Thursday, December 04, 2008

[new sovereignty] obama and the nau

Matt writes:

Unless USSC takes this up in five days time, says yes to hearing oral arguments, and rules favorably setting a precedent that will make Obama ineligible on all the Electoral College's ballots nationwide, we'll have a non-citizen as president.

This is of concern too:

I originally found this via VA again. Now, I don't agree much with what this Russian says but he did mention the amero ... My truthful opinion is most Americans would accept the NAU if it meant they could keep their money (despite the fact it would be in ameros, not dollars).

I commented:

That's most certainly how it will be sold to the public. I'm not convinced they'll "declare" anything beyond what is absolutely necessary and what has to be declared will be sugar coated for the hip pocket.

Ian Parker Joseph states:

The question is: how will the elite, the corporate rulers and the government leaders ‘sell’ this bill of goods to the electorate? Traditionally, instilling a climate of fear and using the tried and true, ‘problem-reaction solution’ method achieves this.

Whether it be a thoughtful, well planned and executed economic crash, or whether some tragic and unforeseen ‘event’ happens, a frightened population will always react to the problem and demand a solution from its government.


A CFR taskforce recommended that by 2010, a North American Union be created, not as a sovereign state but in charge of:

# single economic zone,
# single area of free movements of people,
# single education system,
# single defense and security system,
# single social benefits system,

... within the three countries. The NA Advisory Council would oversee this.You'll note that taxation is not mentioned in that and I don't know the current proposals, having not looked at this for some time. It might be good to read the document itself [pdf], plus this one on the genesis of the organization, to get the "feel" of it.

Obama's take on it all?

Under George W. Bush, the United States has not lived up to its historic role as a leader in the Western Hemisphere. As president, I will restore that leadership by working to advance the common prosperity and security of all of the people of the Americas. That work must begin with a renewed strategic partnership with Mexico.

Our relationship with Mexico should serve as a bridge to greater security and prosperity in North America and to better relations with Latin America.

I don't feel that his remarks, in total, amount to the NAU as such but if it were the plan, it would hardly be conceded in an up front speech like that. Actually, he did say, in answer to a gimme question:

"I know some people have been hearing rumors about it. But as far as I can tell that's just not something that's happening. We would never give up our sovereignty in that way. Any other questions?"

Not in what way? To concede sovereignty openly? As mentioned above, that has never been the tactic. So all that Americans can do, for now, is watch vigilantly and wait. Obama is obviously au fait with the naughty words he must never say - Amero, SPPNA, NAU, CFR - and he is treading carefully.

2 comments:

ScotsToryB said...

James,

A joker?

http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1805&Itemid=2

STB.

James Higham said...

Thanks, STB. I'll run with this, this evening.