Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

November 25, 2007

About That North American Union…..

by Kevin Boyd

….it’s absolutely false.

What’s the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)? The precursor to the NAU, umm…no.

The SPP does exist, and its tri-national task forces continue to meet, but its members consider it a way for the United States, Canada, and Mexico to collaborate on issues such as customs, environmental and safety regulations, narcotics smuggling, and terrorism.

In other words, a commission in order to cooperate on cross-border issues. Nothing evil or sinister here.

What about this common currency, the Amero:

One of the vice chairs of the [Council on Foreign Relations] working group was a political science professor at American University and former Carter administration official named Robert Pastor. In 2001, Pastor had written a book arguing for greater economic integration between the three North American nations – and specifically discussed the possibility that the nations could jointly adopt an amero currency.

A former Carter administration official writes a book and serves on a CFR working group about greater economic ties between the US, Canada, and Mexico and talks about a common currency and people go apeshit. It was just an idea. Just because someone suggests a common currency between the NAFTA members doesn’t mean there is a plan to adopt one.

Finally, the NAFTA Superhighway:

The NAFTA Superhighway has a more complicated origin. One piece is a nonprofit organization, called the North America’s Supercorridor Coalition, or NASCO, dedicated to ensuring the efficiency and safety of some of the country’s major truck trade routes – a map from the organization’s website has shown up on NAU watchdog websites, erroneously labeled the blueprint for the NAFTA Superhighway. Another is a controversial toll highway that Texas is considering building to accommodate the sharp increase in freight traffic brought by NAFTA.

In other words, it doesn’t exist and there is no plan to build one.

To sum up the North American Union, it doesn’t exist outside of some books and the occasional think tank discussion. There is no plan to create one by the governments in North America.

Now can we start discussing the real issues affecting this country and can we start defending our liberty against real threats, instead of making up phony threats.

Freedom is sexy, so share!Share on Facebook1Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Digg thisShare on StumbleUpon0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Email this to someone
TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/11/25/about-that-north-american-union/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •
  • John Newman

    And there were no secret meetings on Jekyll Island, international bankers have no influence on legislators, AIPAC has no say in our Middle East policy and we are a Constitutional Republic.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    And there were no secret meetings on Jekyll Island

    and the Federal Reserve was passed into law by Congress.

    international bankers have no influence on legislators

    Which is disclosed by both campaign finance laws and Congressional ethics rules.

    AIPAC has no say in our Middle East policy

    So do a bunch of other lobbies. All legally.

    we are a Constitutional Republic

    For the most part, yes. Although we can do better.

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    One thing that I might add. If an NAU were to exist (it doesn’t), why, exactly would this be so bad if you’re a libertarian? What I mean is this: why should libertarians buy into the idea of American exceptionalism meaning that only people who are citizens of the currently-bounded USA are entitled to freedom? If, as the conspiracy theorists insinuate, freedom in the US is essentially dead, then why would a North American Union make us less free? Why is national sovereignty an issue that libertarians should even be concerned about, as long as individual sovereignty remains possible and protected?

    If it were in the works, you do realize it would be the sort of thing that couldn’t exactly be concluded in secret, right? You do realize it would have to get passed by Congress, right?

    I’m not advocating an NAU or in any way saying that it is planned or in the works. But why, exactly, should we be so concerned if it were in the works?

  • John Newman

    and the Federal Reserve was passed into law by Congress.

    And torture was legalized along with the ruling that habeas corpus isn’t really the law of the land.
    And it is laughable that Congress makes the laws regarding lobbies and finance. Kinda reminds me of investigators investigating themselves – it is always a mistake, but never any wrong doing.
    And if you think we are even close to the Constitutional Republic, well….never mind

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    Mark,

    Nothing I can add to what you said.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    torture was legalized along with the ruling that habeas corpus isn’t really the law of the land.

    Torture is still illegal. That was a decision of the executive branch, which they have (mostly) backed off of.

    As for habeas corpus, the courts are sorting that one out. In other words, the system is working.

