Posted on 10/22/2006 9:18:12 AM PDT by WatchingInAmazement
Modern mass production with interchangeable parts was a good idea in the automobile industry a century ago. But is it a good idea to homogenize national cultures, either in the interests of economic prosperity, or to further the socialist ideal of a one-world government?
Carol Derbis drew my attention to the potential dangers of the proposed North American Union, which aims at making NAFTA into an analog of the European Union, eventually uniting Mexico, Canada, and the United States on political and cultural grounds, as well as on economic policies.
As she writes, we must have full and public Congressional hearings before the proposal goes much further.
Chris Adamo addressed the issue last year, as did Jerome R. Corsi in this article earlier this year.
Those who fear the worst say that President Bush intends to abrogate United States sovereignty. That seems unlikely, but any surrender of our own Constitutional rights to a supranational agency, however limited the surrender, is a very bad policy. Our experience with the UN makes that abundantly clear.
Apart from the huge controversy over illegal immigration from Mexico, there are plenty of other negatives to consider.
Foremost among them is spotlighted by this website's Statement of Purpose:
The View from 1776 presents a framework to understand present-day issues from the viewpoint of the colonists who fought for American independence in 1776 and wrote the Constitution in 1787. Knowing and preserving those understandings, what might be called the unwritten constitution of our nation, is vital to preserving constitutional government. Without them, the bare words of the Constitution are just a Rorschach ink-blot that politicians, educators, and judges can interpret to mean anything they wish.
As relatively little has been elaborated about the North American Union concept in the media, one can only conjecture about the exact intentions and methods. Whatever the specifics of the proposed North American Union, it can be said that it has the potential to promote further cultural disintegration in our nation, which is as lethal a danger as Islamic jihad.
Liberals (and it has to be said that most Republicans as well as Democrats have evident left-leanings) have been educated in our colleges and universities to accept the social sciences view that human beings respond only to material factors. Thirst, hunger, the need for clothing and shelter, and the sexual urges are said to be the ultimately controlling factors in human society.
One has to be oblivious to history, however, to believe that the list of social influences is limited to the atheistic materialism of socialism. Our colonial ancestors were definitely motivated by the economic issues of taxation to issue the Declaration of Independence. But there was a far deeper ethos underlying their action: the centuries old English tradition of inalienable natural-law rights of individuals to be free from the arbitrary exercise of power by the sovereign. Those conceptions grew out of the Judeo-Christian moral traditions that constituted Western Civilization.
Moving in the direction of a political and cultural North American Union is to unwind the very substance of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.
Still waiting for Rush, Sean and Bill O'Reilly to comment on the North American Union.
If it ever becomes more than a paranoid fantasy, I'm sure they will.
Glenn Beck has featured it both on radio and TV. After the elections, Rush and Sean will probably deal with it too. I think that right now, their focus is on the Nov. elections. My guess is that O'Reilly will comment on it soon as well. Perhaps he is waiting to confirm more of the information on this.
LOL, NAU is pretty much a done deal. NAFTA laid the foundation. Don't believe me, just look at our borders and look at the plans for the Trans Texas Corridor.
The will precipitate itself into general consciousness and acceptance over a period of the next one or two generations in the same manner as general environmentalism precipitated itself and became generally accepted. One tree or minnow at a time -- one foot of highway at a time. One piece of property taken by eminent domain at a time.
Yup. Just make sure you take pains to create enough wealth to insulate your family for generations to come.
I'm working on it.
Newsflash. There are already roads connecting Mexico and Texas.
Heck, you can drive all the way to Canada from Mexico. Paved road, most of the way.
Interesting, dont you think, that the only people who support this agenda are those who deny it's existence?
Corsi went from an agreement meant to speed trade and legal travel between the three nations to the Senate testimony of a member of the Council on Foreign Relations to come to his conclusions. The guy from CFR did endorse such an idea, but he is one guy from an extremely liberal think tank composed of throwbacks to the Carter and Clinton administrations.
I think it was a pretty shoddy piece of journalism and suspect it was meant to sell books, not expose the truth.
Now if Hillary gets elected things might change, but Corsi's conclusion was way off base.
And...and...there's INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS too! They go through state lines! Plus those dreaded back county roads too with the letters! OMG we're dead!
Not really. Lots of people don't support the "agenda" and still deny its existence.
Does it pain you to recognize that if it wasn't for Corsi and O'Neill, Bush would've been a one-term president like his father?
He'll be disappointed in the lack of pictures.
"Interesting, dont you think, that the only people who support this agenda are those who deny it's existence?"
"Not really. Lots of people don't support the "agenda" and still deny its existence."
Really, and exactly how does one not support the agenda of something that does not exist?
Actually, I read his article, the precursor to the book he wants to sell. His conclusion could not be supported by the evidence presented in the article.
He based his conclusion on two main events.
The first was the signing of a security and trade agreement between the three countries. The concept of the security agreement was to come up with a way to safely speed the movement of goods across borders.
The second was the Senate testimony of Robert Pastor regarding the CFR's plan for a "Building a North American Community."
The problem with Corsi's conclusion is that he says the security agreement was following the blueprint laid out in the CFR report. It should be noted that the CFR group wrote the report after that agreement was signed. The CFR group wrote their report in response to the March 2005 agreement.
CFR is a left leaning think tank whose board of directors reads like a who's who of Clinton and Carter rejects. It is not the kind of group the Administration is going to consult on foreign affairs.
Watch out for black helicopters.
Some Internet sources claim that this report, depsite its own language rejecting a political union, would create a North American Union.
Scary stuff
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.