Back about, I dunno, maybe 10years ago when I became increasingly aware of the whole privacy issue regarding government surveillance, we had some folks calling those that were concerned the equivalent of “tin-foil-hatters”. “Who cares about Carnivore or Omnivore and the Dragonware Suite?”, they’d say, “they’re only looking for criminals, they’re not reading your e-mail, that’s against the law, you’re paranoid”. Good thing the government didn’t slip further into abuse of privacy and spiral into illegally wiretapping American citizens not suspected of any crime whatsoever…oh wait, damn…does Hepting v. AT&T and ACLU v. National Security Agency ring any bells?
I’m not sure if this is part of THR’s new strategy in aligning the principles of this site, but I’ve noticed a lot of these dismissive type comments from Moderators as of late on just about every subject that identifies potential abuse. If the discussion of such developments and where their potential abuses may lie is going to be ridiculed, then why even allow or promote the discussion of such subject at all? At some point, people need to stop caring what everyone else is going to think and just converse about such things. It’s okay to change your mind, it’s okay to be alarmed about something so serious with such a potential for abuse given the current political climate in this country, a country where all of the sudden illegal wiretaps are okayed based on some silly principle where the executive branch can operate with impunity and cite “state secrets” as the justification for illegal conduct in attempts to get lawsuits thrown out of court; but if it’s not okay to do here, then let’s take it elsewhere. I’m sorry, but I’m not gonna roll lock, step and barrel with the desired trend of worrying about how I appear to others. If you want to dismiss some legitimate discussion where thoughts are offered and opinions evolve over things that have the potential to be abused and call folks ‘tin-foil-hatters’ or ‘chicken-littles’, that’s on you.
If you feel that this does not currently present a problem, I’m with you, but if you want to argue that the potential for abuse is not there and thus it’s of no concern, then we’ll simply have to disagree. Tossing out terms like “chicken littles” in that manner isn’t really helping though.
No one is advocating that we storm the capital and give The Shrub a short stop on a southern drop, that would be irresponsible (and illegal), we’re trying to maybe vent our concerns a little and discuss things…discussion is healthy, especially when not everyone agrees but can manage to keep things civil. To suggest that there is a finite capacity for discussion on any topic is self-defeating and counterproductive. Every concern about potential abuses of power in this current political climate is valid considering the recent track record of the powers that be, discussion is healthy, calling for immediate and drastic action (i.e. revolution talk) based on potential abuses is probably where the line needs to be drawn, but not before.
P.S. Nothing personal Justin, just using your post as an example, perhaps even partly out of context to make a small point within the larger point of my post. I hope ya understand.
longeyes
member
Chicken Littles in the Age of Tyson. Right.
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
This isn't a matter of a tin foil hat. This is going on right now. Just read about it. It isn't like us "tin foil hat" wearers just made this up.
What is open for conjecture is what it means, and how far this will go. NAFTA now appears to have been a first step towards a new North American Union. The transnational highway, the next step. And NAFTA was a huge document, but some people, both on the left and the right read all or most of it, and decided either that because of sovreingty issues, or labour and trade issues (or both) it was a bad idea. They simply weren't in the majority.
To act like it ain't goin' down is simply ignoring the purpose.
Follow the money, you'll see that corporations in America, Mexico, and Canada all wanted this along with the politicians who owned stock in those corps.
Remember that. If all else fails, track the money to see who stands the most to gain, and then you can almost always see where things are heading.
What is open for conjecture is what it means, and how far this will go. NAFTA now appears to have been a first step towards a new North American Union. The transnational highway, the next step. And NAFTA was a huge document, but some people, both on the left and the right read all or most of it, and decided either that because of sovreingty issues, or labour and trade issues (or both) it was a bad idea. They simply weren't in the majority.
To act like it ain't goin' down is simply ignoring the purpose.
Follow the money, you'll see that corporations in America, Mexico, and Canada all wanted this along with the politicians who owned stock in those corps.
