North American Union & Vchip Truth

[NuclearShadows]

So, is this total conspiracy nut stuff or is it truth? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo)

What do you all think?

[Drivesme]

It's both.
The best part is the film maker complains about using fear to manipulate people, then proceeds to use fear.
You just have to love that, don't you?

The RF chip, lots of things wrong with that part, lets start with the first one, 'everyone will demand them', sorry that is not going to happen.
'They will track your every move' that is not even possible with an RF chip, the chip has no power so can not send out a signal. The only way to 'track' a chip's movement is to have readers set up all over the place. They are the shoplifting sensors at stores, once a chip passes through them, they read the chip and set off an alarm.
So if you don't pass through a reader, no tracking.

North American Union, well tons of things wrong here, clearly the film maker hasn't crossed a border lately. If he had he would know that there is no such thing as an 'open border'.

I was held up in Canada for 4 hours because they couldn't read the evil RF chip in my passport!

I also love the 'media' thing, this one is too funny!
All one need do is think about it for a few seconds and it should be clear as to why the 'media' is not involved in any conspiracy at all.

Is there someone out there that would like to do all of these things?
Sure there is, that much they got right, problem is none of it will ever happen.

[Bruce McAuley]

It ends with the warning that if the sheep ever look up the whole ball of wax unravels, too.
Which will come first, higher intelligence or repression?
If the system was benevolent it might not be so bad, you know?
Who determines, or will artificial intelligences take the power away for our own good?:confused:
In another 10 or 20 years cash will be an oddity, fit only for collectors.
There will be an apotheosis some day, for better or worse...:cool:
On edit, we got our passports last year and they don't have an RFID chip in them, they still have to swipe them in their reader.

Bruce

[Old Round Guy]

I've heard Lou Dobbs report on the idea of a North American Union several times but not any where near to the degree this video talks about. Dobbs talks about a "limited access" highway from Mexico to Canada, supposedly to facilitate commerce. I've never heard anything about a proposed new currency.

I think the video is just a hyped up dramatization.

Do you really think it can be done? More specifically, do you think it can be done before bush leaves office?

[BummyL]

It is a possibility that the 3 countries would consider going together in a union. Just as Europe has. But it won't be done in secret. How in the world could the USA enter such a union without congress knowing about it? And remove the checks at the border?... Hasn't it become more difficult to cross the borders recently? I don't cross the borders often but there has been much news about requiring passports to Mexico and Canada.
So it may happen, but not without a lot of conversation. If we were to live long enough we would probably see a one world government, but don't hold your breath! :eek:

[Drivesme]

It ends with the warning that if the sheep ever look up the whole ball of wax unravels, too.
Which will come first, higher intelligence or repression?
If the system was benevolent it might not be so bad, you know?
Who determines, or will artificial intelligences take the power away for our own good?:confused:
In another 10 or 20 years cash will be an oddity, fit only for collectors.
There will be an apotheosis some day, for better or worse...:cool:
On edit, we got our passports last year and they don't have an RFID chip in them, they still have to swipe them in their reader.

Bruce

Hate to tell you this Bruce but your passport has a chip in it.
The only way to the info off the chip is to swipe it through a reader.
The chip is flat and in one of the corners, you can't feel it with your fingers.

[Bruce McAuley]

But it's just a more complicated magnetic strip information holder that cannot be read at a distance, I don't think.
We've never had any problems crossing borders except when the wife had a "nuclear treadmill" test in Spokane and we went across the border 2 days later, and they picked up the radioactivity in her body on the American side coming back in. They have a very small handheld radiation detector they ran over the vehicle, me and my wife, eventually even being able to pinpoint she had more radiation at the site where they injected the radioactive dye in her body. The border guy told me it becomes undetectable after about 5 or 6 days.
Good to know they have equipment sensitive enough to pick up small levels of radioactivity.:cool:

Bruce

[Drivesme]

But it's just a more complicated magnetic strip information holder that cannot be read at a distance, I don't think.
We've never had any problems crossing borders except when the wife had a "nuclear treadmill" test in Spokane and we went across the border 2 days later, and they picked up the radioactivity in her body on the American side coming back in. They have a very small handheld radiation detector they ran over the vehicle, me and my wife, eventually even being able to pinpoint she had more radiation at the site where they injected the radioactive dye in her body. The border guy told me it becomes undetectable after about 5 or 6 days.
Good to know they have equipment sensitive enough to pick up small levels of radioactivity.:cool:

Bruce
There is a flat chip inside the cover on one corner, you can't feel it but it is there.
Some border crossings (Calgary, Montreal and Toronto that I know of.) have a reader that they just wave your passport over it and it is read, others have the type where they swipe it like a credit card.

