Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

ForeignPolicy

Debunking the North American Union Conspiracy Theory

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted June 15, 2007.


The North American Union, an increasingly popular conspiracy theory about a group of shadowy international "elites" who are planning to "replace the United States" with a transnational government, is a manifestation of xenophobia that would do the John Birch Society proud.
Advertisement

Just what is the North American Union (NAU)?

There are several ways to answer that question. First, the NAU is an increasingly popular conspiracy theory about a group of shadowy and mostly nameless international "elites" who are planning to "replace the United States" -- in the words of Jerome Corsi, a key figure in the SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth project and a leading NAU conspiracist -- with a transnational government. The theory holds that the borders between Mexico, Canada and the United States are in the process of being erased, covertly, by a group of "globalists" whose ultimate goal is to replace national governments in D.C., Ottawa and Mexico City with a European-style political union and a bloated EU-style bureaucracy.

The North American Union story is an offspring of the John Birch Society right, with its attendant xenophobia and paranoia. It comes complete with a shadowy international cabal intent on stabbing decent, hard-working Americans in the back -- Dolchstoss! Articles and websites condemning the NAU flourish in that political space where right- and left-wing populism become indistinguishable, along with a dozen other fundamentally reactionary theories of what's really going on with our contemporary political economy.

To fully understand the growing fascination with the NAU in various corners of the internet, one has to view it also as a cultural phenomenon; it's an entirely logical reaction to a process of corporate-driven global integration that feeds into Americans' very real and wholly valid economic anxieties. As David Moberg recently noted, Americans, "by a margin of 46 percent to 28 percent, [believe] that trade deals have harmed the United States," and four times as many people surveyed by Pew said U.S. trade deals had lowered wages than the number who believed the deals had raised them. According to Public Citizen, opponents of NAFTA-style trade deals picked up 37 seats over defenders of the status quo during last year's midterms.

But, despite that political landscape, one of the first things the new Democratic majority did when it got into power was cut a new "Grand Bargain" with the White House to push through more of the same kind of trade deals. As David Sirota pointed out, the Democratic leadership did it in secret, behind closed doors. And it did it over the objections of many of the freshman lawmakers that gave them their majority in the first place.

With that as a backdrop, it should come as no surprise that people tend to look for a wizard working behind the curtain. The idea that shadowy forces beyond our perception are really in charge of steering the most powerful country in the world is reinforced every time a bipartisan "trade" deal with little or no support gets jammed through Congress.

Ultimately, though, the answer to the question "What is the NAU?" is this: It is absolutely nothing. The NAU exists only as a proposal contained in one of a thousand academic and/or wonky papers published each year that advocate all manner of idealistic but ultimately unrealistic approaches to social, economic and political problems. Most of these get passed around in their own circles and eventually filed away and forgotten by junior staffers in congressional offices. Some of these papers, however, become touchstones for the conspiracy-minded and form the basis of all kinds of unfounded fears.

Such is the case with the monograph, "Building a North American Community," which was produced by a group of eggheads at the Council on Foreign Relations and their counterparts in Mexico and Canada. It calls for a North American economic union to stretch from Canada's northern border to Mexico's southernmost point. It would basically be a customs union -- similar to the old European Community before it became the European Union -- with expedited travel between countries, a single market with standardized external tariffs, etc.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: nau, conspiracism

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
That Mexicamericanadian Flag
Posted by: Swatopluk on Jun 15, 2007 12:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the crowd that finds the ex pluribus unum improper anyway (untainted WASP rule being the only thing they consider appropriate) I proposed this new flag some time ago
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/45/neoamiadler1c3nj.jpg
(left wing may be amputated ;-) ).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Do check it out ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Check out the actual documents Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» You forgot somethings Posted by: sausage
Neither the CFR nor the Trilateral members are in the government...
Posted by: brunowe on Jun 15, 2007 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...therefore it can't be a government cabal.

Do I get the red star?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» another conspiracy theory???? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: another conspiracy theory???? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Josh... debunk THIS! Posted by: Fog
» RE: Josh... debunk THIS! Posted by: yellow
» RE: That Mexicamericanadian Flag Posted by: gracefounddog
THE REAL STORY ABOUT THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION (FACT-BASED)
Posted by: chamela on Jun 15, 2007 12:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This email is going to a few people…there is much debate about whether the North American Union (NAU) exists or not. Robert Pastor, the “father” of the NAU, is a real man. You can even read one of his articles in Newsweek -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/ 11904430/site/newsweek/ -- if that’s comforting in any way.



This is the hard evidence that exists, regarding the plan for a NAU. Many links are included that lead to detailed documents --



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context= viewArticle&code=VIV20061220&articleId=4216



and also



http://www.humanevents.com/ article.php?id=16189



Author Jerome Corsi writes:

“Critics who argue that the NAU is a “conspiracy theory” are well advised to take a hard look at Robert Pastor. With U.S. policy toward Latin America, Dr. Pastor first approached the issue in writing (for the radical IPS, as we have noted), next as a university professor, and finally as a government official. Had John Kerry won the 2004 presidential election, Robert Pastor most likely would have emerged with a government position from which he could have pursued his NAU agenda. Given the re-election of George Bush, Dr. Pastor has surfaced within the CFR, an influential “think-tank” NGO whose history of impacting U.S. policy would suggest the CFR impact on SPP.gov could easily be more than academic.”



Testimony of Robert Pastor, to a Canadian government agency for foreign affairs (see http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/ pdfs/PastorTestimonyCanada.pdf ) --

The tragedy of September 11th reminded us of our shared vulnerability. It also provided us with three distinct sets of choices on how we might respond. Each of the three countries of North America could choose to defend itself by retreating behind a fortress of tighter security and more barriers at the borders. This path would offer only a false sense of security, and it would reverse the remarkable progress made in the last decade in expanding trade and investment. More importantly, it would diminish the standard of living of all three countries. A second option is to act as we always have - handle one problem, one country at a time. This is the most likely course, but it is flawed, for reasons I will describe below. The third path is to lift NAFTA to a new level of cooperation. That is the direction I hope this Committee will take us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perhaps the wrong conspiracy?
Posted by: aleef on Jun 15, 2007 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Canada, some people fear that Canada is being absorbed into the USA, and eventually Canada will cease to exist while the USA lives on even bigger and stronger.

Here is an example: The Plan to Disappear Canada

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Perhaps the wrong conspiracy? Posted by: northerner
the american way of life
Posted by: richholland on Jun 15, 2007 1:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in Asia many people think America wants to guide them into the American way of life and then control them.

in Europe we found that the American way of life destroys the community feelings and the family life.

The cars, tv, dishwahsers etc. didnt give more time for happiness.

So all over the world the same pattern.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes and no ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
Not a very convincing argument at all. Why even publish this?
Posted by: Rune on Jun 15, 2007 1:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're supposed to disbelieve the people pushing this theory because they believe that globalization is eroding the economic prosperity of average Americans and the Democrats cut a similar backroom deal with the devil that the Republicans did when they controlled Congress?

Hello! I think it is reasonably clear to everyone that the Democrats have turned on their base and are pursuing more or less the same policies that are opposed by the majority of Americans--such as the "war on anything that moves" and the occupation of Iraq--so it isn't exactly a seal of good housekeeping that the Democrats are in on whatever the Republicans were accused of. And more and more of those Americans who once championed the brand of globalization much of the world is now rebelling against, are questioning it themselves as they have a second look at the very roots of the theory that led them to embrace such policies in the first place.

This is not to say there is any credence to the rumors of an emerging North American Union, but the flimsy means of attempting to discredit the backers of the theory, rather than dealing with the substance of the claims themselves, certainly is not impressing or convincing me.

