Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

North American Conservative Alliance (NACA) -- urgently needed
original to FR | May 30, 2009 | Peter O'Donnell

Posted on 05/30/2009 12:28:32 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell

THE NORTH AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE ALLIANCE -- An urgently required concept

As a Canadian conservative, I can say that there has never been a time where our own experience with the onrushing socialist and globalist tendencies would have been of more assistance and relevance to Americans who value freedom and liberty, than is the case today.

In the past two decades, we have seen all of the same trends that you are now observing at an accelerating pace with the Obama administration. The situation is rather like this: for quite a while, as we hurtled towards this brave new world, we could see America in our rear view mirror, driving at a much less frantic pace well behind us.

Now America is in the passing lane and we see you overtaking us. Who would have believed this five or ten years ago? If anything, we are now likely to be driving along this road together, and forming a convoy with the European countries and other western nations who have been slightly ahead of us all along.

And this brings me to what I perceive to be an URGENT requirement -- that all North American conservatives band together in a common effort to produce the political and social will to resist.

I think we would find widespread general agreement on principles. I am proposing a "North American Conservative Alliance" as a sort of activist coalition that would lean hard on the large (vaguely) conservative parties, the Republicans and Canada's Conservative Party, to adopt the following basic principles wholeheartedly and without watering them down to suit the requirements of the politically correct media and academic self-appointed juries. There could even be an outreach to more liberal parties, and in the meantime, this initiative could draw together all the smaller parties and associations that share this basic vision without necessarily being able to deliver in terms of votes or elected representation (like the Libertarians, and Canada's much smaller Christian Heritage Party).

And before getting to those principles, I just wanted to underscore the need for dynamic and effective leadership. My first draft of the leadership of such an enterprise would be Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, possibly Lou Dobbs, and for the Canadian component, perhaps Ezra Levant, the well-known (in Canada at least) free-speech activist, or Mark Steyn, the journalist who lives in the U.S. nowadays.

We need people of that calibre and high visibility at the forefront, but at the same time, we need a membership that generally supports accepted principles and is willing to fund the effort. With that sort of leadership and funding, the media would have to take notice and so would the two national nominally-conservative political parties.

Now, as to principles, I think most of these are fairly obvious in the modern context. I would certainly expect a lot of editing and revising of these in the early stages of the growth of the NACA if this concept goes forward, but just to start things off ...

(1) The NACA values freedom of speech and individual liberty, and deplores all current trends towards lawfare, the practice of political harassment under the guise of human rights complaints.

(2) The NACA wishes to promote a public discussion and debate on the growing phenomenon of group rights, reverse racism, and all related concepts, in the belief that our individual freedoms and liberty in general are being compromised and eroded.

(3) Further to the above, we reaffirm the principles that the power of the state should be limited and subject to the wise oversight of the Constitutions of our two nations. In both the United States and Canada, the balance of power between federal and state or provincial levels of government must be honoured and strictly preserved.

(4) The NACA is concerned about rampant globalism, political correctness, and groupthink, as possible long-term threats to the creative potential of a free society, and as short-term threats to freedom of expression and liberty. Issues related to these, such as climate change, international human rights, religious rights as seen through the United Nations prism, and other such topics, need to be discussed by our elected governments on a rational basis and in the interests of our people, not from a globalist or socialist agenda.

(5) The NACA seeks reform of the United Nations to give voting power primarily to nations with elected democratic governments, and not in the socialist definition of democratic, but the real definition of a multi-party state with full freedom of speech guiding the electoral process. In other words, we would like to see the voting power of various communist, military and Islamic states reduced, with an incentive to more open democratic processes to gain full voting rights in the international community. Also, we strongly favour a westernized approach to international human rights, and the end of the current Islamist spin on such questions, because of widespread human rights abuses in the Islamic world.

(6) The NACA is concerned that climate change is a largely fraudulent and unproven scientific theory that has dangerous implications for social and economic policy. As such, we are committed to a more rational approach to questions of climate change and so-called global warming.

(7) The NACA is committed to low-deficit government economics in the current economic situation, and a return to balanced budgets as soon as possible, on all levels of government. We are committed to low rates of taxation especially for small businesses. We are very concerned about the massive deficits and stimulus packages for failing industries being proposed by our current governments. We are specifically appalled by the American approach of transferring ownership of car dealerships from political opponents to political supporters of the government, feeling that introduces a Zimbabwean feel to current public policy.

