OK, I've made some big statements about the U.S. and the North American Union, due to start in January, 2009 and have been laughed to scorn by certain American bloggers when I suggested that there were to be open borders, a free economic zone and the three countries would be under the control of the NAAC, which is virtually the CFR, of which the leading Democrat and Republican candidates either were or are still members.I further said that it would never come to a constitutional issue but would be done by salami tactics, slice by slice and the Americans would hardly be aware of it happening.
The Bush administration can go ahead with a pilot program to allow as many as 100 Mexican trucking companies to freely haul their cargo anywhere within the
Why can't you see that your country was verbally sold down the drain on March 23rd, 2005? Don't accept my word - research it for yourself. Let me help you - here is a first link - go to the left sidebar and check Myth v Fact.
The reason you can't accept it is because "this is America" and the good ole boys would never do something like this. Maybe the lefty commies but never good ole GOPs.
Think again. This is not party political in the least - they're all into it, especailly the Lizard Queen. The only one who shows signs of not having been bought is Ron Paul and he's been marginalized.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat post.It should not be unexpected that the USA would now want to swallow up and appropriate Mexico for their own.They have eyeballed Canada but the snow keeps them at bay.Love the salami line
ReplyDeleteWell frankly I'll believe it when I see it.
ReplyDeleteThe Softwood lumber dispute proved to the Canadians over and over that US interests are always come first, despite any agreement to the contrary . So it would be a very hard sell indeed here.
regards
jmb
Let me say one thing, Lord Nazh - I'd vastly prefer to be wrong, to have to eat humble pie and have to come crawling to you on my knees because it would mean that America is safe.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I see you've not read either document [one is a government endorsed site] and they clearly spell out the plan. Part of that plan is to open the border for trade from Mexico.
That's exactly what they're doing now - 100 Mexican trucking companies roaming around the U.S. Don't read my post - go to the source.
Now, how does this constitute looking *&^%*(# stupid? Did the Federal Appeals Court turn down the appeal or did they not? Black and white issue. Why would they have this "pilot scheme"? What does pilot mean?
It means a trial run, yes? Trial run for what? Read the pdf and the SPP site and it's spelled out in black and white for you.
JMB - you say you'll believe it when you see it. OK - here it is today - the appeal was turned down - read the reddish subtext in the post.
It's not speculation - it's now law. Now, re Canada, check the spp.gov site and whose face do you see from Canada, endorsing the plan?
What's the plan?
Read the pdf and spp site and it's all spelled out in black and white. Don't rely on my post.
The problem here is people are commenting without reading the documents, documents which have now been endorsed by the three governments.
Lord Nazh - you say "when the date passes". And what will that mean? I told you - it's salami tactics - they're not going to let this get any publicity whatever and the MSM is under wraps.
Only the alternatives are carrying it. Are you interested in Mexican truckers? Of course not and they know that. It would never have seen the light of day if it hadn't been picked up by a minor paper.
OK, the next step will be to allow a little fishing here, a few trial "select" immigrants here, a few more trucks next year and so on. Little bit by little bit, no constitutional problem whatever. Isn't touched in the election, everything smooth.
OK, who is doing this thing? Go to the spp.gov site and read the names who were at the March 23rd, 2005 meeting and its outcome. Wasn't Bush there and Martin and the Mexican?
Did he not adopt the plan and change the name to SPPNA? Does George W. Bush have no influence in the U.S.A.? I thought he was the President.
Lord Nazh, just between you and me - on the climate change issue - well - you can wheel out some big guns and I can too and we'll get nowhere fast.
On this one though, there's no question because it's all documented. Sorry but it's so. In the past I've tried to wind you up a bit - I admit it but on this issue - no - it's too serious. I wouldn't do that with you.
You don't like it because you're a patriot and a conservative and in terms of party politics, I'm having a go at the GOP, for whom Fred is standing [CFR]. But I'm having a go at both sides who are equally culpable.
And this thing is just not going away. Sorry.
I thought I commented on this one earlier - or am I going mad?
ReplyDeleteJames: When I deleted my comment, that meant I didn't want to continue this discussion :)
ReplyDeleteI still like you, but on this and man-made climate change we'll just have to park on opposite sides of the street.
Lou Dobbs ran a piece on that tonight (well, his show (Katy Pillgrim did one while he was on vacation last week, right before it was supposed to begin)). If you read Corsi's book, you'll see this part of the plan. Dobbs has referred to the SPP before but when he did the piece tonight, he asked what was going on? COME ON LOU! IT'S PART OF THE NAU! James, thanks for supporting us on this one. I've been so busy with school (and it's going to just get worse as the semester drags on) that my capabilities will be limited. At one point (maybe tomorrow) I will be writing letters to my Senators and Representative in the House. I'll post those as templates at my place. I never said I didn't thing some thing like this would never happen. It's just so much of my countrymen never think it could. They're still in denial.
ReplyDeleteWelsh - there was a terrible disaster yesterday - I wrote a reply to you with five minutes to spare before I had to leave for work and then I rewrote it. Then when I went to delete my first comment, yours was deleted by mistake and then I had to delete both of mine too. Sorry!
ReplyDeleteLord Nazh :)
Matt - I should have made it clear that you were not in the "denial" class because you woke up very early on and helped me out, as I'm trying to do now.
Preventing your fellow countrymen from understanding is that it's being kept right out of the major media as far as poss while the moves are made piece by piece at low level. Very clever people.
Let's keep our eyes peeled.
'Tis OK!
ReplyDelete"It should not be unexpected that the USA would now want to swallow up and appropriate Mexico for their own."
ReplyDeleteActually, we really don't want it; that country has been one slow train wreck ever since the Aztecs settled there and conquered all the local residents. The mentality hasn't changed in the hundreds of years since Cortez displaced the homegrown government with the Spanish version. We have enough problems with the ones that come here illegally; we don't need a whole country full of people from that culture.
And I don't base this on racism; I have friends and relatives who are Hispanic.
I'd like to point out if we could actually 'swallow' the entire country of Mexico (ala make it the 51st state) then I'd be for it :)
ReplyDeleteHead south with electricity and pavement and change the life of millions of people (with LARGE business opportunity) would be better than having the 'underprivileged' attempting to bleed both countries dry.
Bob - agreed. why would the U.S. be remotely interested, except for a Lord Nazh scenario [below your comment]?
ReplyDeleteYet this is not about that. This is about NAFTA super highways and opening borders and declaring illegals legal. Now who managed to get that on the statutes?