If we're not going to waste time and space with the latest nonsense about Paris Hilton, could we at least have something substantially more insightful and rigorously researched and presented instead? Debunking a conspiracy theory with bunk at a time when more and more credible conspiracies are being revealed by Congressional hearings and the piecing together of older published information from official sources does not really get us too far beyond the fluffy, fuzzy thinking (or not thinking, as the case may be) that the author and I find so unworthy of AlterNet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Rebuttal - Part I Posted by: Rune
» Rebuttal - Part II Posted by: Rune
» Can you say PROPAGANDA... Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
College professors running the world?
Posted by: HeroesAll on Jun 15, 2007 2:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the world is actually run by tweed-jacketed college professors

This is my favourite line from the whole week. Anyone who thinks that academics are elite/powerful/sinister/whatever clearly knows very few college professors.

If those jackets were corduroy, now, that'd be a whole different thing...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
Conspiracies exist within class interests, but do not substitute them
Posted by: Perfectclue on Jun 15, 2007 3:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember the conspiracies of the black unifomred international forces?? This right wing theory is just another variant opposed to internationalism, because it comes up against the class nationalist thugs of Amerikan Nazis. The problem here, is that they do not even admit either the ideological and economic character of Amerikanism, Capitalist, and Corporate, so they stumble over substiute theories, Conspiracy theories, once class nationalists, have transformed themselves into international, corporate thugs, instead of national corporate thugs.

Of course like Hitler, this major class component, is hidden, and instead is replaced with some nebulous left, international, liberal, or socialist label, in the same way Hitler used "socialism", like Bush uses "Democracy" to hide behind for corporate fascism, on a global level. Once again folks, the failure to take class into account, and substitute all kinds of secondary explanations leads to this ideological rot. Yes, the elites can conspire war crimes, economic strategies, but always within the openly ideological class interests, servility to oligarchy, and global corporate fascism. I am not ruling out conspiracies, just placing them within the broader context of class rule, not some non-existent form of scapegoats, the jews, the immigrants, the ragheads, the commies, the gooks, but real global classes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bingo. Posted by: Coleman
Better check your facts, Josh ...
Posted by: ljsullivan1166@earthlink.net on Jun 15, 2007 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's Josh back in action in his favorite role as 'debunker' -- it's so much easier than actually digging up the facts.

I saw the story about the North American Union and the Superhighway in September 2006 on the White House website. Quite a lengthy article. It wasn't there the last time I checked, however. Maybe someone -- Josh? -- told Dubya it's only a 'conspiracy theory'.

Then in the month of August 2006 there were hearings all across Texas, ostensibly to inform the ranchers whose land was going to be taken -- no doubt by eminent domain, now that the Supreme Court has made it so easy -- and to get their comments; that's what hearings are supposed to be for. Of course, any comments would be ignored; that's how this government operates these days.

As I understand it, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a 90-page document written by Paul Wolfowitz, has things to say about this. The document is available on the Internet; I haven't read it yet, so will just mention that in passing.

However, then there's the film featuring Connie Fogal, head of the Canadian Action Party, available on Google video (I hope it's still available), with what she knows about this.

There really is an abundance of material out there if anyone is interested in knowing the truth -- just as there is about the government cover-up of 9/11. But the only people who REALLY know are those who take off the blinders, pull their heads out of their ... navels, and take an open-minded look at the evidence. That doesn't seem to be a popular option in America these days. And no wonder. The truth is scary as hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't know about Mexico...
Posted by: medstudgeek on Jun 15, 2007 4:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I'd sure love it if we united with Canada!

Understandably the Canadians aren't so hot on the idea...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NAU. GATT NAFTA. CAFTA. WTO = Globalism
Posted by: Persephone8 on Jun 15, 2007 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is amazing.
Why is the momentum behind NAU any less probable
than the formation of the EU ? The EU is real, isn't it?

This has to do with unified currencies, trade laws and the
"harmonization" of cultures and political systems that dismantle Constitutional protection.
America has had individual rights for the citizens of this
country, sovereignty without the intrusion of its government. NAU, GATT NAFTA, CAFTA and other communist-fascist agendas give
protections to governments and international corporations.
at the expense of individual citizens.Just look at the track record of ine international pharmaceutical industry and other global corps . If the environment,and resources can be ravaged at will with no accountability-because there are no laws to hold these entities accountable - then what? Welcome to globalization.
What do you think it means when an internatiional corporation, like Monsanto patents the genetic codes in seeds. They are basically saying ( I believe) - that they own
the genetic info in something that evolved in nature.
This means that seeds no longer belong to the life- death cycle of nature. They "belong" to a global corp that had think tanks and lawyers incorporate for their benefit something
that belongs to life and everyone.
How about privatizing the water or the air waves?
Isn't a large picture starting to emerge here?
The death and chaos being caused is staggering. Many of the trade laws protect them. Initiating an anti-trust law suit would no longer apply since The Constitution, Bill of Rights and our unalienable rights would no longer apply under international law. This is happening real time.

This has nothing to do with "conspiracy theories". Bush has been pushing for a prosperity initiative that would harmonize the laws of America, Canada and Mexico.

It would dismantle the Constitution, Bill of Rights and our
unalienable rights and Sovereignty by flat lining laws
via inernational trade agreements. Once laws are "harmonized"- Disputes would be (allegedly) decided
in international courts and international tribunals (Think U.N.
IMF, World Bank style "Justice" )
U. S citizens will no longer have a Constitution that protects us. Do you think Bush's war on civil liberties, Habeus Corpus The Consitution and Bill of Rights is random?
Tony Blair has been dismanteling the Constitution is England.( See European Constituion vs. British Sovereignty:Bruce Bartlett: www.capmag.com) There are MANY artcles and much info out there.

This is a well orchestrated plan to harmonize the laws of America with countries that have historically been socialist, communist or had totalitarian dictatorships.


If writers, politicians and bloggers refuse to see this- or want the successful outcome of fascist agendas that strip
individuals of their sovereignty - it does not make dissenters conspiracy theorists. It may , however, create a global police state and slave class.
Just because it is a "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean it isn't true.
If people who have the most to gain from the passage of
these agreements cannot debate these issues openly, without making others "crazy" or wrong- maybe they have something to hide.

Where there's smoke- there's fire. You don't have to believe me, according to this article- I'm just a conspiracy theorist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NAU. GATT NAFTA. CAFTA. WTO = Globalism Posted by: ljsullivan1166@earthlink.net
Replacing Power
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jun 15, 2007 5:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It had to be an Urban Legend.

Who in their right mind would believe that the most 'powerful nation on Earth' would allow a few elites to replace the the PNAC with a consortium that would include two 'inferior' nations. That would be absurd. The corporations that drive the military-industrial complex have no interest in giving up the extreme power and control they already have and have purchased from politicians inside our own country.

The PNAC has already done an excellent job of taking over our country. They don't need to have it changing hands again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The World According To Josh
Posted by: dlf on Jun 15, 2007 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet has become a place I go to not for information, but for entertainment. This article is a perfect example of what has become Josh's subjective writting. If Josh thinks something is xenophobic, racist, or whatever, we should all bow down at the alter of Josh. I think when you claim something comes from the John Birch society you should offer unadulterated proof. Apparently ALTERnet doesn't think so. This site has become increasingly divisive because, certain contributors can't make a point without attempting to smear anyone who might think differently. This approach is what has made our current political system unworkable. And it appears that the real purpose is to drive a wedge between those on the left and right who may have common ground.