(8) The NACA wishes to see stricter enforcement of laws regarding illegal immigration, and stronger prevention of further illegal immigration. We wish to see the gradual repatriation of known illegal immigrants resident in our countries, and we seek legal clarification of the "anchor baby" concept so that this is not to be used as an excuse for amnesty. A limited amnesty for those who have become taxpayers and socially responsible citizens may be in order, but we favour a limit on this principle to encourage lawful immigration in the future. Also, we reject all efforts to create a legal status for Spanish as an official language in American states or in the nation itself.

(9) The NACA realizes that same sex marriage is a social phenomenon that is likely to continue to spread. At the same time, we favour a system of recognized civil unions with equal legal rights, together with the unlimited freedom of religious organizations to marry people as they see fit, and without any fear of governmental interference in their freedoms at some subsequent time because of their refusal to marry same sex couples.

(10) The NACA believes that North America must be a firm and resolute ally of the State of Israel for whatever time that nation faces further threats from its regional neighbours, notably Iran, and we reaffirm our historic support for the State of Israel, and welcome a full dialogue between Christians, Jews and peace-respecting Muslims, as well as other religious groups, about full religious freedom and access to holy sites in that part of the world.

(11) The NACA distrusts the current American government on the basis that it is potentially too globalist and socialist for the protection of American liberty. The NACA calls for documentation of the American citizenship of the president, and his swift removal from office at any time that he is known to violate the Constitution. The NACA does not trust his approach to international politics in particular. Also, the NACA wishes to see a more resolute conservative approach to freedom of speech and climate change issues taken in Canada by a government using the name that we cherish, Conservative, but not necessarily abiding by its requirements.

(12) Finally, the NACA seeks to bring together the representatives of all concerned Americans and Canadians on a regular basis to discuss all of these matters, and to suggest procedures that may lead to strengthening our constitutions in each of the two countries.

--------------------

If you like this general concept, then I hope that some people on Free Republic will pick up the ball and certainly use any opportunity you have to approach the high-profile people I have suggested to champion this general cause. Of course it will evolve from this, but don't you agree that we need something on this scale to mount a serious challenge to the headlong rush to label all conservatives as "terrorists" or whatever malarkey the U.S. Justice Department has in mind -- what's next, internment camps, a North American gulag, raids on churches and synagogues? The situation is rapidly becoming intolerable. Perhaps in the American case, something like a Constitutional Convention is required. In Canada, it is more like prodding a government that is sluggish and only partly committed to more action (in our case, it is as though we had elected McCain and not Obama).

I look forward to your responses, and will link this through to Canadian conservative forums. My own participation would be whatever people wanted from me, but realistically, I am no Rush Limbaugh, I can make a speech but I think I would come across more like a Mitt Romney or your average state governor ... so I would prefer to get this ball rolling and then help out from behind the scenes.


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Religion
KEYWORDS: conservative; freedoms; liberty

1 posted on 05/30/2009 12:28:32 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Peter ODonnell

for later


2 posted on 05/30/2009 12:34:57 PM PDT by ElayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter ODonnell
The NACA seeks reform of the United Nations to give voting power primarily to nations with elected democratic governments, and not in the socialist definition of democratic, but the real definition of a multi-party state with full freedom of speech guiding the electoral process.

Last time I looked, America was not yet sunk to being a "democratic government". America is a republic. Get back to me when you know the difference.

3 posted on 05/30/2009 12:36:29 PM PDT by Rapscallion (TARP: The largest embezzlement of taxpayer money in history. What do you have for the expense?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rapscallion

“North American” is taken to mean “including Mexico,” as in NAFTA. If one plans to make this a Canada/U.S. show, one might want to revisit the choice of terminology.


4 posted on 05/30/2009 12:39:12 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rapscallion

Hey, don’t be so hard on our Canadian Cousin in Arms.

He is on board for our fight — the subtleties of democracy vs. representative republic is lost on most Americans, so if our Neighbor to the North missed it a bit, lets be gentle and kind.

I mean it. Canadian Free Press, for example, is a much more liberty-oriented publication than all but National Review here in the USA.


5 posted on 05/30/2009 12:42:06 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Peter ODonnell

“U.S. conservatism” will NOT become a political majority for, at least, eighty years from now, if not even longer and if leftists don’t control everything important forever. Leftists will dominate politics for a very long time, thanks to “government dependent” voters (who are always addicted to leftist politics), illegal immigrants, and almost all criminals-all combined who will almost 100% always vote for leftists, at every political level. All “non-leftists” voters combined won’t be enough to match the total numbers of leftist voters for the foreseeable future.


