CFR documents on the North American Union
- Thread starter jmdrake
- Start date
Oliver
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 2,236
And? Don't you see that the Constitution is the reason for all
your anger towards the US-Government we know today?
The constitution didn't protect you from ending up where we
are. So the interpretational level of the constitution itself may
be flawed - being written in a time without planes, internet,
Globalization, TV etc...
So even if I support Ron's stance on traditional values, I blame
the Constitution for today's America since it didn't prevent what
the Forefathers probably intended - but we're seeing today
nevertheless...
gilliganscorner
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 675
You have to recognize the difference between the people wanting to communicate face to face vs. virtual contact.
Your argument could apply to the proliferation of the telephone in the 20th century. It allows us to talk globally with anyone in the world. I am sure that once it began appearing ubiquitously in all different countries, there were other people who saw it as a mechanism for erode people's concept of nationalism. That didn't happen. The heart of nationality still beats strongly in most people. In fact, it is a tenant of the RP campaign - a message that is resonating very strongly with alot of people.
Most people (unless you are neurotic) make a clear distinction between virtual and physical reality. And they like it that way. As soon as you and I stop conversing on this thread, we may or may not cross paths again. Neither you nor I care.
The internet won't make us neighbors.
Wrong. The Internet allows for the promotion of the seedier sides of us without physically being held accountable for what they say. For example, white supremacy sites, anti-muslim sites, and other forms of ugly collectivisms. Just like birds of a feather flock together in real-life, they will flock together on the web. People will always find ways to hate each other - virtually or physically.
That's because they left home. Home didn't leave them - or taken from them. If that happened, imagine how that would have invoked nationalistic tendencies. There would have been blood all over the battlefield.
Agreed. I do see the concept of world cropping up primarily in charities, but that is a voluntary basis. However, the gist of your point is not lost. Can you imagine a world government? And you think that your national government is not accountable to you now ... can you imagine a World government? A world taxing authority, a World banking system, a world military, one currency we all used that can be debased continuously? Hey, wait a minute. We're almost there! ... Stupid CFR.
You've interpreted this incorrectly. "Without limitations" means that he does not support the idea of censorship and centralizing control on it, not dissolving national borders or embracing the NAU, or a world government.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,940
That's a straw man argument and totally illogical. The CFR is a think tank. They don't make policy they advise on it. Now go and do your own research. Read these CFR "opinions" compare them to the official documents at SPP.gov and get back with us. 2 + 2 still equals 4. If think tank A proposes policy B and government agent C enacts policy B but calls it something else it's still policy B. The Bush administration is enacting the North American Union, they are just calling it something else to throw off the completely gullible.
Regards,
John M. Drake
pcosmar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 54,940
You are entirely and completely Wrong.
If we had followed the Constitution we would not have many of our present problems.
That is why WE are promoting Ron Paul.
He is the First Leader in many years that respects the Constitution.
The downward spiral started in the early 1900s, before I was born. The CFR started at about that same time.
We are trying to return to the Laws that founded this country.
I was not a problem with the Constitution, It was the failure to follow the Constitution that has caused problems.
gilliganscorner
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 675
That's because the people we elected to uphold the Constitution well, er, didn't. And we as the people, did not maintain eternal vigilance to ensure they did. These days, to get people to stop protesting, throw them an iPod - they have been trained from the cradle to the grave to be mindless consumers. Our school systems teach nothing of monetary theory - just prepare you to be a trained seal and launch you into the workforce. Our media is pretty much useless other than being primarily infomercials and act to bring the audience to the advertisor and nothing more - why do a report on how the inflation tax works, when it is easier to report Britney breaking a fingernail? Critical thinking is by and large dead.
You are wrong about assuming "what the Forefathers probably intended". The forefathers wanted a republic = decentralizing power of government towards more local government = more accountability of local government to the local people = anti-globalization.
It is alot easier to lynch your local politician when he lives in your district than fly to Washington to plead your case - assuming you are allowed on the government property of course.
Last edited:
lucius
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 3,347
Nice self-assessment Oliver:
The Pentagon’s Information Operations Roadmap now describes the Internet as an enemy “weapons system.” The Pentagon doesn’t hide the fact that they want total control over information, or as they call it “information dominance.” They very plainly state that they seek to “control land, sea, space and information.” This is what they refer to as “full spectrum dominance.” If you don’t think they see this as a top priority, look at Iraq. The plan to “embed” journalists with the military in Iraq was a strategic operation that considered “journalism as part of psychological operations.” The journalists that weren’t “embedded” were considered “enemy combatants.” More journalists have been killed in Iraq than in any other war, and it is the US doing a large portion of the killing.