I find it deceitful to write about Swiftboaters when the majority of one's pieces are awash in the same tactics. The arrogance it takes to believe that no one is wise enough to see through such deception is disturbing. I believe he continues to get space here because he is a lightening rob. But, so are some of the more venemous and racist posters here and they don't get a byline. Lastly I want to say that Mr. Holland loves to call people racist, which I find hilarious because, he has never engaged the Blacks on this line in a way that says he respects our opinion on matters of race. At least not the Blacks who are unwilling to bow to his superiority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: The World According To Josh
Posted by: yellow on Jun 15, 2007 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DIF,

I don't think that you understand Josh's use of the term racist. He means the encouragement of xenophobia by right-wing populists who use nativist rhetoric in order to confuse people about the nature of globalization. The point is not to slam foreigners in the same predicament as we are but to reach an understanding about the class nature of globalization and work out a common agenda to fight the debilitating effects on the working and middle classes everywhere.

So long as you hold right wing populist beliefs out of an unwillingness or inability to understand the real complexity of the world you can't blame people like Josh for unintentionally insulting you and your friends. Josh didn't mean to do so. Right-wing populism is a purile and dangerous belief system based on the inability to understand anything but palpable phenomena like people acting directly as a group of conspiritors. This is not how things work. The world around you and the social systems it consists of are complex. Furthermore, Josh never said all conspiricy theories come from the John Birch Society but that many of these theories resemble those of the JBS because of the latter's attachment to conspiricy.

Let me tell you something DIF and get it through your head. Conspiricy mongering is dangerous, ignorant, and bigoted. It is the refuge of the small minded and the intellectually backward. If this describes you than change!! It's shameful and no way to go through life!!

Also, you don't really know Josh at all!! He is one of the finer and more informed and clear headed writers and hasn't an ounce of racism in his bones. Don't hate him because his writing inadvertantly flies in the face of your attitudes. You are completely unfair and I also notice that you really don't give any specifics about what you mean. He hasn't said anything racist at all. I also don't know what you mean't by calling him a lightening rod (which you misspelled) but I hope it's not some kind of hateful insinuation. Finally, I don't think you should post something out of a knee jerk emotional reaction to someone personally without first thinking clearly about what you're saying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Media" for sale? Posted by: chamela
» RE: The NAU According To Josh's Info Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: The World According To Josh Posted by: Joshua Holland
» " mean't " vs. " rob " Posted by: illit
» "Subjective" is right... I mean LEFT Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Um...
Posted by: chuckville on Jun 15, 2007 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wasn't aware this needed "debunking."

Kinda scraping the bottom of the barrel now, eh Joshua?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Um... Posted by: smendler
Dear Joshua Holland: Are You a Left Gatekeeper?
Posted by: freethink7 on Jun 15, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all due respect lately in your AlterNet articles, Joshua you are sounding more and more like the mainstream propaganda news.

Joshua: read this article…..Premeditated Merger North American Union Plan Headed to Congress in fall - Powerful Think tank Prepares report on benefits of integration between U.S., Mexico, Canada. Also read: Stop the North American Union website. Why in the world would our own government officials want to sacrifice our country’s sovereignty? One world government – that’s what all this globalization/globalism/global economy c#*p is about.

“google-schmoogle’ NAU and you will get approximately 80 million hits (some actually have some validity).

Information regarding the N.A.U. is even posted on the U.S.gov website in an audacious - unethical manner.

NAUPremeditated
StopNAU
google-schmoogle: NAU

p.s. Joshua: Also: 9/11 was an inside job!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ? - Not at all and Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: ? - Not at all and Posted by: Joshua Holland
» cool! Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: cool! Posted by: Joshua Holland
Mr.Holland defence of Republicans (and Democrats) is getting tiring.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jun 15, 2007 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not a few years ago you were called a 'nut' if you even mentioned the CFR, much less Bilderberger, now they are mentioned in mainstream news articles and apologists, like Mr.Holland, must denigrate them as "egg heads". Look at the membership of the CFR (or Bilderberger) and tell me that they are just "egghead" academics with no influence!

Remember the EU started as a simple coal&steel treaty between, mainly, France&Germany. Now all rules are made by unelected bureacrats in Brussels, Luxembourg, and Strasbourg and one holds an 'EU' passport. Likewise the NAU has started with various, 'simple' trade agreements: NAFTA, CAFTA, SPP, etc. Notice things like SPP are managed/agreed upon without ANY voter input? I thought treaties needed to be approved. Now we have simple 'egg heads' signing treaties and making agreements for us? What kind of 'progressive', or anybody who believes in some kind of democratic, republican form of government, like secret treaties and groups of unelected 'egg heads' making decisions for us?

Note that one thing Holland get correct. The NAU aggrandisement is more 'market based' then the one used in Europe. This is simple tactics, the overall strategy is the same (central control over larger area, less civil rights, free movement of capital, etc) but 'American' people believe more in the 'market' and so this is being used. Whereas in Europe they used more 'progressive' ideals to implement their plan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another link
Posted by: riley on Jun 15, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've just scanned what has been written here, and I'm still thinking about it. I just ran across this article about "Atlantica" and thought some of you might be interested in reading and commenting on it:
http://coanews.org/tiki-print_article.php?articleId=1922
A protest is supposed to be going on in Halifax from June 11-16. Right now, in other words. Maybe it's time to check out the Canadian news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's more than just a proposal, dumbass!
Posted by: amphead on Jun 15, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"What is the NAU?" is this: It is absolutely nothing. The NAU exists only as a proposal..."

Well, your nothing but a proposal is about to displace a million people here in Texas. I know the liberal elite could care less about Texas. We progressives here are simply written off as done for. The Trans -Texas Highway, which would be part of the new highway system from Canada to Mexico, would be getting underway soon if the Texas legislature hadn't put a sort of moratorium on it for 2 years. But Gov "Good Hair" Perry is looking for an end-around as I write. The asphalt plant planned to be built in my county to supply the highway is not nothing. Along with a coal powered energy plant for good measure. I don't give a fuck if it's a conspiracy or not, if I've got a 12 lane highway/railway through my back yard (if not directly over my property). No one in the liberal press seems to give a shit about that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I hate to even ask ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
Guilt by association fallacy is frequently used by apologst Mr.Holland.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jun 15, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However it is not logically accurate but an effective means to denigrate someone else's argument or position. You see if you believe in the CFR, SPP, or NAU you are the same as the "John Birchers". Well the "Birchers" are nut cases and racists, so I'd better not believe in NAU, SPP, or the CFR! Similiar to his campaign linking the enforcement of laws against illegal immigration to the KKK. By his tortured logic if the "Birchers", or indeed the KKK, also thought that 1+1=2 then it must not be so, because they are racist or wrong in their other beliefs and therefore wrong on simple maths also! Absurd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The first I've heard of this
Posted by: EinMD on Jun 15, 2007 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But honestly with all the damage that has been done to this country by the right wing, the Bush administration, religious fanatics ( and the Congress and Lefties that allowed them to do all this damage unchecked). I could actually see this happening. Eventually China's going to want all that money it's lending us to destroy Iraq back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE STORY ABOUT CFR & THE PLAN FOR ONE WORLD GOVERMENT
Posted by: chamela on Jun 15, 2007 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the 2008 presidential candidates are backed by the money of David Rockefeller and other like-minded individuals in one way or another, and that money is being spent for the purpose of pushing forward the agenda for One World Government, which will greatly benefit international corporations.

All of these candidates are members of Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which advocates One World Government --

Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson

A great source for "insider" information about the plan for One World Government, as organized by David Rockefeller and his private thinktank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is Daniel Estulin's web site --
http://www.danielestulin.com/?op=noticias&idioma=en

You will also find documentation that demonstrates that David Rockefeller has purchased controlling stakes in NBC, CBS, and ABC in an effort to control the flow of information in the media.

"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established."
- Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton

"Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of (the) CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition."
- Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy

"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government."
- Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy

Also, if you haven't seen it -- the documentary "SPIN," which will blow your mind!!!
http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/spin/spin.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]