U.S. to merge with Mexico and Canada?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...the co-author of "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," the book that launched the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, Jerome Corsi was arguably one of the 2004 presidential election's single most influential people. Though Corsi denies that the book and the movement were specifically intended to aid the reelection efforts of President George W. Bush, and says the only intention was to oppose Kerry, there's little doubt that he played a significant role in winning Bush a second term. But now Corsi has turned against the administration, accusing it of being part of a conspiracy to destroy the sovereignty of the United States as we know it.

In his new book, "The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger With Mexico and Canada," Corsi weaves a sprawling theory in which multinational companies, the Bush administration, the Council on Foreign Relations, Democratic-leaning college professors and the governments of Mexico and Canada, among others, are all working -- not necessarily together, but in harmony -- to create a "North American Union." This NAU, Corsi says, will be similar to the European Union, breaking down national boundaries, establishing a single North American currency and potentially even leading to a rewriting of the Bill of Rights.

.....

Salon spoke with Corsi the day before the book's release about his theory, the problems he sees in joining an EU-type organization and the split between the corporatist and anti-immigration wings of the Republican Party.

What's the book about?

It's about the coming merger with Mexico and Canada. I make the argument that just as in Europe, it was a 50-year stealth plan by the intellectual elites and government officials planning to create a European Union, to go from originally a trade agreement, the coal and steel agreement, the original agreement, step by step incrementally building an argument and getting the votes needed to end up with the European Union. They went through a European common market, a European customs union, European community, finally European Union with its own currency, the euro. I'm saying the plan here is the same. Multinational corporations and elites pushing to have NAFTA advance into what it is now, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, ultimately a North American community, and if we don't stop it it will end up as a North American Union with its own currency, the "amero," the a-m-e-r-o, replacing the dollar and the other currencies in Canada and Mexico.

What you seem to foresee, however, is something that would go further than the European Union and actually dissolve the United States.

The United States could remain as a country in a North American Union the same way Italy, France and Germany remain as countries in the European Union, but there's a significant loss of sovereignty so that now the European Union dictates from the nameless bureaucrats in the working groups in Brussels, in Luxembourg, the laws which the legislatures in the various countries -- Germany, France, Italy, etc. -- can pass. And if it's not approved they can't pass the law. So you basically have a European Union regional government becoming supreme and the governments of the individual countries becoming secondary in sovereignty to the regional government's dictates and rulings.

So what's the motive on the part of the American government and American corporations in forming this North American Union? That wasn't much discussed in your book.

I pointed out very clearly that the motive here is a multinational corporate model, that our multinational corporations largely are beyond borders already. I pointed this out extensively when I discussed how the North American Competitiveness Council, which is an advisory group under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, was constituted almost entirely of multinational business groups that are constituted to advise SPP. The agenda there is that, you know, American labor is too expensive for the multinational corporations. Our manufacturing jobs are increasingly going to China and our high-skill jobs -- I mean take a look at Bill Gates and Microsoft: He's one of the top billionaires in the world, yet evidently he does not have enough billions. Rather than being thankful to U.S. citizens for buying Microsoft products over decades ... he's pushing for another billion dollars. He wants unlimited H-1B visas to get computer scientists in an unlimited capacity from India and he's threatening that if he can't get that here in the United States, he'll form a subsidiary in Canada and get his Indian computer scientists through Canada. As opposed to -- evidently the sons and daughters of American citizens graduating from colleges in computer science are too expensive for Bill Gates. And it's that type of an agenda that is already beyond borders, which is pushing for global profits at the expense of the U.S. manufacturing or the U.S. middle class.

You also allege, though, that the Bush administration is actively doing this. What's its motive to want to break down the United States?

Well, I say it's been bipartisan. It's both George H.W. Bush, who openly talked about a new world order; Bill Clinton, who advanced the NAFTA agenda by getting NAFTA passed; and George W. Bush, who's now advanced NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership. I'm saying that all three of these presidents and our Congress have been willing to erase borders to the extent that illegal immigration has been openly allowed and encouraged in a bipartisan effort. We got a Kennedy-McCain bill twice being jammed in the Senate, even though the American people overwhelmingly rejected it; it's a bipartisan effort. And the politicians of both parties are equally paid campaign contributions by the multinational corporations that advance this agenda.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/07/16/jerome_corsi/

Edited January 16, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hippies were for open borders (when they thought it had something to do with free love and brotherhood) before they were against it (when they realized their arch enemies the corporations wanted it too).

[Yoink 7]

I suppose that is a good thing for VJers... sure would make our paperwork sail through a bit quicker

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I suppose that is a good thing for VJers... sure would make our paperwork sail through a bit quicker

Unless you had to go to Mexico City for an interview.

I'd much rather have to go to Cancun.

