Not many people whether they be residents of the U.S., Canada or Mexico know about the North American Union. http://scheney.wordpress.com/2008/07/22 … canadians/
As most Canadians know Stephen Harper the Conservative Prime Minister of Canada with a minority government has just, this past Sunday called a snap election to be held on Oct 14, 2008.
A Harper majority would be dreadful for Canada. It would threaten the sovereignty of our country.
With a Harper majority he would be able to force the North American Union on our country the same way the Conservative Brian Mulroney forced NAFTA and the GST on Canada in the 1990s, even though the majority was dead against both. Because of this in the next election the Conservative Party after Mulroney left got just 2 out of 308 seats in the House of Commons. This was the way the Canadian people showed their disapproval, but both NAFTA and the GST stuck.
Earlier this year Harper had a bill pass, with the approval of the opposition that prevented a political party from calling a snap election before the four year term is up (with wiggle room). Harper must think it's either now or never for him to be calling a snap election at this time that goes against the bill that he himself presented to the House of Commons.
I also believe that Harper called this snap election because he thinks that McCain may have a chance of getting into the White House in November. The Conservatives in Canada and the Republicans in the U.S. have consistently been very close, too close in my opinion.
Canada does not need an American puppet like Stephen Harper, especially with a majority government.
The North American Union seems like a continuation of American Manifest Destiny that lead to the war of 1812. Canadians will not tolerate it, neither will Mexicans and I doubt if many Americans will either. Mexicans will be streaming over the Rio Grand, legally, if McCain gets in and Harper gets a majority.
And you Canadians are suppose to be so liberal. Actually this
union was discussed here some months ago, but the Canadians
in our mist seemed to think that the discussion was a waste of
time, because there is no such thing, and because Canadians
would never go for it.
I was not posting in the Hubpages months ago knolyourself or I would have voiced my disgust for it.
Opposition to the North American Union should be on both American and Canadian's minds right now with the upcoming elections in both the U.S and Canada. If you oppose the North American Union then you should be opposing both McCain and Harper. Politicians in both countries have not mentioned it much so not many know about it.
'I was not posting in the Hubpages months ago knolyourself or I would have voiced my disgust for it.' If you were here I wouldanah told you.
"Mexicans will be streaming over the Rio Grand, legally, if McCain gets in and Harper gets a majority."
Mexicans will be streaming over the border if either McCain OR Obama become President...we're caught between a rock and a hard place, as the saying goes.
The sad fact is that both the Republican AND Democratic leadership of our country (meaning, of course, that I am in the U.S.) have been complicit in this. Admittedly, the Bush family (father and son) has been more complicit than most. As a matter of fact, during the reign of George W. we have witnessed the rise of the Executive Branch of government to a virtual state of ultimate power, eclipsing that of the other two branches of government, along with the abrogation of individual rights and freedoms heretofore guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States...no small feat in a country where the people have always held those things to be very dear. It's amazing what complacency with a large dose of apathy can allow to be accomplished in a relatively short period of time.
Personally, I believe that the Canadians are far more awake to what is happening than the vast majority of Americans. Unfortunately, it may have come too late for either one of us.
I didn't realize that AWCheney.
So it looks like the only way to stop the North American Union is if Canadians prevent Harper from getting a majority government in October.
Or will that even stop it AWCheney?
It couldn't hurt, assuming that the political party which does assume control is not disposed to continue the same policy with regard to the SPP, NASCO, and the NAU. The problem is, much of the leadership in ALL THREE NATIONS has become financially dependent upon the support of the multi-national corporations which fund campaigns and assure a financially secure future after politics. It's so bad here in the United States that we often speak of our "corporate welfare state." If you're high enough in the food chain you are sure to be bailed out by the American taxpayer...thanks to both Democrats AND Republicans.
Today on the CBC I witnessed Danny Williams who is the Provincial Conservative Premiere of Newfoundland just railing about Harper.
Williams said "I can only say this, and I say it with all sincerity and genuine concern for our great country: a majority government for Stephen Harper would be one of the most negative political events in Canadian history."
Williams did not mention the North American Union and it is not mentioned in this article but you can be guaranteed that is what he is referring to.
http://canadianpress.google.com/article … lV3EblnE_Q
Regarding the upcoming Canadian federal election Williams has an A-B-C campaign meaning "Anything But Conservative".
I take it that Williams is the Liberal Party? Sounds an awful lot like Obama to me, actually. The fact that he was talking to a group of businessmen (question, small to medium size businesses, or major Corporate Canada?) gives me pause for one thing. Is he seeking to cater to the business community, like our politicians here have been doing for years? Will Canada find itself in a "corporate welfare state" under people such as Williams as we, the lowly middle class in the U.S., are suffering under now? And has anybody asked him about the SPP at least? Tell you what Mike, I'll do a little research on this guy and see if there is any information on where he stands and get back to you.
Well, from what I could find so far, he's nothing like Obama. Williams actually has a resume. Additionally, at first glance, he sounds like the ideal non-politician to get the politicians back on track...working for the interests of the people.
My only concerns are his ties to Rogers Communications and a possible conflict of interest as President of OIS Fisher (offshore oil and gas supply and services company). In and of itself, this may well be irrelevant, although I thought I had come across Rogers Communications in some of my research on the SPP and the North American Competitive Council, but I was unable to find the list of NACC members at the SPP site...looks like it's been removed (no surprise). I'll look a little deeper when I get a chance.
No Williams is not in federal politics AWCheney. He is the Provincial Conservative Premiere of Newfoundland. Premiere meaning the elected political leader of the Canadian Province of Newfoundland. Harper is also a Conservative but is in federal politics as the leader of the federal Conservative Party.
Very rarely do we see a member of a provincial party speak bad about a member of the same party that is in federal politics, especially how harsh Williams spoke about Harper. Williams couldn't have said anything worse than his quote above or when he called Harper a "fraud". Generally Newfies (Newfoundlanders) tend to say what is on there mind.
Williams is a self made millionaire and is fairly well liked in Newfoundland. Newfoundland's offshore oil interests should employ a lot of Newfoundlanders that have traditionally had to leave the fisheries due to cod moratoriums and attacks on the seal hunt to seek employment in Ontario or mostly in the western provinces. (Personally I feel the cod moratoriums and attacks on the seal hunt are related in a big way cause seals eat a lot of cod.) I imagine the business audience that Williams was speaking in front of were business men and women from Newfoundland. I haven't heard of Williams ties to Rogers Communications.
Another interesting fact in Canadian politics happened yesterday. Harper did not want Elizabeth May, the leader of the Canadian Green Party to be able to take part in the Federal Leaders Debate, even though the Greens hold one seat in the House of Commons. Jack Layton, the leader of the New Democratic Party also didn't because the Greens may take seats from them seeing they are both center left parties. There was such a backlash because of this by Canadians in online forums and blogs that yesterday Layton agreed to it if Harper would still attend the debate. Also yesterday Harper had no choice but to agree himself. So it looks like democracy is still alive in Canada.
I'm not sure why Harper was so afraid of Elizabeth May being able to take part in the debate. Maybe he thinks May might question him about the North American Union. I will be trying to make sure it gets mentioned in the debate.
There is one other concern. With having 3 Canadian center parties, Liberals, NDP and Green, actually 4 in Quebec with the Bloc (separatist party) there is a concern that it may split the vote too much seeing there is just the one right wing party, Harper's Conservatives. Here again I like Williams' ABC campaign, "Anything But Conservative". It's clear that strategic voting is going to play a big part in this Canadian election. You know what I mean, if say an NDP or Green member has more of a chance than a Liberal to take the seat away from a Conservative in a particular riding that may be a better choice.
One thing that I am not sure of is whether the Liberals would go along with the North American Union or not. It was Paul Martin, who held a Liberal minority at the time that met with Bush and Calderon in Mexico to first speak about the North American Union. I can't see Dion the present leader of the Liberals even entertaining the idea, but you never know these days. The Liberals have the best chance of defeating the Conservatives. Do you know whether the Canadian Liberal Party would endorse the North American Union AWCheney?
Given the fact that it was actually the Liberal Party leadership that were heavily involved in the creation of NAFTA and the SPP, I'd say that it's a pretty good bet. My impression is that, currently, they are primarily critical of the trilateral agreements because they are being left out of the loop. That, of course, does not mean that the current leadership of the Liberal Party is favorably disposed toward the possible creation of a NAU...they may well have seen the light, so to speak. The test, of course, is if they are willing to take a stand on it one way or the other.
With regard to Mr. Williams, I think you're right...you may well have someone with the political muscle and, more importantly, the willingness to fly in the face of the establishment to fight this thing. It would be interesting to see how he responds to questions regarding the efficacy of the SPP and the prospects of it evolving into a North American Union. Our politicians all too often give one impression while their actions bely another intention. It would be WONDERFUL to find some who have the grit to actually do what is right once again, and who truly serve the will of the people rather than their own ends. It's been a long time since I've seen some of those, and I've been politically active for 40 years.
Actually AWCheney it was the Conservative majority government of Brian Mulroney that forced NAFTA on Canada. During the next election Chretien got in with a majority government with a mandate to repeal NAFTA, this was the same election that left the Conservatives with 2 out of 308 seats in the House of Commons. The first thing that Chretien did was travel to Washington to have NAFTA repealed or at least that's what Canadians thought. For some reason Chretien seemed to come home with his tail between his legs and NAFTA did not get repealed.
You are right though that it was Paul Martin, who held a Liberal minority at the time, that was in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005 for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. It's interesting to note that Paul Martin was the leader of the shortest government in Canadian history. But that was because of the sponsorship scandal, not the SPP.
Yesterday I phoned the Liberal Party to find out what their stance on the North American Union was. They said that someone would get back to me. I haven't heard back from them yet.
Also yesterday I e-mailed the Green Party to find out what their stance on the North American Union was and to see if Elizabeth May will be asking the hard questions during the Federal Leadership Debate. I haven't heard back from them yet either.
I doubt if the New Democratic Party would endorse the North American Union because in the last year they have talked about renegotiating NAFTA. But it wouldn't hurt to ask them either.
I may have to go to each riding office to find out for sure. I'll try to get it in writing. I'll let you know if I get some answers.
Mexicans should be concerned over the North American Union as well. If the McCainiacs get in in November and pick wars with both Iran and Russia they will need a draft to fill the ranks of the army.
Think Obama is rumbling about extended wars, specifically Afganistan which is looking lately like Pakistan as well, expanding the military, already larger than all the rest of the world combined, and national service, which may be code for draft.
Dude, I could solve it all. I would tell people it is ok to not participate. Anyways, if they want to issue a draft, I hope people are smart enough to realize they don't have to go.
If they saw it this way, we could force those warmongers to throw down the gauntlet. Which I mean, if all the people in the military decide that they have a choice between jail and killing.... this is what could happen.
1. We would take away the money they need to support the wars by making them put it into retaining those who chose not to go. (though this could also result in other very sick and twisted things)
There wouldn't be enough room to hold that many people if the majority wised up and understood that they make it or brake it.
Point being, re-directing the money. Let me be more clear, in a coniving way, the people can redirect the money.
That is scary knolyourself. I guess it is too late now to see the possibility of the Green Party in the White House eh? Or is it?
Good plan Sandra.
"Green Party in the White House eh?" It has pretty much been proven that the media decides the big elections. Ron Paul is the most popular politician in America. He is not allowed on the US media, cepting maybe a small radio show here and there, and so he couldn't get elected to dog catcher.
Yeah I've heard the same knolyourself. It's a shame.
On Ron Paul's campaign web site there are a couple of videos talking about the bail outs. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
Here's Ralph Nader's web site. http://www.votenader.org/index.html
I was thinking Ralph Nader was with the Green Party but I guess not. Here's the Green Party's web site. http://www.gp.org/index.php
I have found that the New Democratic Party of Canada "condemns Harper's push to sell out Canada" with the North American Union.
And the Green Party of Canada does not endorse the Security and Prosperity Partnership or the North American Union.
http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/docu … r_look_spp
The Green Party of Canada also has a petition for Canadians to sign opposing both the Security and Prosperity Partnership or the North American Union that will be sent to Harper, Bush and Calderon.
I still have not received a reply from the Liberal Party of Canada after 3 attempts to find their stance regarding the North American Union. Again today I was told that they would get back to me.
Depending on the Liberal stance, preventing a Harper Conservative majority in Canada on October 14th will derail the North American Union.
I'll post again once I find out what the Liberal stance is.
I found out the the Liberals would not endorse the North American Union. I posted a reply from them on my Hub.
The Harper Conservatives got another minority government in Canada yesterday. So that should stop the North American Union for another term. I think.
More on the North American Union (NAU) or the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) as it is also called.
Some quotes from http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature- … ;From=News
by Guru-C 10 years ago
Hello Everyone:Today received very disturbing images of children exploited - and murdered - by the FARC. I'm curious about how the Hubpages community feels about the FARC. For some, they may seem poetically inspired, but for me, they practice the most extreme forms of cruelty. ...
by Ralph Schwartz 18 months ago
I've read countless numbers of threads about partisan political talking points over the years. They range from abortion, gun control, immigration, social justice, healthcare, protected classes of people, voting rights, and national defense; just off the top of my head. About half of...
by mio cid 7 years ago
If president Obama is reelected, he will probably be nominating another Supreme court justice maybe more, does this put the fear of god into the right wing nuts that have enjoyed decades of a majority in the supreme court?
by ahorseback 10 months ago
Group thought , illegal immigrants , phony victimization , identity politics , "Join our party , we will save you , we will raise your children , provide for you and them ?"Isn't it REALLY just for the party votes ?- Has it poverty ended - Has it ended crime - Have women...
by Scott Belford 3 weeks ago
Trump's hand-picked attorney general summarized the Mueller Report by saying two things.1) Trump or his campaign did not legally conspire with Russia to fix the 2016 election2) Trump is NOT exonerated from the charge of Obstruction of Justice.IF Barr properly reported Mueller's...
by Scott Belford 3 weeks ago
From The Reactionary Mind by Corey Robin (as a counter to The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk.Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk like to think conservatism is an ideology of Prudence and Moderation (as well as Prejudice - as in prejudgment)However, Michael Oakeshott (1901 - 1990), political theorist,...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|