    And it is laughable that Congress makes the laws regarding lobbies and finance. Kinda reminds me of investigators investigating themselves – it is always a mistake, but never any wrong doing.

    and the FEC does the investigations into campaign finance. All in all, I don’t care if international bankers, AIPAC, or anyone else for that matter gives money to Congressmen and lobbies Congress, as long as its disclosed.

  • uhm

    There are some documents relating to the SPP released through FOAI requests on the net. They can be easily found on google so people can make their own minds up on the subject.

    People look at the EU and imagine the US following in its foot steps.

  • John Newman

    As for habeas corpus, the courts are sorting that one out. In other words, the system is working.

    Sorting it out? Hell, it’s embedded in the Constitution. There is nothing to sort out and the system is not working, it is corrupt.
    I love your faith in the government investigating itself – kinda like a drunk deciding if he has a drinking problem. Again, the Liberty Papers defending statism.

  • Jim

    “and the Federal Reserve was passed into law by Congress.”

    LOL! It was passed into law and signed by Wilson during Christmas break 1913 when Washington was empty. The Federal Reserve is the biggest scam in America history, closely followed by the IRS.

    The last Congressman to stand up to the Federal Reserve ended up dead:

    http://www.afn.org/~govern/mcfadden.html

    BTW, why is it that boards named “Free Republic” and “Liberty Whatever” invariably end up defending the heavy hand of government rather than the rights of the people to defend themselves from the predators in DC?

  • Jim

    From the linked article:

    “Global government and elites who secretly sell out their own citizenry have long been staples of conspiracy theories…”

    How does one reply to such obvious condescension from a writer named Drake Bennett, a writer who just graduated from Harvard in 1999? What does a a child in is twenties know about the real world?

    Elites have always sold out the hoi-polloi and the goal of government is to go as big as it can, global if possible. It’s an observable fact rather than a ‘theory’.

    Even JFK spoke of it:

    “For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.”

    President John F. Kennedy
    Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
    New York City, April 27, 1961
    Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    Jim,

    JFK made that speech in reference to the Soviet Union and communism in the context of the Cold War.

    Also, McFadden was frankly an anti-Semitic nut. That’s why he was not reelected to his seat. He also died of food poisoning. No conspiracy there.

  • Eric

    This sort of thing always bring out conspiracy theorists Kevin. It really is sort of pointless to even tackle it.

    To all the conspiracy theorists: The simple explanation, greed, corruption, bribery and a lust for power explains things much better than a complex, impossible to hide conspiracy theory.

    To John Newman: If we were a constitutional republic that actually followed our constitution, the Feds would have no ability to regulate whether a corporation could make anti-smoking policies, or not.

  • Jim

    Kevin sez: “JFK made that speech in reference to the Soviet Union and communism in the context of the Cold War.”

    From the same speech:

    “The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

    The “anxious” people that Kennedy mentions would be called conspirators. The Bushes, Chertoffs, Cheneys and Clintons and their cohorts in Congress have conspired to limit the Liberties of Americans.

    That’s c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y.

    “Also, McFadden was frankly an anti-Semitic nut.”

    Same old smear. It no longer works. Find a new one.

    “That’s why he was not reelected to his seat.”

    Are you implying that only anti-Muslims and anti-Christians get re-elected?

    “He also died of food poisoning. No conspiracy there.”

    He was poisoned on three separate occasions before he died.

    Nope. No conspiracy.

  • Lost_In_Translation

    I know this was a big issue in Texas, not because we were interested in whether there was going to be a NAU, but because governor Perry was callously pushing ahead on his schemes for the Trans Texas Corridor to connected the South Texas up to Amarillo, looking for ways to use eminent domain laws to cut up the tracts of farmland he needed for such an interstate. While not much is really reported on it, it continues to be his dream, and while part of the interstate would indeed help ease congestion between the middle and northeast parts of the state, he has not sought to alleviate any citizen concerns, but merely pound through what he wants for whatever his own goal is. No, this is not a national concern, but it is one of the reasons the NAU myth persists, because he really is trying to create a superhighway straight from Mexico to North Texas.

  • Jim

    Eric sez: “To all the conspiracy theorists: The simple explanation, greed, corruption, bribery and a lust for power explains things much better than a complex, impossible to hide conspiracy theory.”