Read it off their website, JOINT VISION 2020: http://www.dtic.mil/jointvision/jvpub2.htm
The inclusion of information on the list is not surprising, but it has not attracted much attention in public debate even in the anti war movement. The question is how central is information? The US Army regards it as important enough to issue a 314 page manual on it in November 2003. Titled Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, the first sentence states unambiguously: ‘information is an element of combat power’. The Army defines Information Operations as: ‘the employment of the core capabilities of electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to affect or defend information and information systems, and to influence decision making’.
Headquarters, Department of the Army (2003) Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, November, FM 3-13(FM 100-6), piii.
Spin this if you can...
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,940
It's funny that you've shifted from "The North American Union is just a conspiracy theory" to "it's a good idea after all".
Anyway here's the difference between the Internet and the North American Union. One is about freedom, the other is about control. The Internet is largely SELF organizing. The NAU is by its very nature organized by big government. If individuals in Mexico, the U.S. and Canada all decided they wanted to work together more I'd have no problem with that. But governments doing this without consent of the governed is the problem! Hey, let's say if someone comes up with the "eAmero" just like people have come up with "eGold". As long as that's individual people or groups doing it without the force of government behind it there's nothing wrong.
You live in Europe. Are you aware that the European Union is now trying to SNEAK an EU constitution through? The people have spoken. THEY DON'T WANT IT! I don't know why you choose to ignore THAT bit of recent "history".
And yes, there is historical precedent for global empire or people trying to establish global empire through force and/or stealth. Babylon, Meda Persia, Greece, Rome, Napolean, Hitler, Stalin etc. We're all quite aware of history.
Regards,
John M. Drake
gilliganscorner
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 675
Nice self-assessment Oliver:
The Pentagon’s Information Operations Roadmap now describes the Internet as an enemy “weapons system.” The Pentagon doesn’t hide the fact that they want total control over information, or as they call it “information dominance.” They very plainly state that they seek to “control land, sea, space and information.” This is what they refer to as “full spectrum dominance.” If you don’t think they see this as a top priority, look at Iraq. The plan to “embed” journalists with the military in Iraq was a strategic operation that considered “journalism as part of psychological operations.” The journalists that weren’t “embedded” were considered “enemy combatants.” More journalists have been killed in Iraq than in any other war, and it is the US doing a large portion of the killing.
Read it off their website, JOINT VISION 2020: http://www.dtic.mil/jointvision/jvpub2.htm
The inclusion of information on the list is not surprising, but it has not attracted much attention in public debate even in the anti war movement. The question is how central is information? The US Army regards it as important enough to issue a 314 page manual on it in November 2003. Titled Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, the first sentence states unambiguously: ‘information is an element of combat power’. The Army defines Information Operations as: ‘the employment of the core capabilities of electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to affect or defend information and information systems, and to influence decision making’.
Headquarters, Department of the Army (2003) Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, November, FM 3-13(FM 100-6), piii.
Spin this if you can...
Awesome post, lucious. Thanks!
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,940
Ah. So the truth comes out. You don't support the constitution which means you really don't support Ron Paul.
Tell me this. What do planes have to do with the bill of rights? What part of the constitution prevents you from flying on an airplane? What part of the constitution prevents you from expressing yourself on the Internet? I would argue that in FACT it is the constitution that HELPED many of these things to come about! It's no accident that America has been one of the most innovative countries in the world. Our respect for private property and personal freedom is what has helped drive innovation. Do you think an internet could have been invented in communist China? Do you think they would have opened it up to masses of people? China spends most of its innovative resources looking for ways to BLOCK the Internet! I'm certain Ron Paul forums have a hard time getting through the "great firewall of China".
Ron Paul's chief "traditional values" are the freedoms outlined in the constitution. People should have the right to petition their government, to assemble (on the Internet or in person), to freedom of religion and of the press. If you don't support those values then you don't support Ron Paul's values.
Regards,
John M. Drake
Oliver
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 2,236
I support Ron Paul on many issues:
A. The War
B. Blowbacks
C. Diplomacy
D. Truth about real and fictional threats
I oppose him on:
E. Second Amendment (In Germany I don't care)
F. NAFTA (Same thing, doesn't bother me as non US-Citizen)
In any way. It would be more than nice if people would stick
to Ron's stance on the constitution. As far I see it, politicians
interpret it all they want.
That's a flaw of the Constitution's interpretational wording itself,
I realistically assume.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,940
I'm curious. If you "don't care" about the second amendment or NAFTA because you are a non citizen then why do you "oppose" those positions? That makes no sense. Thinks that I don't care about I don't "oppose". Anyway, are you ready to bring Turkey into the European Union? Are you ready to endorse the EU constitution even though voters in two different countries rejected it back in 2005?
As far as the constitution being "interpretational" that's true of most complex documents. Bu there are some things that are "self evident". The problem is that most Americans (sadly) haven't read the constitution and so they don't recognize gross deviations from it when they see it. Case in point the huff over Cynthia McKinney "striking" a capitol police officer. (She didn't actually hit him. She just knocked his hand away). The constitution specifically forbids police from bothering congressmen on their way to and from sessions. But most Americans can name all Simpson characters than they can name even the five fundamental freedoms listed in the first amendment.
Regards,
John M. Drake
Last edited:
Oliver
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 2,236
I know about Turkey's attempts and I know that Germany and
their European Friend oppose major parts about Turkeys
interpretation on "equality of rights".
I read the EU-Constitution and from my layman perspective, it
isn't a threat to me from what I read. But maybe a lawyer thinks
otherwise about it. So far, the German media failed to point
out the threats to my personal freedoms. So yes, I probably
should investigate this topic more often.
Concerning Constitution:
While I disagree with US-Foreign policies that are far more
aggressive than necessary, of course I like Ron's stance about
it and the true things he says in general about the rest of the
world.
After all - and from what I see in the US-Media: America itself
is a pretty intolerant Nation concerning the world outside.
The Media doesn't tell both sides - nor does the education
criticize some major American History. The main-focus always
is:
Patriotism.
And that's a lie from a Non-American point of view.
Now concerning second amendment and constitution in
general.
The second amendment doesn't concern me that much, I never
had this right, I don't miss it, I don't see how it protected
you in any way from the government you have today.
It didn't protect you.
Which leads me to the Constitution: We don't know what
the Forefathers intended about Internet, Globalization,
Computer Warfare and all the other things that did not
exist back then.
This leads me to the conclusion - and the decisions
in congress prove my point - that the Constitution is
literally "interpretational".
That's a pretty weak point for a constitution, isn't it?
You can stick to old values all you want - but as soon
a constitution is "interpretational", it loses it's intention.
And yes, the Neocons (for example) know how to use those
lacks within the constitution for their own purposes. So
I'm unsure if the Constitution is the solution for all the
misuse we see today.
Last edited:
Well we all know that the CFR think-tank/group pushes for these types of things, otherwise they wouldn't hedge for these ideas in there talking points, articles and meetings.
The CFR is a think-tank that hedges for globalism. Just as neocon think tanks ran by irving kristol hedged for war in Iraq and Israel expanding in the middle east.
These groups' globalist ideals go against everything the Constitution and the united state's national sovereigntry stand for.
Last edited:
Don't forget that many countries didn't get to even have a vote on it. Otherwise it would have been struck down. They bipassed the people in some countries regarding the EU.
Also, England wanted to vote on it but tony blair didn't give them a chance. It would be struck down and never seen again if they ever do get the chance to vote.
It doesn't matter what you support or don't support over here. You are irrelevant. You aren't a U.S. citizen.
I'm just checking in again to correct a few things. The Constitution is not "interpretational" the way that most people think it is. The rule of law is based on the fact that the law is the intent of the lawmaker. This applies to the Constitution, because it is a set of laws. Laws don't change simply because some people choose to ignore the original intent. Under the the Constitution, there was a procedure for changing its laws which I'm sure you've heard of - it's called the amendment process. The bastardization and "interpretation" of the Constitution was kicked off in the 19th century by our Supreme Court and has been continued by legislators and Presidents in an insidious serious of poor decisions and illegal laws.
