CFR = Dangerous People
Just made this thing up last night inspired by the game Mass Effect. What do you think about it?
I think this is exactly the purpose of this bull**** you are hearing on TV, seeing in the news and being exposed to in the educational system.
It's part of the massive propaganda and it worked on YOU.
Here is something you ought to consider. Only RON PAUL would have had the guts to stop it. Somehow I think that future generations are going to have to rise up and oppose this themselves if they don't want to be absorbed.
If you think this is good, you can KISS FREEDOM GOODBYE.
---
There are significant issues mentioned in Robert A. Pastor's
"North America: A Partial Eclipse and a Future Community" (highlights added):
1) Pastor wrote: "NAFTA became the first draft of a constitution of North America, but
it was defined in very narrow and business-like terms." (p.3)
2) Pastor discusses Canadian, Mexican, and U.S. citizens' opinions about formation of a "North American Union," "one state or a union," "a union in a new North American entity," "continental political union," and "reconfiguration of the North American political system" (see p.13)
3) Written in the endnotes: "In the 1970s, the Carter Administration proposed a number of possible agreements to minimise trade disputes, and Ronald Reagan, during his campaign and his Administration, also proposed a 'North American Accord,' a free trade agreement." (p.15) (Take note that Pastor served with the National Security Council (Carter Presidency) as the Latin American and Caribbean Affairs Director.)
And there is more -- read excerpts below or download pdf:
http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/pdfs/workingpaper5_rp_hussain.pdf
Page 5:
An evaluation of NAFTA should not be confined just to trade and investment criteria or the side agreements. One needs to view NAFTA as the center of a unique social and economic integration process and of an effort to redefine the relationship between advanced countries and a developing one.
The flow of people, cultures, food, music, and sports across the two borders have accelerated even more than the trade in goods and services. . . .
Page 6-7:
Some proponents of NAFTA argued erroneously that free trade would reduce the flow of migrants, but the opposite happened because the development strategy implicit in NAFTA encourages foreign investment near the border, which serves as a magnet to attract labor from the center and the south of Mexico. Surveys suggest that roughly 90 percent of all Mexican illegal migrants leave jobs to come to the United States; they seek higher wages. Illegal migration is unlikely to shrink until the income gap begins to narrow.
Page 7:
It is time to stop debating NAFTA and start addressing North America's new agenda. We need to begin by articulating a vision of a North American Community . . .
Page 8:
North America is different from Europe, but it should learn from the experience, and establish a North American Investment Fund that would invest $20 billion per year for a decade to build roads to connect the south and center of Mexico to the United States. Mexico should provide half of the funds; the U.S., 40%, and Canada, 10%.
The funds should be administered by the World Bank.
[. . .]
To compete against China and India, the three leaders need to help North American businesses to become more efficient by negotiating a Customs Union in five years. This would eliminate costly "rules of origin" procedures and needless inspections, . . .
Page 9:
The three leaders [of Mexico, Canada, U.S.] should hold annual summits, but to make sure the meetings are not just photo-ops, a North American Advisory Council should be established. Unlike Europe's Commision, the Council should be lean, independent, and advisory.
It should prepare the agenda with proposals on North American transportation, the environment, education, and other issues. The Europeans provide about $3 million each year to support 10 EU [European Union] Centers in the U.S., but the three governments of North America provide no support for North American studies anywhere.
Page 12:
In the 1990 world values survey, about one-fourth of the Canadian and Mexican population were in favor of erasing the border with the United States, and nearly half (46 per cent) of Americans favored eliminating the border with Canada. 27 In 2000, a survey of American attitudes found Americans still evenly divided about doing away with the Mexican border. The Mexicans agree with the Americans on this issue. Fifty-five per cent of Mexicans oppose doing away with the border with the United States, and only 36 per cent favor it. 28
Page 13:
When Mexicans, Canadians, or Americans are asked whether they are prepared to give up their cultural identity in order to form one state or a union, all overwhelmingly reject the proposition. But when the question is asked whether they would be prepared to form a single country if that would mean a higher quality of life for their country, a majority of the people in all three countries answer affirmatively. 29
Forty-three per cent of Canadian think it 'would be a good thing to be part of a North American Union in ten years,' and only 27 percent think it would be a bad thing. Moreover, nearly one-half (49 per cent) think North American Union is likely to happen. As with the Mexicans, Canadians are much more willing to contemplate a union in a new North American entity than to be part of the United States. A majority (57 percent) would oppose joining the United States while only 23 percent would consider it.30 When asked whether Canada and the United States should have a common currency, the Canadian public split 45 per cent in favor, and 44 per cent opposed. 31 This suggests that Canadians are much further along than their leaders in thinking about some of the practical, but sensitive, questions of integration.
For the American public, a relatively higher percentage favor continental political union than is true of Mexicans and Canadians. Support for union soars when the contingency options e.g., if that would mean a better quality of life, etc. are included. In 1990, 81 per cent of Americans said they would favor forming one country with Canada if it meant a better quality of life, and 79 per cent agreed if it meant the environment would get better. 32 These numbers declined a bit in 2000 but remained relatively high 63 per cent approved of forming one country if it would improve the quality of life, and 48 per cent if the environment would get better but they remained high. 33 When one disaggregates the data, younger and wealthier Americans are readier to contemplate political union than older or poorer citizens. 34
What should one conclude from this data? First, the majority of the people in all three countries are prepared to contemplate a reconfiguration of the North American political system provided they can be convinced that it will produce a higher quality of life and handle problems like the environment more effectively than if these are done by each country. Secondly, the principal motive is economic, the approach is pragmatic, and the main drawback is the fear of its effect on culture and identity. To the extent that people perceive their cultures at risk, they resist integration. Third, younger people are more connected and ready to experiment with new political forms and so the prospects for future integration are likely to get better. Fourth, as Karl Deutsch predicted a half century ago, more contact and trust among peoples can facilitate integration, which, in turn, can increase trust. In disaggregating the data on a regional basis, one finds greater support for integration among those regions with the most contact - i.e., the southwest of the United States and the northern part of Mexico and on the Canadian border. 35 The underlying basis of a community exists. Provided people are not threatened by a loss of culture or identity, and incentives for productivity and improvements for standard of living are evident, the three peoples of North America are ready to listen to ideas, including political union, on how to accomplish those ends.
A North American Community is an idea so compelling that it will, sooner or later, emerge as a frontier issue. . . .
Also:
The Future of North America: Replacing a Bad Neighbor Policy
by Robert. A Pastor
(this is only a partial article since you have to be a member)
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87406/robert-a-pastor/the-future-of-north-america.html
---
Once again, using "racial identity" as the issue most likely to cause people to balk at this (phony of course) they are trying to sell this poison to the Generally Dumb Public by making them feel guilty. (I have been told that anyone who doesn't want open borders is a racist...)
I wonder if they asked the GDP if they would mind losing their CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS in this process, and the fact that Congress would no longer be in charge (not that it has been at this point for a very long time) and some NGO elitists would be making all the decisions?
WAKE UP AMERICA.
![[HAF]Foxtrot](/data/avatars/m/2/2027.jpg?1741393442){kind=avatar}