    To all of the coincidence theorists: Human history is replete with dynasties that work together to get and maintain power. The drives behind those dynasties are greed and a lust for power.

    The Bush-Clinton-Bush-(attempted)Clinton reign of almost twenty years has been right out in plain sight.

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    Jim:
    So, you’re thinking that the same people who brought you Katrina, the Iraq War, Monica Lewinski, and Watergate, the wiretapping leaks, to name a few, are actually competent enough to keep secret the fact that they run the world and are trying to enslave all of human society?

    In order for your conspiracy theory to have any plausibility, it would first require that government be effective. Nope- I’ll stick with Ocham’s Razor.

  • Jim

    Mark-

    It’s not a secret. It only appears to be one to those wacky coincidence theorists.

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    Sigh…I don’t even know why I’m bothering with this. But I’m assuming you never read any libertarian economists like Mises, Hayek, etc. If you had you’d realize that you can pretty much predict government failure in any given instance on an a priori basis. In other words, government is incompetent because truly competent government is impossible.

    If the world is so horribly controlled by all these people, then how come you’re able to publicly complain about how horribly they are controlling the world?

  • Jim

    I’ve read Mises and Hayek. I’ve also read a lot of Rothbard:

    “It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any outcropping of what is now called ‘a conspiracy theory of history.’ For a search for ‘conspiracies,’ as misguided as the results often are, means a search for motives, and an attribution of individual responsibility for the historical misdeeds of ruling elites. If, however, any tyranny or venality, or aggressive war imposed by the State was brought about not by particular State rulers but by mysterious and arcane ‘social forces,’ or by the imperfect state of the world — or if, in some way, everyone was guilty — then there is no point in anyone’s becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, a discrediting of ‘conspiracy theories’ will make the subjects more likely to believe the ‘general welfare’ reasons that are invariably put forth by the modern State for engaging in aggressive actions.”

    Murray Rothbard, 1973

    IOW, only good vassals of the State discount the conspiracy view of history.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Yes, yes, we all know that Murray Rothbard started hanging out with conspiracy theory kooks in his old age.

    Its unfortunate that he appropriated the legacy of a great thinker like Ludwig von Mises in the process.

  • Jim

    “Yes, yes, we all know that Murray Rothbard started hanging out with conspiracy theory kooks in his old age.”

    Murray was only 47 years old when he made the above statement.

    Your personal issues with the greatest American political philospher and economic historian of the latter half of the 20th century aside, please try to refute Murray without resorting to smears and disinformation.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Jim,

    Your argument from authority is meaningless. Just because Murray said it doesn’t make it true.

    I’ve read Rothbard, and Hayes and Mises too. And I find the last two far more persuasive and, understandably, less prone to believing that there’s a conspiracy under every rock.

  • Jim

    “Your argument from authority is meaningless.”

    Murray rules the roost when it comes economics and history. That’s a stone-cold fact. Either refute him on the merit of his study and conclusions or remain silent. Your use of smears and disinformation merely reveals your utter lack of an argument to refute him with.

    If you choose to believe that mere accident and coincidence are the guiding forces of history rather than free will (be it good or evil), then I can see why you don’t hold much hope for the future of Liberty in America.

  • Eric

    Jim:

    The Bush-Clinton-Bush-(attempted)Clinton reign of almost twenty years has been right out in plain sight.

    I’m going to regret this, I’m sure.

    Yes, and is quite simply explained by a lust for power combined with a media structure that favored such an arrangement. Explaining it with some sort of Tripartite commission conspiracy behind the scenes is completely unnecessary to understanding how it came about.

    And, as was pointed out above, incompetence, sloth, lust, greed, and all the rest is quite sufficient to explain the outcome of the past years.

    By the way, for everyone who thinks this is the worst time in American history in terms of concentration of power, government intrusion on civil liberties and the like, you clearly have not compared the administrations of Lincoln, Wilson and FDR to the present administration. What has happened the past few years is bad, but nothing compared to the years when FDR was in power.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    I don’t deny his skills as an economist, I just don’t accept his interpretation of history — and, since he wasn’t a historian, there’s no reason I should.

  • John Newman

    It must be a mere coincidence that the FED, an income tax, and going off the gold standard all happened in a relatively short period of time. I wonder, who would benefit the most from that?