Let me explain. Between 1789 and the mid 1800's, the Supreme Court made most of their decisions by citing the Constitution, comments made by the framers during the Constitutional Convention, and the Federalist Papers, which were written by the framers to explain the meaning of the Constitution. The justices never philosophized or explained any more than they had to in order to give a proper decision about the case at hand. It was very simple.
In the mid-1800s, as the composition of the court began to change and became much more self-absorbed and proud, and the justices began to write lengthy decisions full of unnecessary language that could later be used as precedent. The prime example of this is decisions they wrote based on the Fourteenth Amendment. A little history - the Fourteenth Amendment was more or less thrust on the country by a group of northern Republicans after the Civil War to punish the South. Some people say it was intended to secure the rights of former slaves, but it was rarely used in that context. Many historians consider it to be an illegal amendment because the northern Republicans could only get enough states to ratify it by coercively forcing the hand of Southern states under military occupation and as a condition for re-entering the Union. In other words, in their total tally they counted states that had initially rejected the Amendment but were forced to accept it. This is an arguably illegal process but, as you know, in times of war and shortly thereafter, many illegal things slip through the cracks (Patriot Act, cough cough).
Most of the Fourteenth Amendment is a restatement of the Fourth Amendment, but many additions were made of course. A seemingly small and harmless addition was "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Supposedly, "equal protection" was meant to protect former slaves. However, they were already protected under the Thirteenth Amendment because it abolished slavery, thus former slaves were supposed to be protected under the Constitution like everyone else. So why restate it? The due process clause already appeared in the Fifth Amendment. Again, why restate it? Because it was a careless, illegal amendment pushed through to punish the South. There's no evidence in the record of the legislative process or the amendment itself to suggest that States must abide by Federal due process rules -- but that is exactly the way it was used by the Supreme Court. Before this, States had their own due process rules for different crimes and could apply them as long as they were consistent from case to case. But after the Fourteenth Amendment, the Federal Courts started to overflow with allegations of violation of due process by States, asking for Federal due process to be applied to State cases where it had never legally been applied before.
In the Slaughter House cases of 1873, among others, the Supreme Court rejected this logic. Finally, in Lochner vs. New York, a Supreme Court case in 1905, the court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment basically made everything into a Federal case, and so it overturned a New York state law regulating working hours in bakeries. Basically, the court passed judgment on an alleged "due process" violation, but went above and beyond that to pass judgment on social and economic conditions. It is now an accepted practice for the Supreme Court to render such decisions, and it is based on precedent set under an illegal amendment.
That opened the flood gates, and now people expect the Federal Government to make everything fair. First, it was "equal opportunity" laws. Now, with No Child Left Behind, it's "equal outcome" laws. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to equal opportunity or fairness, but I am opposed to the Federal Government shoving it down my throat. These are only a few examples among thousands or more. Many things the Government is doing today are completely illegal, but these changes have occurred over such a long time period that most people forget, and it's in the interest of those in power to not rock the boat. Just like these changes have occurred in an evolutionary manner over several generations, the sure and steady march towards an illegal North American "Community" is happening right now.
Let me summarize: Is the Constitution interpretable? Yes, to some extent. Hell, it's even amendable. Is it always interpreted in a legal manner? No. Laws never lose their original intent. If one court "interprets" a law in a manner inconsistent with original intent, it is a subsequent court's job to overturn that decision because it is an illegal decision. Interpretation can't change laws.
I'm sorry, I know this post is mostly off-topic but I am trying to illustrate for Oliver why the "it's an interpretable document" argument is completely wrong. Being German, I don't suppose he's had that many American History classes.
You can go back to your discussion about the CFR
But history already has decided it. Anytime the "known world" has been conquered under 1 purpose, laws are enacted for the "people's protection" and supreme power is put into the hands of a circle of men to decide the fate of all, then it's just a matter of time. Men grow old, men die, new leaders come that don't remember the friends of their fathers nor hold their ideas and then dictators rise.
It happened in every great global empire throughout the history of mankind and within even recent times, there are leaders who create their "own worlds" within countries and see what they do? In Stalin's little world sure he built an empire a huge global machine within it's own little world, how well were the people treated? In Hitler's little world, how well were the people treated? In Kim Jong's little world, how well are they treated? Mugabe's little kingdom?