[lenny]

It's both.
The best part is the film maker complains about using fear to manipulate people, then proceeds to use fear.
You just have to love that, don't you?

I'd agree that at first glance it seems blatantly hypocritical and silly, but I think there is a difference. If you are going to be addressing a topic such as this, then it should be self-evident that what you are saying is rather horrifying and could cause someone to experience some level of fear, but it could be possible that the "fear-factor" of his message is diminished to a certain degree because one of the points being driven home is the concept of fear being the most effective tool in manipulating the masses. So in other words, when part of your message is to draw attention to the manipulative powers inherent in the emotion of fear, it makes the scary topics you're covering more candid and forthright.

Also, the concept of governments or rulers using fear to manipulate the population into doing something they otherwise wouldn't accept is centuries old. I don't think you can have an open discussion about that and its relevance to our own lives without acknowledging that it is a rather frightening topic. As I said above, it should be self-evident due to the nature of the topic that some people might find it frightening, but to point that out in a manner that would equate it with powerful people using fear in a devious manner for their own benefit is inaccurate.

The RF chip, lots of things wrong with that part, lets start with the first one, 'everyone will demand them', sorry that is not going to happen.
'They will track your every move' that is not even possible with an RF chip, the chip has no power so can not send out a signal. The only way to 'track' a chip's movement is to have readers set up all over the place. They are the shoplifting sensors at stores, once a chip passes through them, they read the chip and set off an alarm.
So if you don't pass through a reader, no tracking.

I think that when you say "everyone will demand them" you are taking what I understood was his point out of context. I think he meant that "some" people will demand them, not a vast majority of the population. That's all it takes and the media can then make it seem as though having a microchip implanted under your skin is a perfectly rational thing for a human being to do. If there is no cash and all transactions are done digitally, then many people will have no problem submitting to chipping if it makes their lives more convenient. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about...as the saying goes.

I also don't think there would be too much incentive to track every person in real time, but if it makes it easier to track or locate any individual at certain times or in certain places then it's not too hard to see a potential for misuse and abuse. Those ankle bracelets that people under house arrest wear come to mind. I realize they are different than an RFID chip, but I don't see the concept of a small tracking implant as being beyond the realm of current technology.

North American Union, well tons of things wrong here, clearly the film maker hasn't crossed a border lately. If he had he would know that there is no such thing as an 'open border'.

I was held up in Canada for 4 hours because they couldn't read the evil RF chip in my passport!

I don't think his point was that we are currently living in the North American Union, but rather that its potential exists, and there are some people who are working to make that a reality. That fact would make border crossing today irrelevant.

I also love the 'media' thing, this one is too funny!
All one need do is think about it for a few seconds and it should be clear as to why the 'media' is not involved in any conspiracy at all.

Okay, I've thought about this a lot, why should I completely reject the idea that the mainstream press and most elements of it would knowingly and/or unknowingly be actively involved in manipulating Americans into doing things that are against their own best interests? All the evidence I see leads me to conclude that this is in fact the case. Why is that funny?

Is there someone out there that would like to do all of these things?
Sure there is, that much they got right, problem is none of it will ever happen.

I'm pretty sure there were people who said that a European Union would never happen, but it did. Sure, it seems unlikely now that a North American Union would ever be possible, but I'm not so sure people couldn't be made to believe it were in their own best interest following a massive economic collapse. Never say never. :)

[lenny]

Do you really think it can be done?

I think that a North American Union is possible. If it can happen in Europe and other places, then...why not here?




More specifically, do you think it can be done before bush leaves office?

Ugh! Having faith in either the Democratic or Republican political parties is so crippling....Do you really think the NAU is a Bush thing? Things like NAFTA (Clinton) couldn't have been a precursor to NAU?

After the Bush question I'd like to change my answer above to absolutely. Absolutely there can be a NAU. Democrats and Republicans can and probably will make it happen. :(

[lenny]

It is a possibility that the 3 countries would consider going together in a union. Just as Europe has. But it won't be done in secret. How in the world could the USA enter such a union without congress knowing about it? And remove the checks at the border?... Hasn't it become more difficult to cross the borders recently? I don't cross the borders often but there has been much news about requiring passports to Mexico and Canada.
So it may happen, but not without a lot of conversation. If we were to live long enough we would probably see a one world government, but don't hold your breath! :eek:

I personally don't think that Congress or the American public has much say in the matter. In the case of congress I'd assume that they would be actively working towards it, and in the case of the American people it comes down to the old "what are you going to do about it?" We could protest it, and demand that it not happen, but we'd just be ignored. And if there were a massive economic collapse I believe the Continuity Of Government (COG) would just kick in and we'd be in a de-facto dictatorship anyway. So if Congress isn't already completely irrelevant they would be in a time of "crisis", even if that crisis is manufactured as a means to achieve an agenda.

[Drivesme]

I'd agree that at first glance it seems blatantly hypocritical and silly, but I think there is a difference. If you are going to be addressing a topic such as this, then it should be self-evident that what you are saying is rather horrifying and could cause someone to experience some level of fear, but it could be possible that the "fear-factor" of his message is diminished to a certain degree because one of the points being driven home is the concept of fear being the most effective tool in manipulating the masses. So in other words, when part of your message is to draw attention to the manipulative powers inherent in the emotion of fear, it makes the scary topics you're covering more candid and forthright.

Also, the concept of governments or rulers using fear to manipulate the population into doing something they otherwise wouldn't accept is centuries old. I don't think you can have an open discussion about that and its relevance to our own lives without acknowledging that it is a rather frightening topic. As I said above, it should be self-evident due to the nature of the topic that some people might find it frightening, but to point that out in a manner that would equate it with powerful people using fear in a devious manner for their own benefit is inaccurate.
All well and good Lenny, but this film maker used, through out the film, fear tactics, the entire thing was designed to scare the crap out of you.




I think that when you say "everyone will demand them" you are taking what I understood was his point out of context. I think he meant that "some" people will demand them, not a vast majority of the population. That's all it takes and the media can then make it seem as though having a microchip implanted under your skin is a perfectly rational thing for a human being to do. If there is no cash and all transactions are done digitally, then many people will have no problem submitting to chipping if it makes their lives more convenient. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about...as the saying goes.

I also don't think there would be too much incentive to track every person in real time, but if it makes it easier to track or locate any individual at certain times or in certain places then it's not too hard to see a potential for misuse and abuse. Those ankle bracelets that people under house arrest wear come to mind. I realize they are different than an RFID chip, but I don't see the concept of a small tracking implant as being beyond the realm of current technology.
I have to wonder if you even watched the video.



I don't think his point was that we are currently living in the North American Union, but rather that its potential exists, and there are some people who are working to make that a reality. That fact would make border crossing today irrelevant.
Then why did he say bush signed the papers and has done away with our sovereignty, complete with a burning copy of the Constitution?
I really have to question if you even watched this thing at all.



Okay, I've thought about this a lot, why should I completely reject the idea that the mainstream press and most elements of it would knowingly and/or unknowingly be actively involved in manipulating Americans into doing things that are against their own best interests? All the evidence I see leads me to conclude that this is in fact the case. Why is that funny?
The 'media' doing any of this is the biggest conspiracy theory running right now Lenny, that is what makes it funny.
Think about this in the same light that all conspiracy's are shot down, the shear number of people that would have to be complicit in this would be staggering.



I'm pretty sure there were people who said that a European Union would never happen, but it did. Sure, it seems unlikely now that a North American Union would ever be possible, but I'm not so sure people couldn't be made to believe it were in their own best interest following a massive economic collapse. Never say never. :)
never is a very long time, but you and I will not see this happen, that much I'm sure of.