[Peikko 1,575]

Some people will go to any lengths to sell their books...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/

[Peikko 1,575]

Like I said, any lengths

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It's not Corsi's website, Madame.

[Peikko 1,575]

I know, but I can't take such things seriously. Still, I am sure plenty do.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I know, but I can't take such things seriously. Still, I am sure plenty do.

How can you not take a site with language like this seriously?

The invading illegal alien horde is diminishing our quality-of-life, overloading our hospitals, schools and jails, while bankrupting our taxpayer treasury. It is a primarily a Mexican invasion. It is an act of war, that has reduced our country to nothing but a lawless territory with little or no sovereignty left! Mexico has been waging their one-sided war for decades by sending a migrant army of some 20+ million of its citizens to colonize and reconquista America. It is a war they intend to win "without firing a shot!"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Globalists 'salivating' over collapse of U.S.

Globalists are "salivating" over the possibility of a Constitutional Convention at which issues such as the 2nd Amendment could handily be dismissed, according to a leader who warns Virginia likely is the next target for the drive.

"There is no question in my mind that, should a new Constitutional Convention be called, it would be the end of the United States of America as we know it, and our current Constitution and Bill of Rights would be forever altered beyond recognition," Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin wrote in his latest commentary.

"The globalists who currently control Washington, D.C., and Wall Street are, no doubt, salivating over the opportunity to officially dismantle America's independence and national sovereignty, and establish a globalist North American Union – in much the same way that globalists created the European Union. A new Constitutional Convention is exactly the tool they need to cement their sinister scheme into law."

WND reported when the American Policy Center issued an alert that the plan was under consideration in the Ohio legislature.

The proposal was put aside, at least temporarily, because of publicity generated by the organization run by Tom DeWeese. WND later reported some Wyoming lawmakers, alarmed by the prospects, announced they were working to ensure that if a convention is held, it would convene in the face of their opposition.

Wyoming previously called for a Constitutional Convention but rescinded the votes in 1999. However, it is unclear whether even a formal vote to withdraw a request for a convention would have an impact or whether any limits could be imposed, according to constitutional expert John Eidsmoe, author of the book, "Christianity & the Constitution.

Baldwin, the founder of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Fla., and a radio talk show host, now is urging citizens to contact their state representatives on the issue, especially residents of Virginia.

"As I noted in this column a few weeks ago, proponents of assembling a new Constitutional Convention are a scant two states away from achieving that monstrous reality," he wrote. "At that time, the state of Ohio was in the crosshairs.

"Fortunately, enough people from that good state inundated their state representatives with objections, and the matter was tabled (for how long, no one knows). Now it appears that the Commonwealth of Virginia is going to be the next battleground state," he wrote.

"In all likelihood, the Virginia legislature will be the next state government to take up the Con Con issue. It is imperative, therefore, that the citizens of Virginia begin contacting their various representatives, demanding that they not authorize the call for a new Constitutional Convention."

WND's earlier report noted 32 states already have approved demands for the convention, and only two more states are needed to complete the list.

"If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once declared, 'There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda,'" Baldwin wrote.

He said in Virginia, lawmakers previously had asked for the convention but rescinded the call in 2004, so this year's debate apparently will be over the rescission.

Baldwin said residents of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin have not yet voted for a new convention.

Since WND's earlier report, two columnists for the news site have renewed statements opposing such a convention. Judge Roy Moore wrote that James Madison himself, "the acknowledged 'Father of the Constitution,'" once warned, "Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second. …"

Moore wrote: "A new convention raises all sorts of frightening possibilities. Would valuable rights like the right to keep and bear arms or the right to worship God be kept intact? … What would stop powerful special-interest groups from influencing the outcome?"

Likewise, Phyllis Schlafly, was worried.

"It is not credible that politically active groups would pass up the chance to force a Con Con to vote for their special interests. It's not believable that the powerful forces working to take away our right to own guns would overlook a golden opportunity to rescind the Second Amendment," she wrote.

Further, she wrote, "There is no public support across America for a Constitutional Convention. A flurry of pro-Con Con activity during the Jimmy Carter administration died out. No state has passed a Con Con resolution in the last 25 years. During the 1980s, five states voted down a call for a Con Con, and three states repealed their earlier Con Con resolutions."

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who will be inaugurated as the next president Jan. 20, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.

Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, has told Fox News, Obama's "view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that."

WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.

Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

[Yoink 7]

OBAMA- the agent of change...

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who will be inaugurated as the next president Jan. 20, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.

uh huh........

WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.

hillary did win!

Edited January 16, 2009 by charles!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Globalists are "salivating" over the possibility of a Constitutional Convention

...not to mention the far left, white hippies riddled with imagined guilt.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Globalists are "salivating" over the possibility of a Constitutional Convention

...not to mention the far left, white hippies riddled with imagined guilt.

Would you support a Constitutional Convention, Steven?

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.