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    I don’t have time to look it up or get into it, but I do recall a quote Rothbard gave in which he defined conspiracy theories far different from the common definition. Indeed, in that quote (which may have even been the same lecture our Alex Jones-loving friend is referring to), he called that which we normally refer to as conspiracy theory “intellectually lazy.”

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    I can’t resist. This quote made absolutely no sense:

    “If you choose to believe that mere accident and coincidence are the guiding forces of history rather than free will (be it good or evil), then I can see why you don’t hold much hope for the future of Liberty in America.”

    If there is some omnipotent guiding force of history, then you are arguing that the only free will that exists is that omnipotent force. Which means that either you are one of those evil guiding forces or you have no free will (which means you’re a bot; hmmm….come to think of it, maybe you ARE right).

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.

    Oh yeah- you’re the one who seems to be arguing that there’s no hope for freedom in this country, or at least that Ron Paul is freedom’s only hope. The point of our argument has been that freedom is still doing pretty damn well despite the best attempts of do-gooders and unitary executives. In other words- the world isn’t coming to an end anytime soon, we just want to make sure it stays out of the hands of those who think it is.

  • gmason08

    RP campaign UPDATE:

    Things are progressing nicely as evidenced by the increasing anxiety level among Kevin, Mark, Doug, that JJ character at OTB, ET AL.

  • gmason08

    Kevin writes-“Now can we start discussing the real issues affecting this country and can we start defending our liberty against real threats, instead of making up phony threats.”

    Interesting that a blog calling itself the “Liberty Papers” spends a lot of ink trying to silence voices. Also, interesting that the “Liberty Papers” is cranking out a POV that could just as likely come from the Globalist/anti-US sovereignty CFR. Kevin, you are promoting the CFR agenda? What difference does it make to you Kevin if people examine the NAU issue? How is that a concern for the “heirs to Patrick Henry”? Would Patrick Henry try to limit the matters his fellow Americans investigate? Kevin, do you have the least clue regarding the principles of Liberty?

  • Hugo Grotius

    Kevin,

    I have an LL.M from Georgetown University in International Law. There isn’t any secret that a group of folks wants to create a supranational government to control nations around the world. It’s out in the open for you all to read. The NAU is a beginning idea. And why, Kevin, should it be any stranger than the other acronyms such as the OAS, WTO, GATT, NAFTA, UNDP, IAD, EU, IMF, IAEA, IDF, …… and on and on? The law of the sea treaty and others hope to establish international law enforcement but it necessarily rests upon violating our constitution and abrogating our sovereignty. In fact, I had a professor, a professed Republican, state “sovereignty is no longer a useful concept.”

    Is it a conspiracy? Sure it is. Walter Cronkite was one of those conspirators. Are there think tanks like the CFR who support it? Of course. Are they trying to hide this? No. No more than the ACLU or the communist party. The problem is you get a whole bunch of folks acting like they just discovered it, they freak out, and it makes them seem like wingnuts.

    So you ought to be worried about internationalists. I don’t believe they pose a viable threat yet but they could.

    Mark,

    If Ron Paul doesn’t get in, the U.S. will continue to end. Note that I said, “continue”. In the words of T.S. Eliot,

    This is the way World ends,
    This is the way world ends,
    This is the way world ends,
    Not with a bang, but a whimper….

    Yes, it is dying now and for you to think that America hasn’t been squeezed and that your dollar is strong is like a crab sitting in the pot arguing that the water is not boiling. Give it some time. It will get hotter.

  • Eric

    John Newman:

    It must be a mere coincidence that the FED, an income tax, and going off the gold standard all happened in a relatively short period of time.

    No, it isn’t a coincidence. Those things were brought about by the Progressive movement. Note that it was preceded by the direct election of Senators, quite possibly the worst of the things that happened during the Progressive movement.

    That said, the Progressives were a political movement, not a secret cabal with a secret conspiracy of some sort.

    As usual, there is no need to create a secret cabal and conspiracy when the public record speaks for itself. And when perfectly explainable, natural events provide an understanding of the events without having to create a complex theory that breaks down any number of ways.

  • http://conservativeorcommonsense.blogger.com Rick

    It’s clear that Kevin gets his information from The Boston Globe, a dubious source at best.

  • John Newman

    There seems to be a theory among conspirators at the Liberty Papers that there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory.

  • http://conservativeorcommonsense.blogspot.com Rick

    As I read through Mark’s posts I can see he is wrong on so many levels, too many to address before leave for work. But I will say for now that our personal liberty is in great peril, far beyond the current level of erosion our civil rights have suffered. The creation of the NAU is a REAL danger, the pieces are falling into place.

    The powers that be in the SPP are already trying to clear the way for unqualified Mexican truckers to drive their sub-standard rigs with questionable insurance coverage on the same roads now used by our wives and children. I’ll have to address the other numerous shortcomings in Mark’s arguments another time. For now, I’m off to work. Have a great day all!

  • Max

    Denial so sad, the world is flat, the universe revolves around the earth LOL Keven Mark and Doug, you make me sad you have no idea how much danger your country is in and all you can do is deny, it doesn’t exist, just because you say it doesn’t exist does not make it so, and I bet 30 years ago when the EU was being formed at Bilderberg that was a conspiracy to right? Oh right according to Doug and the rest of the flat earthers Bilderberg dosen’t exist LOL

  • Max

    Oh Kevin, Mark and Doug, the Idea that you think the MSM has any credibility is laughable, kinda like you guys and the Liberty Papers

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Max,

    I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Who said I trust the MSM ?

    I don’t.

    I don’t trust kooks like Alex Jones either

  • Max

    http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp

    We’ll since they say it not the NAU then it must be the truth.

    Doug maby you can Join the Alex Jones Fan Club, like he’s the one that came up with the NAU, stfu

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Max,

    You know what, Mark made an excellent point that none of you NAU-phobia people have bothered to even address:

    If an NAU were to exist (it doesn’t), why, exactly would this be so bad if you’re a libertarian? What I mean is this: why should libertarians buy into the idea of American exceptionalism meaning that only people who are citizens of the currently-bounded USA are entitled to freedom? If, as the conspiracy theorists insinuate, freedom in the US is essentially dead, then why would a North American Union make us less free? Why is national sovereignty an issue that libertarians should even be concerned about, as long as individual sovereignty remains possible and protected?

    How `bout taking a crack at it ?

  • Max

    Doug Robert Pastor, one of the people pushing the NAU is a member of the CFR, Doug does the CFR have our interest in mind? Are you familiar with the CFR? Do you believe it a good institution?

  • Max

    Sorry Doug merging The US, Canada, and Mexico into an EU is a bad Idea, World Government is a bad idea Doug The EU,NAU, African Union, Asian Union are all steps towards world government, something you obviously know nothing about

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Max,

    If this conspiracy is as widespread and all-powerful as you claim, how is it possible that they allow people like you to reveal their existence ?

    A group capable of manipulating entire nations would surely be capable of dealing with you, wouldn’t they ?

    If they existed, that is.

  • Max

    Hit and a miss, we’ll doug they have people in the MSM and shills like yourself to say it dosen’t exist, thats gonna be good enough for joe six pack.Doug you still didn’t give me your opinion on the CFR? Why do you deny the elite and there existence? Why do you deny the military industrial complex?

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Max,

    Yes, the CFR exists. No, I don’t believe it’s the hub of a vast, conscious conspiracy. And nothing I’ve read has convinced me otherwise.

    You’re not going to suck me into the conspiracy theory web, so it might be worthwhile to stop trying.

    Besides, I’ve got to go pick up my check from David Rockefeller ;)

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    You see- here’s the thing I don’t get. People like Max, who are in the distinct minority and who are the ones who claim this conspiracy exists, assume their position is self-evident. Further they assume that the evil of this conspiracy is self-evident. They do not provide any substantiation of their claims, and in this case have not even attempted to substantively refute my question as to why a theoretical NAU would be inherently worse than other government.

    Instead, the place the onus on everyone else- who are the majority in this country- to disprove the existence of this conspiracy. In other words, they insist that the majority prove a negative. To make things even easier on themselves, if the majority actually tries to prove that negative, their response is immediately dismissed as just being a result of the lies in the MSM. Of course, they won’t explain how the MSM is lying on this- they just assume it to be the case since it doesn’t fit their viewpoint.

  • Nathan

    You guys should just stop arguing, its pointless. The world is going to get taken over by the banks and the federal reserve. When all of the people think its not happening, will probably perish and thats what they get, for not opening there eyes and paying attention! Look up the movie America:freedom to fascism. on google even. by Aaron Russo. If this doesnt open your eyes then I guess your doomed.

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    I’ve just realized something. I’m not entirely being facetious when I say this, but the Alex Jones conspiracy theorists are to libertarianism what millenialism is to religious political fundamentalism.

    Maybe the fact that libertarians have gotten to the point where they can have such a faction is a sign of how “cool” libertarianism has become.

  • Max

    Sorry Doug and Mark, when the CFR Trilateral Commission, Bilderber etc have members in every aspect of our society, politics, education, media etc THAT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!! and if you can’t see that you are naive but I already know this
    am I wrong?

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Max,

    As Mark says the burden is on you to prove this conspiracy exists.

    And recycling Murray Rothbard quotes isn’t gonna do it.

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    One more thing on the CFR. As I posted about awhile back….Ron Silver is a member of the CFR nowadays. If you don’t know, Silver’s biggest claim to fame is that he’s a ranting lunatic who has made a career out of playing bad roles in awful films. Perhaps his most famous role was as a porn king on a bust TV show modernization of Romeo & Juliet.

    If a dude like Ron Silver can get onto the CFR, I kind of doubt that we’re talking about some organization of power “elites” who run everything. It doesn’t say much for the prestige of the organization, but it sure as hell suggest that it’s harmless. Or at least that the membership standards aren’t overly high.

    Oh yeah- Fareed Zakaria is on the Board at CFR. In case you don’t realize, Zakaria was opposed to our use of unilateral force in Iraq, has opposed our occupation of Iraq from almost day one, and is vehemently against attacking Iran. Doesn’t sound like someone bent on the aggressive use of force and on enslaving the world’s population. Yes, I know he’s an internationalist, but I’ve yet to receive an answer to my question of why internationalism is inherently evil. Indeed, had we been more internationalist before the Iraq war, we never would have gone in!

  • http://www.orderhotlunch.com Jeff Molby

    Mark, those individuals were clearly added as red herrings. Duuuuuuuuuuh!

    </Sarcasm>

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Mark,

    Not just Ron Silver, not too longer ago Angelina Jolie became a CFR member as well.

    Which made the idea of joining a vast worldwide conspiracy suddenly seem very attractive ;)

  • John Newman

    For you folks that don’t believe there is such a thing as a conspiracy I suggest you read some John Taylor Gatto about the “Underground History of American Education”
    http://www.rit.edu/~cma8660/mirror/www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/
    and then come back and talk to us kooks.

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    Max:
    “Every aspect of society?” Really? Isn’t that selling society a little bit short? I mean, I guess you’re right in a way, but only if you define the categories of society really, really broadly. And only if you assume that housewives and children aren’t part of society.

    But isn’t it a common sense concept that a think tank dedicated to studying international relations and proposing policy would want to recruit people with experience in international relations from as broad a spectrum as possible.

    Did it ever occur to you that the idea of having input from as broad a spectrum as possible is not horribly different from the concept of “open source,” and “spontaneous order”? Indeed, have you ever found a think tank of any ideological stripe that didn’t at least try to recruit influential board members from a broad spectrum of society? Doesn’t that make sense not only from a perspective of getting the broadest possible input within your framework, but also from the perspective of obtaining as broad a base for fundraising as possible.

    Look at the board members for the Heritage Foundation, for instance- you’ll find media moguls, captains of various industries, a medical professional, academics, and politicians. Are they part of the NWO?

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    Angelina Jolie? Really?

    I hate to say this, but as tempted as I am to continue the joke, it goes really far to disproving the point (which was never proven in the first place, even if we were using a “shifting burdens” prima facie standard)(yeah, I’m a lawyer).