[gooddoggy]

Seems likely true, Nuclear S.

The social planners have it all mapped out and take the populace there a stage at a time.

[lenny]

All well and good Lenny, but this film maker used, through out the film, fear tactics, the entire thing was designed to scare the crap out of you.


I'd agree that at first glance it seems blatantly hypocritical and silly, but I think there is a difference. If you are going to be addressing a topic such as this, then it should be self-evident that what you are saying is rather horrifying and could cause someone to experience some level of fear, but it could be possible that the "fear-factor" of his message is diminished to a certain degree because one of the points being driven home is the concept of fear being the most effective tool in manipulating the masses. So in other words, when part of your message is to draw attention to the manipulative powers inherent in the emotion of fear, it makes the scary topics you're covering more candid and forthright.

Also, the concept of governments or rulers using fear to manipulate the population into doing something they otherwise wouldn't accept is centuries old. I don't think you can have an open discussion about that and its relevance to our own lives without acknowledging that it is a rather frightening topic. As I said above, it should be self-evident due to the nature of the topic that some people might find it frightening, but to point that out in a manner that would equate it with powerful people using fear in a devious manner for their own benefit is inaccurate.

I'm not sure you understood what I wrote...or perhaps you simply disagree with my conclusion that "it should be self-evident due to the nature of the topic that some people might find it frightening, but to point that out in a manner that would equate it with powerful people using fear in a devious manner for their own benefit is inaccurate."?

I have to wonder if you even watched the video.

Yes, I watched the video. It's a clip from an online movie called Zietgeist (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&q=Zeitgeist&total=2744&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) that appeared last summer I think. I've actually watched the whole film. Some of it is silly, some of it is interesting and worth looking into, and some of it is true.

When I said...

think that when you say "everyone will demand them" you are taking what I understood was his point out of context. I think he meant that "some" people will demand them, not a vast majority of the population. That's all it takes and the media can then make it seem as though having a microchip implanted under your skin is a perfectly rational thing for a human being to do. If there is no cash and all transactions are done digitally, then many people will have no problem submitting to chipping if it makes their lives more convenient. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about...as the saying goes.

I also don't think there would be too much incentive to track every person in real time, but if it makes it easier to track or locate any individual at certain times or in certain places then it's not too hard to see a potential for misuse and abuse. Those ankle bracelets that people under house arrest wear come to mind. I realize they are different than an RFID chip, but I don't see the concept of a small tracking implant as being beyond the realm of current technology.

...I made these observations based on what I interpreted was the message he was trying to deliver. If you disagree with something I've written then rather than ask a meaningless rhetorical question, you should point out what part of my statement you disagree with and make a case for why you feel that way.

Then why did he say bush signed the papers and has done away with our sovereignty, complete with a burning copy of the Constitution?
I really have to question if you even watched this thing at all.

I believe he was talking about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Security+and+prosperity+partnership+of+North+Ame rica), and that the context was that because of that and other factors we would eventually end up in a North American Union. And therefore, I think my observation that...

I don't think his point was that we are currently living in the North American Union, but rather that its potential exists, and there are some people who are working to make that a reality. That fact would make border crossing today irrelevant.

...is spot on. It seems that I probably did a better job of watching the video than you did because the correct context of of his statements didn't escape me.

The 'media' doing any of this is the biggest conspiracy theory running right now Lenny, that is what makes it funny.
Think about this in the same light that all conspiracy's are shot down, the shear number of people that would have to be complicit in this would be staggering.

I don't think I quite understand what your point is here...we're probably just on completely different pages. I don't understand how you could claim to have any authority on what the "biggest conspiracy theory running" is, or that "all conspiracies are shot down," and also why asking relevant questions based on the research of publicly available information is funny. If I make the claim that the corporate/mainstream press was complicit both knowingly and unknowingly in the act of manipulating the American public (using fear no less) into believing that Iraq posed a threat to the U.S., and was a key component in getting this country involved in an illegal war then that would be a conspiracy theory. What do the perceived number of people involved have to do with it, and what kind of numbers are we really talking about anyway? That's why I emphasized "knowingly and unknowingly," I don't think it's just a black and white issue. I don't really think it's very funny either.

Like I said, I look at all the evidence (not just this video clip from a flawed conspiracy movie) and have to conclude that the corporate mainstream press is actively involved in manipulating the public into doing things that are not in our own best interest and that wouldn't be agreed to if people were better informed. I'd highly recommend the documentaries Manufacturing Consent, and the BBC's The Power of Nightmares to get ya started.

never is a very long time, but you and I will not see this happen, that much I'm sure of.

Like I said in my original post, I don't mind playing devils advocate on this topic. Do I believe that we will join the NAU in the near future (within the next decade or so)? Honestly, I'd put it at about 50/50. Depends on a lot of factors which is why I brought up economic collapse as being a potential catalyst for getting people to agree to something like this. I disagree with you and think the possibility is very real.

[McGyver]

This "stuff" scares the bejeebers out of me.

And what really scares me, is that 10 years ago I would NEVER have believed something like this was even possible.

But then, that was also when I was still naive enough to believe that our country had checks and balances in place that would prevent any one man or any one party from taking too much control. And it was back when I was still naive enough to believe that the American People would NEVER fall for a Religous Phoney, or that they would never elect an incompetent imbicile for President. It was also when I was naive enough to believe that when you WERE elected President, you instantly raised your own personal bar of integrity and wanting to do what was best for the American People who put all that trust and power in YOUR hands. But NOW, I KNOW better, and it scares the hell out of me!

Ahhhhh..... for the good old days of youth and naivete! :rolleyes:



************************************************** ************************************************** *

[Drivesme]

I'm not sure you understood what I wrote...or perhaps you simply disagree with my conclusion that "it should be self-evident due to the nature of the topic that some people might find it frightening, but to point that out in a manner that would equate it with powerful people using fear in a devious manner for their own benefit is inaccurate."?



Yes, I watched the video. It's a clip from an online movie called Zietgeist (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&q=Zeitgeist&total=2744&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) that appeared last summer I think. I've actually watched the whole film. Some of it is silly, some of it is interesting and worth looking into, and some of it is true.

When I said...



...I made these observations based on what I interpreted was the message he was trying to deliver. If you disagree with something I've written then rather than ask a meaningless rhetorical question, you should point out what part of my statement you disagree with and make a case for why you feel that way.



I believe he was talking about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Security+and+prosperity+partnership+of+North+Ame rica), and that the context was that because of that and other factors we would eventually end up in a North American Union. And therefore, I think my observation that...



...is spot on. It seems that I probably did a better job of watching the video than you did because the correct context of of his statements didn't escape me.



I don't think I quite understand what your point is here...we're probably just on completely different pages. I don't understand how you could claim to have any authority on what the "biggest conspiracy theory running" is, or that "all conspiracies are shot down," and also why asking relevant questions based on the research of publicly available information is funny. If I make the claim that the corporate/mainstream press was complicit both knowingly and unknowingly in the act of manipulating the American public (using fear no less) into believing that Iraq posed a threat to the U.S., and was a key component in getting this country involved in an illegal war then that would be a conspiracy theory. What do the perceived number of people involved have to do with it, and what kind of numbers are we really talking about anyway? That's why I emphasized "knowingly and unknowingly," I don't think it's just a black and white issue. I don't really think it's very funny either.

Like I said, I look at all the evidence (not just this video clip from a flawed conspiracy movie) and have to conclude that the corporate mainstream press is actively involved in manipulating the public into doing things that are not in our own best interest and that wouldn't be agreed to if people were better informed. I'd highly recommend the documentaries Manufacturing Consent, and the BBC's The Power of Nightmares to get ya started.



Like I said in my original post, I don't mind playing devils advocate on this topic. Do I believe that we will join the NAU in the near future (within the next decade or so)? Honestly, I'd put it at about 50/50. Depends on a lot of factors which is why I brought up economic collapse as being a potential catalyst for getting people to agree to something like this. I disagree with you and think the possibility is very real.

Alright Lenny you are buying what this guy is selling, no big deal, just realize that not everyone is going to agree with you and that doesn't make them wrong.