The Roman Empire was setup as a very good thing and sure they advanced many things and their power grew. But with advancement comes spoiled little brats with mental issues that grow up and have further mutated children as those in power continue to cross breed so they "keep it in the family" and their children rise to power, the latest twice as wacked as the former, with twice as much power.
It's just a matter of time...
I can see your point on the Constitution but you can't blame the Constitution but rather the people's empathy to make choices: a new car and a fat loan from the makers vs. bite the hand that feeds you and "take America back" which choice do we make?? Well, at this time of year just go on down to the mall and see what choice we make, it's really simple.
These men come in under a "free republic" and use the open market, no they aren't directly involved with the government, they are part of free trade. But they then use everyone's natural protection of free trade when they are threatened and then cling to the Constitution they so very much violate. "What are you a commie?!" when you threaten their dealings in any way.
Jefferson said the seeds of our destruction our in the Constitution because hevery much saw the catch-22 paradox that could arise. Free to trade and live, yet it can also be a shield for people who live and trade for our own destruction, and the people will defend them.
No, it's not a conspiracy but rather common sense and just a matter of time.
As for Germany, I have many German friends on the Internet I chat with daily, most are just as concerned about these problems as I am but they too think we Americans are a little conspiracy friendly. But they do understand and agree America needs to change and get back to helping and caring for their own. But it's so hard to do when we have such large establishments who defy our laws and Constitution yet run to it and quote it concerning free trade and rights when they are threatened. Most people here are too busy buying XBOXs and cell phones to really care. A narcissistic society of zombies for the most part, throw them an IPOD and a TV and they'll go along with the devil.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,940
Fair enough. I haven't read the EU constitution either. I'm simply looking at it from the "will of the people" based on those who have had a chance to vote on it. Since it's been roundly rejected twice in popular voting the continued efforts to get it passed (an now by dishonestly calling it something other than a "constitution") seem to be a subversion of democracy. How do you see that?
Intolerant? How so? America is probably one of the most tolerant countries on the planet. Just because most of us don't want to be merged with Mexico and Canada doesn't make us intolerant. It's simple economic sense. From what I recall west Germany's economy suffered after reunification. And you were two countries with a common language and history. There were plenty of non economic reasons for reunification. The only reason given for merger with Canada and Mexico is supposed economic benefits. So why should we want to do this?
Logical fallacy. You really have no reference point for what America would be like WITHOUT the second amendment. We know what happened in Stalinist Russia without it. Same for Hitler's Germany. Your argument is like saying "I was in a wreck and had on my seatbelt and I still broke both of my legs so seatbelts don't protect people."
Anyway, I asked why you OPPOSE the second amendment. Even if we assumed your logical fallacy was correct that still gives no reason to OPPOSE it.
Globalization existed back then. It was just called "empire". Have you never heard the saying "The sun never sets on the British empire"? Globalization may be more efficient now due to faster travel and communications but it always existed.
The internet? Really that's just another way to communicate. The constitutional protection of free speech and the press naturally applies. Anyone can see this. No need for "interpretation". In the 18th century individual speech was the "public square" and the postal service. Broadcast speech was through newspapers and books. In the 21st century individual speech includes email and telephone. Broadcast speech includes television, and websites. Things like blogs and YouTube fall somewhere in between individual and broadcast. All is protected. What you see as a "weakness" those with understanding see as a strength. The constitution is flexible! It's not tied to 18th century ways of communication. It easily covers the 21st century.
Computer warfare? What point are you trying to make? I suppose if we argue about the "right to bear arms" and if things like encryption are considered "munitions" than the 2nd amendment covers that. Certainly there was an effort to restrict Americans from being able to use encryption but it failed.
No. The constitution is flexible. And that's very strong. Have you noticed that palm trees have a good ability to withstand hurricanes? That's because they are flexible.
The same for Damacus steel. It was prized for being strong yet flexible. It could take a beating and still keep its edge.
The intention has not at all been lost. For instance part of the reason you are able to say what you want on this web forum is because the second amendment easily extends to the internet. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for you.
Regards,
John M. Drake
A friend of mine is a contractor of sorts who has worked in and around the U.S. Capitol. He was once led into a conference room in the Capitol and was told it was for use by the Council on Foreign Relations. He had three times the security escort he normally has while in there and one of the guards remarked at how rarely they were ever allowed in.
Is it normal for a non-government entity to have highly secured conference rooms in the U.S. Capitol? Honest question...
Similar threads