6 posted on 05/30/2009 12:56:30 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (Conservatives obey the rules. Leftists cheat. Who probably has the political advantage?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter ODonnell
NAFTA and NAMBLA have ruined "North American" for the rest of us.

Of course, you couldn't call it the "Canadian-American Conservative Alliance" either.

We'd be willing to let "Canadian-" go first, but look at the initials: CACA.

Keep at it, though.

7 posted on 05/30/2009 1:12:57 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter ODonnell
Peter, acoording to the comments by Rapscallion, and many others, I don't think they quite get it.

Pity.

8 posted on 05/30/2009 1:37:51 PM PDT by NorthernRight (Liberalism is a mental disorder - Socialism is a mental illness!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; Peter ODonnell
Hey, don’t be so hard on our Canadian Cousin in Arms. He is on board for our fight — the subtleties of democracy vs. representative republic is lost on most Americans, so if our Neighbor to the North missed it a bit, lets be gentle and kind. I mean it. Canadian Free Press, for example, is a much more liberty-oriented publication than all but National Review here in the USA.

Damn right.

9 posted on 05/30/2009 2:07:55 PM PDT by backhoe (All across America, the Lights are going out...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Peter ODonnell

If it strengthens conservatism, I’m entirely for it.


10 posted on 05/30/2009 2:30:22 PM PDT by popdonnelly (The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by governments. You've been warned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter ODonnell

Please don’t pick Mitt Romney as your model (I don’t know how he’s reported up there in CA), however we down here know he’s a R.epublican I.n N.ame O.nly!


11 posted on 05/30/2009 3:48:43 PM PDT by JSDude1 (DHS, FBI, FEMA, etc have been bad little boys. They need to be spanked and sent to timeout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Some valid points there for me to consider. I would appreciate a little more detail on the concept of a republic not being a democracy. I thought the problem at the moment was that the republic was turning into a sort of dictatorship of a one-party state mentality with most of the media riding shotgun. We have a different form of government in Canada but the same dynamics could easily develop here if the (unenthusiastic) Conservatives are replaced by the Liberals. We had about sixteen years of this with Trudeau, nine more with Jean Chretien and three with his successor Martin. Different form of government for sure, but same basic problem — individual liberty suffers at the expense of neo-Marxist group rights.

My main point was not to involve Canada in your struggle, any more than just for our shared mutual interests in advancing liberty, but more to make a suggestion that a heavy-duty political action organization involving some of the heavyweights of conservative politics should be formed, and soon, because otherwise there is only this faint sound of various weak and disorganized voices, plus individuals like Rush Limbaugh making a lot of noise perhaps, but not necessarily with the obvious support of an organization (which I think he would get pretty quickly). And in terms of Sarah Palin, or possibly Dick Cheney, there is nothing “out there” for them to lead, they just have to speak through the media filter and in Palin’s case at least, try to plan out what to do a year or two down the road when the Republicans start looking for their presidential candidate in 2012.

That’s a lot of time to sit back and hope for the best when you all know that in the White House, you have pretty much a worst case scenario developing. And God only knows what the man plans to do next week. For all we know, Islam will be the official state religion and the banks will be relocated to Riyadh by next week. And we’ll all have to get busy learning the new official version of World War II once it comes down from the Mount.


12 posted on 05/30/2009 4:08:01 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

Oh yes, about the Mexican question, I am sure we could have a Mexican chapter for the half dozen conservatives who live there. In the USA you have Free Republic, in Canada, we have Free Dominion, so what do they have in Mexico? Free Coronas !!!


13 posted on 05/30/2009 4:11:57 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

It’s worth mentioning that Canada is much closer to being a republic in form than many Americans realize. You tend to think we are a constitutional monarchy but that’s only on paper nowadays. The crown has a constitutional role, but its powers are de facto in reserve and have hardly ever been utilized. As you may know, the person of “the Crown” is our own Governor-General resident in Canada — the past several have been former liberal broadcasters on the state television network, appointed by the Liberal Party to ensure that they won’t do anything to impede the headlong rush to socialism.

Meanwhile, there is enough power in the Prime Minister’s Office nowadays to make it quite possible to compare our PM to your president (in proportional terms, of course), and our elected parliament to your Congress, but in fact, they are more under the control of the PM than your legislative branch is (with the exception of this year). So we are functioning somewhat more like a republic nowadays than we did in our earlier history when there was a much stronger connection to the British monarchy, and our Governors-General were men who didn’t mind stepping into political controversies, instead of ladies who enjoy tea parties and ceremonial occasions.

Also, our federal structure is, if anything, more province (state) oriented than yours — our provinces have much more access to power and to the right to secede from the union. Our provinces for example totally control education and most of health care, these are only federal concerns to a rather slight extent. Some of our provinces have even sent diplomats to international meetings (unfortunately they came back).

It would likely not lead to civil war here if any province seceded (in some cases, it would lead to jubilation).


14 posted on 05/30/2009 4:21:50 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Actually Rapscallion is in the right;

There is a fundamental difference between Canadian & American conservatives. And there are two issues here: the first being Canadian conservatives only want to strengthen their freedoms within a direct democracy, while Americans want to reinstate a republican system. To quote your American forefathers democracy is tyranny & is the slow progression from a nation of freedom to a nation lead by the elitists in an oligarchy. Then there is the issue of the British monarchy, many conservatives want a stronger monarchy while Americans want the opposite. In effect forming an alliance would be treason to what your forefathers fought against.

Don’t get me wrong I really care what happens to my country but I feel that Canadian democracy isn’t broken at all. Quite the opposite, we have had freedom & now the population has made their choice of the type of oligarchy we are going to have. And it so happens Canadians have democratically chosen a communist type structure within our system. As the words go; peace, order, & good government, which is what Canada has. So what’s the problem?

The loyalists chose to be traitors to the American Republic & that trait of loyalty has been passed down the line, & the liberals know it, they are not dumb to that fact & consequently have used it to their advantage.

Americans chose to be traitors to the British crown, they chose to be independent, & loyal to their family, country, & no elitists. It’s only in the recent generations that has changed & therefore Americans are a lot harder to control.


15 posted on 05/30/2009 5:21:14 PM PDT by Canadian Whig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Whig

“the first being Canadian conservatives only want to strengthen their freedoms within a direct democracy, while Americans want to reinstate a republican system”

Not so. Just as a republican system is supposed to provide balance against the whims of the masses, so too is Canada’s system of constitutional monarchy.

This moment in history, with America’s banks and auto industry now nationalized, might not be the time to quibble over the efficacy of one system over the other. The point is, we’re all under the tyranny of democracy now.


16 posted on 05/30/2009 9:14:45 PM PDT by One Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: One Truth

I agree, and while I find some of these distinctions interesting, in reality these are mostly tangential considerations for the people, perhaps not for constitutional scholars or people in high office ... cutting through the bafflegab, all of us, Americans and Canadians, are being subjected to a form of quasi-democratic tyrrany that is spreading because what some are calling “democracy” is basically totalitarian where it isn’t outright fraud (as with the Acorn voting irregularities).

I’ll repeat that I only brought forward the Canadian component of this concept because I know we need the same sort of stand in our country, so a joint effort seemed appropriate, but if people just wanted to consider the idea entirely from a U.S. perspective, that’s certainly the main principle of my concern, that it seems like the time to rally everyone who is concerned about the way things are heading (the pace is accelerating) and to rally them around one set of very prominent leaders.

The situation as I perceive it is not much different from the pre-Revolutionary atmosphere of the thirteen colonies.

A few Canadians are bound to get all wrapped up in their two-centuries-old Loyalist viewpoints, and I can’t help that, but as a western Canadian, we tend to look at things from a more modern perspective and we’ve generally gotten past the old grievances that some have in “Upper and Lower Canada” which is basically the original core of our country. Time marches on and we now face a very similar set of problems in both countries, at least IMHO.

So getting back to that analogy with the 1770s, and the period that followed, now seems the time to renew the American constitution, to make sure that it is being honoured in spirit and letter, and also, to look for any upgrading to modern circumstances that will preserve liberty in the unforeseen circumstances of the internet age and the Islamist period of history.

Otherwise, if Sotomayor is any indication, the trends may be rapidly changing towards a whole new reading of the constitution towards Soviet style pretend democracy and the entrenched rights of a one-party state apparatus.

If you don’t want to take it from me, ask Rush Limbaugh. I am sure from his electrifying Feb 28 speech that he understands this probably better than any of us.


17 posted on 05/30/2009 9:40:09 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All

There are many fine conservatives in Canada, true conservatives. They are trying to show us what we are headed for with the current administration.

I’m very pleased to have them on our side.


18 posted on 05/31/2009 5:21:36 AM PDT by texasredtop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson