North American Union to Replace USA?

[Vern Humphrey]

"If that's so bad, why didn't you speak up when such systems were first used?

First, I was not aware that the citizens of Virginia gave away their right to privacy so freely, and without protest. I have not heard of it til today. But they are fairly close to Washington, so they probably believe microchipping humans would be a great idea also.

First of all, it's not just Virginia that has laser and scannable toll stickers. Theyr'e all over -- every state has them. And has had them for decades.

If that would cause the sky to fall, it would have fallen years ago.

This kinds of reminds me of the people who find out meat is made of dead animals and assume it's a government coverup -- because they just heard of it.

 

[Selfdfenz]

Art Eatman

I hope you are right but I don't think US participation in the UN was ever open to popular vote in the US. Don't you agree the 1st day it is, the US will be out of there like a shot? Participation was a decision that happened in and of Washington. Since that time I believe I'm correct in saying the US has adopted or conformed to international policy or rule making as fostered by the UN on more than one occassion.

Now, perhaps, we have a situation where our executive branch seems to be formulating an agreement/pact/treaty/whatever with the leadership of other countries and none of us can predict the endpoint. It's so "off the radar" there isn't really any public debate on the matter that I am aware of.
Where this thing will end up W is hatching is a very big question mark but whatever happens Joe 6-pack and popular voters like Joe will have no say.

S-

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

then the next minute they're accusing him of being the scheming genius mastermind behind another far-reaching, long-term, perfectly-coordinated, top-secret, international corporate-backed, UN-approved and endorsed, nefarious plot to do something, anything evil.

This is a common refrain whenever this topic comes up. The problem is with the premise, i.e., that Bush is at the head of it all. This is a straw man, as nobody has claimed this. The plan under discussion is much older than Bush, and much bigger, though he is a small and willing link in the long chain and a cog in the huge machine directing it.

It is not fiction. More than enough documentary evidence has been provided in this thread for you to know that. Prominent people have been warning us of the powers behind it all for many decades, going back to the early 20th Century, e.g.:

This act [The Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth ... When the President signs this act the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized ... The money power overawes the legislative and executive forces of the Nation and of the States. I have seen these forces exerted during the different stages of this bill. - US Congressman Lindbergh

And another:

When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is - the Fed has usurped the government. - US Congressman Louis McFadden

 

[Vern Humphrey]

This is a common refrain whenever this topic comes up. The problem is with the premise, i.e., that Bush is at the head of it all. This is a straw man, as nobody has claimed this. The plan under discussion is much older than Bush, and much bigger, though he is a small and willing link in the long chain and a cog in the huge machine directing it.[/quote]

So who are we talking about, the Carbonari, the Illuminatti, or the Free Masons?

It is not fiction. More than enough documentary evidence has been provided in this thread for you to know that. Prominent people have been warning us of the powers behind it all for many decades, going back to the early 20th Century, e.g.:

This act [The Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth ... When the President signs this act the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized ... The money power overawes the legislative and executive forces of the Nation and of the States. I have seen these forces exerted during the different stages of this bill. - US Congressman Lindbergh

And another:
Quote:

When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is - the Fed has usurped the government. - US Congressman Louis McFadden

And Congressmen would never lie -- including the Congressmen that voted for these bills, right?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

We don't need to trust in the veracity of those who warned us way back when. What they predicted has come to pass, and the architects are now quite open about their part in it all, and their plans for the future. I remember reading back in the 1970s warnings about the coming New World Order. That phrase was never used openly by the establishment itself until George Bush the elder announced, after the conclusion of the first war with Iraq, that we have all witnessed the dawn of the New World Order. I remember hearing him say that, and it sent chills up and down my spine, because I half thought it was all "conspiracy theory nonsense." Funny thing is that all that conspiracy theory nonsense has been coming true, right on schedule, just as predicted since then. How did they know? Simple, they had been reading the blue print, published regularly in a periodical called Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. It is no coincidence that every president since the founding of this body has been a member of this organization, as has almost virtually their entire advisory staffs, no matter the political party in office. Odd, no?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You seriously believe this:

When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.

As I said, who are these guys who have enslaved us, the Carbonari, the Illumanati, or the Free Masons?

 

[Phetro]

Ninty percent of what I see coming out in threads like this could come straight from Demunder or moveon.org. It's as if they have a master strategy to get conservatives to look at each other in the worst possible light and tear conservativism apart.

I hope you're not including Bush in there with the conservatives. He's about as far right as Teddy Kennedy.

The very reason these threads are anti-Bush is because he is not conservative...not because he is.

And by the way, true conservatives do not believe in "free trade." Calling NAFTA "free trade," for that matter, is a misnomer. Republicans like "free trade." Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer keeping our jobs and production here in America, where it belongs.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

And by the way, true conservatives do not believe in "free trade."

You are mistaken. True conservatives believe in free trade.

It is Socialists and other statists who believe in governmental control of trade, protectionism, and centralized economic planning.

 

[Phetro]

As I said, who are these guys who have enslaved us, the Carbonari, the Illumanati, or the Free Masons?

I don't know who the Carbonari are, but I can assure you the Freemasons and Illuminati are not world-control conspiritors. Both groups are concerned with the improvement of the self through study (much of it esoteric and misunderstood by most non-members), good relations and moral conduct, and benevolence toward society, believe it or not. Sometimes an individual does or says something for which an entire group is blamed...sometimes a misinterpretation of writings like those of Albert Pike and Adam Weishaupt leads to a bad rap...who knows how these theories start?

At any rate, the conspiracy, as far as anyone studying national and international trends can tell, is solely among socialists and other leftists (like Bush, who is wearing a thin conservative disguise), who are known to prefer wide government and blanket control. Right-wingers prefer freedom and limited government. Since groups like the Masons (who don't even discuss politics as a group, let alone try to change people's beliefs to get them to adhere to some sort of social blueprint), Illuminati and others comprise people from all over the political spectrum, it's surprising to see them take the blame from so many would-be investigators of The Great Social Experiment.

 

[Phetro]

You are mistaken. True conservatives believe in free trade.

It is Socialists and other statists who believe in governmental control of trade, protectionism, and centralized economic planning.

Your second point is true, but not the first. What you are calling "free trade" is in fact "globalization of trade." This is entirely unrelated to the freedom of a nation's citizens. In fact, it subverts the very rights of those citizens to enjoy a sovereign nation.

No part of free trade includes borrowing from other countries, or outsourcing labor, manufacturing, commerce, or any other activities. Such concepts are repugnant to freedom, as they encourage the supplanting of such in the interests of greed and materialism.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I don't know who the Carbonari are, but I can assure you the Freemasons and Illuminati are not world-control conspiritors.

Well, if you read the posts in this thread, somebody is!!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Your second point is true, but not the first. What you are calling "free trade" is in fact "globalization of trade." This is entirely unrelated to the freedom of a nation's citizens. In fact, it subverts the very rights of those citizens to enjoy a sovereign nation.

You are mistaken. When you grant the government the power to decide what goods you can and cannot buy, and how much you pay for them, you have granted the government unlimited power.

When you buy the idea that I have an obligation to pay more than fair market value for the necessities of life -- just to keep a union employee or a business owner in the black -- you have bought into the basic tenent of socialism.

 

[Phetro]

You are mistaken. When you grant the government the power to decide what goods you can and cannot buy, and how much you pay for them, you have granted the government unlimited power.

When you buy the idea that I have an obligation to pay more than fair market value for the necessities of life -- just to keep a union employee or a business owner in the black -- you have bought into the basic tenent of socialism.

No kidding! But CAFTA and NAFTA are not free trade! They are the globalization of trade. Free trade has nothing to do with other countries, and everything to do with American citizens. Imports from other countries should be subject to tariffs, to keep the volume of imports much, much lower than that of exports. Exports to other countries should largely be unregulated, to promote American goods. Internal trade should be unregulated entirely.

THAT is the true conservative definition of free trade. If outsourcing our entire country is to be called "freedom," then we might as well start calling Sarah Brady a rational genius--because we're already as good as red.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

No kidding! But CAFTA and NAFTA are not free trade! They are the globalization of trade. Free trade has nothing to do with other countries, and everything to do with American citizens. Imports from other countries should be subject to tariffs, to keep the volume of imports much, much lower than that of exports. Exports to other countries should largely be unregulated, to promote American goods. Internal trade should be unregulated entirely.

Wow!!

I repeat -- the government has no business telling me what I can and cannot buy, nor from whom I should buy it. They have no business telling me what I have to pay for it.

I have no obligation to support fat, lazy unions and inefficient companies by paying more than fair market value for the goods I want -- regardless of where they're made.

That is conservativism. What you are pushing is protectionism, and requires state control of the economy -- which is simply socialism.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

No kidding! But CAFTA and NAFTA are not free trade! They are the globalization of trade. Free trade has nothing to do with other countries, and everything to do with American citizens. Imports from other countries should be subject to tariffs, to keep the volume of imports much, much lower than that of exports. Exports to other countries should largely be unregulated, to promote American goods. Internal trade should be unregulated entirely.

THAT is the true conservative definition of free trade. If outsourcing our entire country is to be called "freedom," then we might as well start calling Sarah Brady a rational genius--because we're already as good as red.

Absolutely correct, Phetro. People have been conned by the neocons into believing that these international trade agreements are founded in old fashioned conservative free trade principles. Traditionally, American conservatives have favored foreign trade policies which favored American industries and jobs, while advocating a largely hands off policy towards internal trade. That kind of policy was not the cause of our problems. Government getting involved in the relationship between employer and employee has been the main source of problems in this country, economically. That, and taxation on wages and earning of the working families in America. Now, add on top of that, international trade agreements and policies that seem intended to send the best American jobs over seas, which will ultimately destroy the American middle class.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

What you are pushing is protectionism, and requires state control of the economy -- which is simply socialism.

I guess you're calling many of the Founders socialists, then, because they certainly favored tariffs. In fact, it says in the Federalist Papers that tariffs were to be the primary means of generating revenues for running the Federal Government.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I guess you're calling many of the Founders socialists, then, because they certainly favored tariffs. In fact, it says in the Federalist Papers that tariffs were to be the primary means of generating revenues for running the Federal Government.

Wow!!

Tariffs to raise reasonable revenue are one thing -- protective tariffs designed to interfere with free trade are another.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Vern, do you think the Founders favored policies which were patently harmful to the American economy? Naturally, the tariffs were placed on those goods which competed with what Americans produced.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Traditionally, American conservatives have favored foreign trade policies which favored American industries and jobs, while advocating a largely hands off policy towards internal trade. That kind of policy was not the cause of our problems.

Unless, of course, you consider the Civil War to be a "problem."

When Secretary Stanton spoke before the English Parliament after the war, he used the phrase, "This great war to end slavery.'

And Parliament roared back at him, "NO! The Tariff, the Tariff!"

Government getting involved in the relationship between employer and employee has been the main source of problems in this country, economically.

And government getting between buyer and seller is just as big a problem. I don't want the goverment telling me what I can and cannot buy, nor how much I must pay for it.

I don't want the government forcing me to pay high prices to support fat labor unions and inefficient companies.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

And Parliament roared back at him, "NO! The Tariff, the Tariff!"

I believe they were referring to a specific tariff, in that case, not all tariffs.

As for government aiding trade unions, we are on the same page. Not a single law should have been passed favoring either unions or employers. Employee and employer should have been left to work out their own natural balances of power. The law should have come in only to prevent criminal conduct on either side, such as hiring thugs to intimidate strikers, or strikers beating so called scabs. As for tariffs amounting to telling you what you have to pay, that's nonsense. You are free to travel abroad and purchase whatever you like. The government is perfectly within its just powers charging higher tariffs (the price for access to American markets) to those foreign industries which compete with American workers.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern, do you think the Founders favored policies which were patently harmful to the American economy?

In some cases, they did -- they were better philosophers than economists. Specific examples are opposition to Hamilton's plan to retire the debt and Jefferson's "Ograbme."

Naturally, the tariffs were placed on those goods which competed with what Americans produced.

Such as?

In the early days of the Republic we were not a manufacturing power. It was only when the Industrial Revolution caught up with us that we adopted the disasterous policy of favoring the industrial section of the country at the expense of the agricultural section -- one of the chief causes of separation and the resulting Civil War.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

As for government aiding trade unions, we are on the same page. Not a single law should have been passed favoring either unions or employers. Employee and employer should have been left to work out their own natural balances of power.

And buyer and seller should be left to work out their own fair market price. The government has no business protecting inefficient industries at the expense of the general consumer public.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Wow!!

Tariffs to raise reasonable revenue are one thing -- protective tariffs designed to interfere with free trade are another.

Really?

In his Report on Manufactures Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton proposed a far-reaching scheme to use protective tariffs as a lever for rapid industrialization. Some of Hamilton's recommendations resulted in upward tariff revisions in 1790 and 1792, though the high protectionism he called for was not adopted until after the War of 1812. Likewise owners of the small new factories that were springing up in the northeast to produce boots, hats, candles, nails and other common items failed to obtain higher tariffs that would significantly protect them from more efficient British producers. A 10% discount on the tax was offered on items imported in American ships, so that the American merchant marine would be supported. - Wikipedia

 

[Vern Humphrey]

In his Report on Manufactures Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton proposed a far-reaching scheme to use protective tariffs as a lever for rapid industrialization. Some of Hamilton's recommendations resulted in upward tariff revisions in 1790 and 1792, though the high protectionism he called for was not adopted until after the War of 1812.

Yep -- one of the two examples I cited above.

Likewise owners of the small new factories that were springing up in the northeast to produce boots, hats, candles, nails and other common items failed to obtain higher tariffs that would significantly protect them from more efficient British producers.

A wise decision.

A 10% discount on the tax was offered on items imported in American ships, so that the American merchant marine would be supported.

And a less-than-wise decision.

Taxing the consumer to support the ship owners.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

And buyer and seller should be left to work out their own fair market price. The government has no business protecting inefficient industries at the expense of the general consumer public.

Within America, that works great, and is consistent with traditional conservative economics, but once you step outside of America, you have to think of defending our nations sources of prosperity (assuming you place your priorities there), i.e., our own industries. There are also national security implications to consider. If we stop producing steel altogether, for example, what would happen if we found ourselves involved in a war, and the free flow of steel into our nation suddenly stopped? We'd be at the mercy of our suppliers.