Remember that. If all else fails, track the money to see who stands the most to gain, and then you can almost always see where things are heading.
longeyes
member
Yes, sure, it's all "tin foil," and the usual suspects will be selling us the tin foil.
Anyone carefully examining events post-WW II would have to have a permanent case of the Smileys not to be concerned about the trends in motion.
Anyone carefully examining events post-WW II would have to have a permanent case of the Smileys not to be concerned about the trends in motion.
Otherguy Overby
member
Politicians...
In this "enlightened" day politicians hold party loyalty far above loyalty to the country.
If you ask me, a good remedy/attitude adjustment would be impaling a politician near/on every interstate highway mile marker. Message: Represent the best interests of the country as supreme, or else.
The entire system, as of October 2002, had a total length of 46,726 miles (wikipedia) so this should be a good, progressive start...
In this "enlightened" day politicians hold party loyalty far above loyalty to the country.
If you ask me, a good remedy/attitude adjustment would be impaling a politician near/on every interstate highway mile marker. Message: Represent the best interests of the country as supreme, or else.
The entire system, as of October 2002, had a total length of 46,726 miles (wikipedia) so this should be a good, progressive start...
Tinfoil hats aside does anyone believe those in power including corporate
America have our (middle-class, working americans)best interest at heart.
We have long since passed the point of putting America first it is simply
about power and money. The question I have is how to stop it and make
changes as voting does not appear to help.
America have our (middle-class, working americans)best interest at heart.
We have long since passed the point of putting America first it is simply
about power and money. The question I have is how to stop it and make
changes as voting does not appear to help.
longeyes
member
If we've learned one thing from history it's that Big Events tend to spoil the best intentions of the party planners. We stay vigilant, do our best politically, and remain adaptive. The New World Order is a fearsome beast but it has many vulnerabilities.
gc70
Member
[cynicism]
[/cynicism]
It has always been about power and money. The unique circumstances of America's first couple of hundred years of development gave a lot of unlikely folks the chance to gain power and money because there was too much opportunity for the established rich and powerful to scoop it all up.
Voting achieves what people want to achieve, which nearly always starts with personal gratification and may include lofty ideals somewhere down the list. As an example, why would any rational person vote for an embarrassment like Cynthia McKinney? Probably because she consistently delivers money and favors for her constituents. Quite simply, most voters put power and money (for their personal benefit) ahead of any other consideration.
[/cynicism]
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Dismissive? Or just trying to get some rational adult discussion started? Encourage a little research? Force someone to do some digging to validate their statements instead of just letting them go unchallenged? Sharing what we know and learning what we don't makes all of us better informed. Sharing our opinion doesn't have the same effect though when we don't share the information that formed it. Here the information provided looks one-sided to say the least, yet few seem to have questioned it. I am wondering why so many here are willing to uncritically accept information from a source of mediocre credibility?
On the opposite end, we have k semler who presented a virtual cornucopia of information, though what he meant to convey by such a broad array of link other than a vague fear of globalism, I can't imagine.
Not yet anyway, or not in this particular thread; but it certainly happens. As for discussion, is this how most of you discuss things with your friends? Walk into the room and throw a bunch of pamphlets at them?
As for globalism, it is coming regardless of whether or not you like it. In fact, short of a massive collapse of the technological and economic infrastructure that supports it, I cannot imagine what will stop it. I also think the cure would be far worse than the disease in that case.
Rather than worry about globalism, we should be worrying about whose values will drive globalism. Which culture will the world adopt as technology and economics make it a smaller world?
longeyes
member
Well, "global" political systems come and go. History indicates that pretty clearly. How many autocrats in history have dreamt of creating the world in their image? Where are all the global systems--aka empires--of the past?
As powerful and "inevitable" as globalism is, so too is the concomitant thrust toward fragmentation and separatism. In the end I wouldn't bet against some variant of tribalism, especially if the rule of law breaks down and we suffer some catastrophic reverses due to terrorism. The "good news" is that may save RKBA.
I think we have a pretty good idea already of the basic set of values that drive, and will drive, globalism, but there is never only one set of values in play and the time-span of each's ascendancy is limited and, these days, definitely getting shorter. At the same time that modern technology is empowering the individual, it's also making the individual irrelevant. There will be many globes and many systems, and they will keep battling each other until the end of time.
Low Key
Member
What I see happening in America and the world at present lends me to agree with Bartholomew. I don't like it though because that means first less freedoms and then no freedom because the "enlightened" of the world don't like my freedom to express myself, defend myself, or disagree with the coming world government. tinfoil hat? No, just watching what's going on. Many in the world hate the U.S. because of our freedoms, which they would be glad to take away. I'm afraid that liberty may die with a cheer from the crowd in the name of peace and safety.
Most problems can be solved if people are willing to do so and that is the problem, as you say "the cure is worse than the disease",it may become necessary to give up the comfort blanket to win freedom I'm sure thousands of dead WW2 vets could have explained this to you.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
wingman said:
That is an odd assertion considering it was thousands of dead and living WWII vets who essentially kickstarted the current phase of globalism. I imagine they would have told me the same thing I've already explained to you - there is no rule that says that globalism has to mean less freedom.
Thin Black Line
Member
I agree with you that globalism is coming regardless....I would also hope
that you can agree under globalism, We The People (as Americans) will
have far less representation than what we do right now. Which for
Average Joe and his buddy John Q is pretty bad.
As far as a collapse, that, too, will happen regardless. And it will. The
magnitude and length of that collapse will be unknown until after the
fact. Whether it was the result of incompetence or design will be
irrelevant since its effects will be the same for the average person.
Yes, it is whose values I "worry" about. At this point the values seem to
be closer to Hillary's. Of course, this is why I used her in the fictional
exchange. The global "values" as a whole are against private ownership
of firearms --not to mention severely restricted private property rights
in general. The Fourth Amendment is likewise of little concern to the
globalist breed who put the collective above the individual. This is due to
many of them being "former" socialists and communists.
My fictional exchange is impossible since John Q would have never made it
to the so-called Star Chamber deep in Mexico City. After all he does not
have the implanted RFID chip required by the Mexican AG.
Yeah, tin foil hat stuff even though it's being done right now.....
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-14-mex-security-implant_x.htm
On a lighter note:
Vlad for President? Of course, there is one famous family of politicians
who would do this to themselves if given enough liquor and access to
car keys.....
On a serious note, governments throughout history do tend to overreact
to economic circumstances whether they are so-called left or right.
Although these are sometimes spontaneous representations of the prevailing
mood of the populace (Haiti), they have often been controlled by the
leadership (Cambodia). Yes, we could use much larger countries for examples,
but the results are essentially the same.
SkySlash
Member
Wrong. I take exception to this statement for a variety of reasons.
When a man wears a police uniform, we presume he is a policeman, regardless of race.
When a man wear a doctors coat, we presume he is a doctor, regardless of race.
When a man wears a business suit, we presume he is a businessman, regardless of race.
From my viewpoint, the above is fact-based perception, and neither racist or ignorant. So then, that given....
When a man wears the outfit of a gangbanger, I presume he is a gangbanger, regardless of race.
If that makes me an ignorant racist....well, I'll just agree to disagree the point.
-SS
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
longeyes said:
Thin Black Line said:
Well I don't see much that I disagree with. Entropy dictates that all order degenerates into chaos at some point. That doesn't mean it has to happen now or in the next 1,000 years though. All I am saying is that the type of chaos necessary to halt globalism will result in a lot more than "giving up the comfort blanket" and that globalism will have to be pretty bad before such chaos becomes a preferred option.
To me it seems the options are:
A) Work to make sure that the better American values from our founding fathers and Bill of Rights inform and drive globalism
B) Hope for a new dark age that makes globalism irrelevant
C) Complain about technological and economic change; but the let the corporations and their lobbyists drive the change and make the rules
I know which option I favor out of those...
longeyes
member
Well, one man's Peaceable Kingdom (Left) looks very like another man's Entropy (Right). If people have to choose between whimpers and bangs, they'll no doubt take whimpers, if they're accompanied by a reasonable level of critter comfort.
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
I had this discussion the other day with a couple of folks at work.
"So, Mord, you'd just like to make it so that evry country is just isolated. Into itself wouldn't you. You don't like the Iraq war, or illegal immigrants. That's what you want."
I said, "No, I'm all for trade. I'm all for being able to get on the internet, and talk to a man in Beijing, Tokyo, Bern, Johannesburg, or Buenos Aires. I'm all for green tea from Japan, or Swiss chocolates, or Malysian electronics. German cars."
"What I'm against is people in Japan deciding I shouldn't own guns. I'm against people in Beijing deciding I shouldn't pratice Judaism. I'm against people in Maracaibo deciding I shouldn't be able to own or inherit land or money without government permission."
I bring this to you now.
Look, the fact that some places in the U.S. (one country), have decided their values and morals should apply to people they have never met, and don't know is bad enough. You expand that to the world, and you are looking at a nightmare.
Whether it is the nightmare of absolute democracy, where the majority can violate your life, liberty, and property comes true complete with tin foil hat blue helmented U.N. jbts, or a collapsed system, or a system where corporations through pulling one world nation strings rule everything. Or any other scenario you can play out.
People attempting much more than government on a roughly state size, with much more than 20,000,000 people at the most, is doomed to failure. Whether breakup of that union, or the stealing of a group's self-determinatio n by a powerfull elite.
While the US for instance is great as a treaty for roads, and a common defense force, as the behemoth it has become, it is truly horrible. The founders had it about right in terms what a body as large as the U.S. government should be able to do. Not very much!
A one-world government would reign in a dark age for all humankind, smothering our self-determination, crushing us under a weight we could not get out from under. Whether in the form of one-world democracy, oligarchy, or dictatorship.
"So, Mord, you'd just like to make it so that evry country is just isolated. Into itself wouldn't you. You don't like the Iraq war, or illegal immigrants. That's what you want."
I said, "No, I'm all for trade. I'm all for being able to get on the internet, and talk to a man in Beijing, Tokyo, Bern, Johannesburg, or Buenos Aires. I'm all for green tea from Japan, or Swiss chocolates, or Malysian electronics. German cars."
"What I'm against is people in Japan deciding I shouldn't own guns. I'm against people in Beijing deciding I shouldn't pratice Judaism. I'm against people in Maracaibo deciding I shouldn't be able to own or inherit land or money without government permission."
I bring this to you now.
Look, the fact that some places in the U.S. (one country), have decided their values and morals should apply to people they have never met, and don't know is bad enough. You expand that to the world, and you are looking at a nightmare.
Whether it is the nightmare of absolute democracy, where the majority can violate your life, liberty, and property comes true complete with tin foil hat blue helmented U.N. jbts, or a collapsed system, or a system where corporations through pulling one world nation strings rule everything. Or any other scenario you can play out.
People attempting much more than government on a roughly state size, with much more than 20,000,000 people at the most, is doomed to failure. Whether breakup of that union, or the stealing of a group's self-determinatio n by a powerfull elite.
While the US for instance is great as a treaty for roads, and a common defense force, as the behemoth it has become, it is truly horrible. The founders had it about right in terms what a body as large as the U.S. government should be able to do. Not very much!
A one-world government would reign in a dark age for all humankind, smothering our self-determination, crushing us under a weight we could not get out from under. Whether in the form of one-world democracy, oligarchy, or dictatorship.
- Status