    Anywho- back to my point. I don’t know that she’s an outright libertarian, but Angelina Jolie is a well-known fan of Ayn Rand. Indeed, she’s apparently the first to sign on to play Dagny Taggart in the movie version of Atlas Shrugged:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/

    So, we now have a well-known Rand devotee who is part of the international conspiracy.

    …And here comes the claim that she’s just doing the movie so she can destroy the book for all time.

  • Max

    Ron Silver, Angelina Jolie ROFL

    Oh and the CFR is small potatoes, the CFR is public, Bilderberg, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove are all secret and there members make up the most powerful people in Europe and the United States, is it ok for policy makers to be meeting in secret with corporate chieftains, media moguls, European royality etc, so is it?

  • http://www.orderhotlunch.com Jeff Molby

    is it ok for policy makers to be meeting in secret with corporate chieftains, media moguls, European royality etc, so is it?

    Yes. I certainly don’t have any moral authority to deny their right of free association.

    The real question is why do we give great power to such people?

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    1. What Jeff said.
    2. Which is it: everything is done in the open, or everything is secret? You’ve now said both.
    3. So I take it you’re at least admitting that the CFR isn’t part of a conspiracy to dominate the world?

  • Max

    My point is the secret ones like bilderberg,skull and bones, and the grove are secret and when your leaders are meeting in secret in the dark that is not good for democracy there’s no transparency in government and that presents problems and fuels conspiracy theories if there not doing anything wrong then there’s no reason for them not to do it in the open.

    And as for the CFR and every other think tank out there, when they and there members shape public opinion and make policy that is criminal, policy/laws is to be made by the executive judicial and the legislature not by some elitist/social climbing scum bags.

    “The real question is why do we give great power to such people” I nor any other man or woman in this country gave them that power they took it unilaterally.

  • http://politicsnpoetry.wordpress.com Berlynn

    http://www.spp.gov and canadians.org beg to differ with The Liberty Papers. As do I.

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    So, under your rationale, business leaders, politicans, and leading academics are to be denied freedom of association because they are business leaders, politicians, and academics?

    When think tanks shape public opinion, it’s because they are able to convince the public that they are right- are you denying that people have the ability to think for themselves whether a think tank is right or not? When think tanks and lobbyists affect policy, it’s because that is what our system is designed to do; the solution isn’t to further restrict such groups, the solution is to allow even more of them into the process. Which, by the way, is what our system was originally set up to do- or have you not read Federalist Paper No. 10.

    “I nor any other man or woman in this country gave them that power they took it unilaterally.”
    Again- the burden is on you to prove this point, or similar points that somehow our lives are being controlled without our knowledge by some secret cabal of people. Thus far, you have still not even attempted to do so. The very fact that you are able to write that, though, should pretty much prove that it’s false. As the saying goes: democracy is a crappy system, except everything else is crappier.

  • gmason08

    The Neo-Con Globalists of the “Liberty Papers” masquerading as “Libertarians” launch a two pronged attack on resistance to efforts by a FEW* to continue moving toward further supra-national power aggregation:

    1. “The NAU is a “conspiracy theorist” myth with no supporting evidence”. Stop investigating, discussing, talking, etc. about the “mythical NAU”.

    2. “Hey, We “Liberatarians” all agree that an NAU(that is a myth)/ One World Govenment/any movement in that direction is a really good thing if you are a REAL, GOOD, “Libertarian” right? Don’t We? Come on now, just nod YES so we can move on to the next item on our, ahem, agenda.” Hotse Totse another Good Little Nazi.

    *the FEW, who are they? Those already well placed re: unequal power distribution. Imagine that, people plugged into power using that power to promote the concept that increasing both the level and scope of the power of the powerful is a good thing. Whoda thunk it. What a novel concept, unseen in all of human history.

    Libertarians:

    Against Coercion. Ok so far.

    Understand the State is the ultimate coercive force due to wielding “State Power”. Check.

    For efforts to move State Power toward One Central Global Super State entity which will be granted the awesome aggregated power of the national governments it supercedes and will be free to wield that unprecedented power as it alone sees fit to exert it’s authority over the entire globe.

    Gigantic Huh???

