One could expect that Canadians and Mexicans – the weaker partners – would be wary of a North American embrace. There are groups in both countries that express such fears, but the most vociferous have emerged in the United States, and they have attacked the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), first enunciated by the three governments’ leaders in March 2005, as tantamount to treason.
IMMIGRATION AND JOB FEARS
The movement has emerged from the shards of a poisonous immigration debate and the fears of job loss due to globalization. Lou Dobbs of CNN and talk show radio hosts have spoken of SPP as a grand conspiracy for a “North American Union.” They view the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) report, Building a North American Community, as the roadmap to perdition, and the so-called NAFTA super-highway as its main corridor. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was Vice Chair of the CFR study group and am often cited as the “Architect of the North American Union” though I have never proposed it.)
Sadly, the Bush Administration and many Republicans have been intimidated by the criticism. Republican Senator John Cornyn sponsored a bill for a “North American Investment Fund” as the best long-term strategy to narrow the income gap with Mexico, and thus, in the longterm, stop illegal migration. But under assault from the right, Cornyn abandoned his proposal.
Even the U.S. government website on North America (spp.gov) displays an acute defensiveness, denying right-wing charges without bothering to make the case for North American cooperation. Under pressure from the labour unions, the Democratic Presidential candidates are no better, stuck in the NAFTA debate of a decade ago and apparently blind to the new North American agenda.
More at:
http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=1554
Note: http://www.latinbusines...
North American Summit: More Or Less?
Posted on Monday, August 20 at 17:01 by jensonjContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
My suggestion is that we stop supporting political parties as they are the very institutions that are selling Canada down the drain. This fire sale of our country will continue well into the future, unless we tell all political parties to go straight to hell.
We need to start an independent voter movement to work in conjunction with independent candidates, who care about Canada . Time to take the party out of politics and replace it with a serious group of citizens, who want Canada to stand .
Martin was a Liberal and Harper is a Tory ... both have had their head up the ass of the United States administration and it is time we removed them. Need be , then maybe we will have to shut this country down for a day , to get our point across.
Join the COIC and have the guts to start tghinking outside that party box... think to save Canada
---
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
China will make sure we are all posioned and the USA will move in and take over what little is left of this country.
Be sure to buy products from China, hell kill yourself a little faster and oh yes... keep voting for political parties and they will make sure the USA takes control faster too.
---
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
But we have strong fences between our properties, do not dictate, or give orders to each other, when we invite each other for dinner it doesn't mean permanent residence and dinners and we're free to shop, or trade with anybody else, whenever and wherever.
This is called voluntary cooperation and not some academic idiocy like, "competitive equilibrium", which may be very difficult to understand by any "egghead" academic, but this is how freedom and democracy works and not by theories, rules against each other and computer models using preselected programs.
If we want to stay democracies, we must stay independent, free to determine our fates and self sufficient to the greatest degree, but at the same time, help each other to the greatest degree.
Ed Deak, Big lake, BC.
Political parties should be banished from the political sphere because they represent a cabal of elites that will *always* undermine the democratic process. One party means one unified voice, rather than the many voices required for a healthy democracy. When a party assumes power, you end up with a dictatorship, and that's exactly what we have been living with for all these decades.
Banishing political parties definitely won't solve all of our problems, but it'll at least be a step in the right direction.
*Note: Canada is not supposed to be a true democracy a.k.a "the rule of men", it's supposed to be a federation of provinces ruled by laws. When politicians assume power, they find their powers to be highly restricted and limited by our laws, and so they try to undermine those laws, and they try to issue new 'illegal' laws that are advantageous to themselves and their pay masters. That's why Canada is falling apart, because We the People are letting it happen.
However, it's because he feels that if it were just explained better we'd all be for it.
Fat chance.
One thing I do agree with--it's unfortunate that fears over the NAU derailed amnesty for immigrants in the U.S. But that doesn't mean the NAU itself is a great idea--it just means that it's damaging to tie it to racism and anti-immigration sentiment. But it's a different political climate in Canada then the US--in the US there is a huge fear over "illegal immigrants" from Mexico (who Lou Dobbs wrongly believes all have leprosy apparently) while in Canada the concern is that our immigration laws have been made too restrictive by adopting US standards (eg under the Safe Third Country Agreement).
---
Don't want to be an American idiot / One nation controlled by the media / Information age of hysteria / It's calling out to idiot America.--Green Day
<br />
Over the years what we have been taught amounts a fantasy and the reality of how we live and by whose rules we play hasn’t sunk in.<br />
All this bullshit about democracy and freedom don’t mean shit as long as the bank hold mortgages on our lives.<br />
<br />
This is a sample of what we are up against <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070819114205929#comments">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070819114205929#comments</a> <br />
<br />
The political arenas are owned by the banks <br />
There is no escaping this simple fact <br />
Law is owned by the banks.<br />
<a href="http://www.321gold.com/editorials/chuhran/chuhran042604.html">http://www.321gold.com/editorials/chuhran/chuhran042604.html</a> <br />
<br />
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."<br />
Mayer Amschel Rothschild<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GZHZ_enCA232CA232&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Give+me+the+power+to+control+money...%2B+Rothschild&spell=1">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GZHZ_enCA232CA232&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Give+me+the+power+to+control+money...%2B+Rothschild&spell=1</a> <br />
Until the political system is wrest away from those who now own it independent candidates have a snowballs chance in Hell of creating what folks claim they want!<br />
<br />
WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!<br />
<br />
Dudley Do-Right hasn’t a chance against the Money Mafia!<br />
<br />
Factious cartoon people against the rules of the world ? Are you nucking futs <br />
I doubt there is onein ten thousand here that is cognisant of how or when the the subterfuges took place, and in place they are <br />
Get your head around that and THEN design a methodology of how to take your rightful place!<br />
Start here! <a href="http://www.commonlawvenue.com/Glossary/Glossary.htm">http://www.commonlawvenue.com/Glossary/Glossary.htm</a> other wise you are acting out of ignorance !<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />
although I haven't had the tikme to review this I suggesst it be read if only to grasp how ignorant we all are about law and governance<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />