Finally, the creation of a North American currency, the Amero, is also a legit notion, no doubt greatly exaccerbated by this bit of information:
...congress turned over control of coining and regulating U.S. Currency... to the Federal Reserve in 1913. The Federal Reserve is a quasi-government entity, and not part of the legislative branch of the United States government.
Lou Dobbs did a story on all of this for CNN, too.
CFR wrote:To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that ‘‘our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.’’
Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.
Rather than drudge through the InterWeb trying to figure out what's real and what's not, I figured I'd ask the smart people of the Cafe what they know is fact and what they know is fiction about all of this. Also, if others hadn't heard of all of this, it might be a good chance to educate people properly about what the heck is going on here.
Last edited by StlSluggers on Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Good post. Not long ago, I heard rumors of a unified North America. I didn't believe it but then I remember that this administration was a proponent of Dubai manning our ports w/o respect to national security. So I wouldn't be surprised if most of this was true. As long as certain people are making sick profits, who cares about the impact, right?
Mexico, Canada, nor the US will be ceding any sovereignty anytime soon. Anything that increases mobility of goods and labor within the law and without cedeing soverign rights is a good thing IMO. Trade in all its forms (goods, skills, labor, etc) is the great peacemaker. Everyone has a vested interest in making it work.
Also, these new types of corridors are happenning irrespective of the TTU. There's a stretch of interstate in VA that is brutal b/c of all the truck traffic. There is already a project there to introduce separate truck lanes to make travel better for everyone, regardless of grand NAU schemes that may or may not exist.
It's bad, bad, bad, bad, BAD for our country. That's the only fact you need to know.
Same with any other sovereignty infringing unions/treaties. NAFTA was a cute idea, and honestly most people, with the notable exception of Ross Perot, at the time thought it was a good idea. But MAN, what a disaster it's become.
Amazinz wrote:Hmm. Just pulled out my license and looked. Never realized it before but it's there.
NC DMV wrote:The hologram is a security feature which is planned to be included eventually on licenses throughout the United States. It was added to the North Carolina driver license in December 2006 as a common security element which enhances security, protects against document fraud and aids law enforcement.
Seems like a pretty lame security feature if the state's own residents don't even know it's supposed to be there.
RugbyD wrote:Mexico, Canada, nor the US will be ceding any sovereignty anytime soon. Anything that increases mobility of goods and labor within the law and without cedeing soverign rights is a good thing IMO. Trade in all its forms (goods, skills, labor, etc) is the great peacemaker. Everyone has a vested interest in making it work.
I guess there is more than one way to look at the definition of sovereignty. I don't imagine anything in this union would allow an international committee to override our own national laws in national issues. I think the people who are worried about sovereignty focus mainly on our country's ability to decide international issues as we see fit. If you're of that mindset, paragraphs like this one would certainly set off an alarm in your head:
Establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution. The current NAFTA dispute-resolution process is founded on ad hoc panels that are not capable of building institutional memory or establishing precedent,may be subject to conflicts of interest, and are appointed by authorities who may have an incentive to delay a given proceeding. As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage faster, more consistent, and more predictable resolution of disputes. In addition, there is a need to review the workings of NAFTA’s dispute-settlement mechanism to make it more efficient, transparent, and effective.
I understand how something like a WTO panel could make things run smoother, but others see that as taking matters out of our hands.