    Not surprising the Faux Liberty Loving, Libertarians at the “Liberty Papers” that “support” Ron Paul “support” him in the fashion they consistently exhibit. RP wants to reduce/limit State Power and move it back down towards the level of the individual as the Founders wisely intended. The neo-cons attempting to con people at the “Liberty Papers” are promoting moving State Power further from the level of the individual, increasing total State Power and placing that power into fewer hands.

    Good news Mark, Kevin, Doug and any other “Liberty Papers” neo-cons in libertarian clothing it may concern:

    Your oft(incessantly) expressed concerns re: Ron Paul and/or melodramatic announcements of being off the Ron Paul “bandwagon” should no longer trouble you or be a source of anguished indecision; the overwhelming majority of POTUS candidates will suit your agenda nicely. Essentially any candidate other than Ron Paul(not counting Dennis K. or Mike G.) will move you precisely in the direction you wish to go. So you see, you were wasting time all along “supporting” Ron Paul. Perhaps you already realized that ;-}

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    I was going to respond to gmason08’s latest attempt to cast us from libertarianism and call us neo-cons (despite my well-documented opposition to the Iraq war and to any attacks on Iran and to any form of torture, etc.). Then I realized something- he’s still in college, and has no freaking idea what he’s talking about!

  • gmason08

    Mark says-“the solution isn’t to further restrict such groups, the solution is to allow even more of them into the process.”

    As long as they are limited to the groups whose views you support Mark? Or did I misunderstand you, Doug and Kevin in your repeated efforts to place some groups on the permanently banned/permanently silenced list for public discourse and the public policy process. I will remember and requote the above when you next(again)attempt to smear Ron Paul simply because Americans you deem unsavory are exercising their “freedom of association” even though it is one-sided and unrequited. Rights are enumerated and protected precisely to ensure the freedom of the unpopular exercise of those rights. People that use their rights to conduct themselves only in ways popular with the majority require no assistance to ensure free exercise of their natural rights.

    Mark states to Max “Again- the burden is on you to prove this point, or similar points that somehow our lives are being controlled without our knowledge by some secret cabal of people. Thus far, you have still not even attempted to do so.”

    Who says that is Max’s burden Mark? You? I say it is your “burden” to disprove Max’s assertions on this matter. What say you to that? If you do not “prove” it I will restate that it is your “burden” to do so by preceding it with the word-“Again”. What nonsense.

    Mark also states to Max- “The very fact that you are able to write that, though, should pretty much prove that it’s false.”

    Your statement above “pretty much proves” absolutely nothing of the sort. Further, self-evident, nonsense. However, I encourage you to accept the burden to prove the bulletproof logic behind your statement above. Please do elaborate.

    Mark, did I understand you correctly that you are a lawyer?

  • gmason08

    “I was going to respond to gmason08’s latest attempt to cast us from libertarianism and call us neo-cons (despite my well-documented opposition to the Iraq war and to any attacks on Iran and to any form of torture, etc.). Then I realized something- he’s still in college, and has no freaking idea what he’s talking about!”

    Is that the best you can do Mark? Confident in the correctness of your deduction? If so, care to back it up with some serious fiat currency?

    As to what you label yourself I could not care less. I use labels with you because you utilize them. Labels at best are ignorant at worst are a tool to manipulate the innocent.

    No matter what label you self-attach to your views Mark, from what I have read of them they are mostly a hazard to Liberty, whether deliberate or misguided is of little practical consequence.

  • Max

    Im sorry Mark its not ok for the elite in this country to meet in secret, you need to look in a dictionary and look up the word TRANSPARENCY, you might also want to learn about the military industrial complex I know its a big word but your a big boy now and you can do it I believe in you.

    Unless your a centcom blogger or something then you can fuck off!!

  • Max

    when i say elite I also mean public officials in office, might wanna learn about the Logan Act

  • Jim

    “I think we have to really seriously start thinking of the model of a continental currency just like Europe.”

    Stephen Jarislowsky, 11/22/07

    Stephen A. Jarislowsky (born September 1925) is a Canadian billionaire investor and philanthropist.

  • Richard

    This liberty toilet papers. – Not a fitting name.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uRgpS1Q2dg

  • Richard
Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com