[lenny]

Yes, I watched the video. It's a clip from an online movie called Zietgeist that appeared last summer I think. I've actually watched the whole film. Some of it is silly, some of it is interesting and worth looking into, and some of it is true.

Like I said, I look at all the evidence (not just this video clip from a flawed conspiracy movie) and have to conclude that the corporate mainstream press is actively involved in manipulating the public into doing things that are not in our own best interest and that wouldn't be agreed to if people were better informed. I'd highly recommend the documentaries Manufacturing Consent, and the BBC's The Power of Nightmares to get ya started.

Like I said in my original post, I don't mind playing devils advocate on this topic. Do I believe that we will join the NAU in the near future (within the next decade or so)? Honestly, I'd put it at about 50/50. Depends on a lot of factors which is why I brought up economic collapse as being a potential catalyst for getting people to agree to something like this. I disagree with you and think the possibility is very real.

Drivesme, it seems like you ran out of relevant things to say after your first post. That's fine with me, I can't say that I'm really learning anything from you here. My thoughts and opinions on this topic have been developing over the last several years, and for you to suggest that "I'm buying what this guy is selling" is laughable. I'm not interested in discussing the topic with you any further, but I would however be interested in hearing what Nuclear Shadow's opinion's on this are.

[Drivesme]

Drivesme, it seems like you ran out of relevant things to say after your first post. That's fine with me, I can't say that I'm really learning anything from you here. My thoughts and opinions on this topic have been developing over the last several years, and for you to suggest that "I'm buying what this guy is selling" is laughable. I'm not interested in discussing the topic with you any further, but I would however be interested in hearing what Nuclear Shadow's opinion's on this are.

Atta boy Lenny, you keep up the good work.:rolleyes::cool:

[NuclearShadows]

Well drivesme makes some good points. But I suppose I have a weird take on it all. You take the work of DARPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA), add a bit of megalomania, mix it up a bit and out comes a grab for world domination. Satellite and vChip/RFID technology is pretty amazing actually and who know what they have going on that isn’t even on the radar yet…

Telepresence technology (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/23/ciscos-telepresence-meeting-does-video-meetings-in-ultra-hd/) exists and who is to say, because of national security, that there isn’t a chip in our televisions that the government can access to look in on us at home and they wouldn’t even have to tell us about it. They lied as long as they could about their domestic surveillance program (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html) until they got caught. But most people don’t seem to care or even pay attention and the government counts on that…

Maybe it is years of distrust of the government or maybe it is too many sci-fi movies. Or watching the microcosm and macrocosm of human beings taking actions that are basically against their own best interest and being easily led down paths of destruction by a smooth talking liar, be it Hitler or the neo-cons.

You look at the European Union and the reasons they created that and it doesn’t seem so far fetched that the powers that be would want to do it here. It is all about money, not freedom as far as I can tell… That’s all for now…

[gooddoggy]

Nuclear S., quit second guessing your sense of reality (attributing your perceptions to science fiction movies).

While we are at it, let me say that a good many people believe that Gorbachev, in his own words still a committed communist, instituted fake democratic and security reforms in Russia which were staged to lull the West into the false belief that communism was defeated or rendered irrelevant.

This was done to foster more "unity" between the US and Russia--the internationalist agenda. It even created the fiction that Russia is our friend. In other words, further globalization, just like NAFTA, CAFTA, and open borders.

Putin's recent dictatorial actions ought to convince anyone that Russia is not and never was headed for democracy. The market reforms translated into a huge financial engine of Russian organized crime and the politicians in the West who have made money off of this. And this is the nature of the so called market changes in China and Cuba.

It reflects nothing more than windfall profits for the same people who have always ruled oppressively.

There is not one ounce of change in the lives of the people--indeed, things have worsened.

As for communism being dead-- the miserable people of China and Cuba know better. Sorry--that just never happened.

Just because western corporations and lawmakers have begun to make money off the situation doesn't mean it suddenly became Capitalism or even moved in that direction.

Ronald Reagan's ability as an actor (and the gullibility of people who believed all this hooplah back in the 80's) is reflected in his status as founding father of a new conservative movement. Rubbish. It was all shadow and hyperbole, no substance whatsoever. He did not shrink or reform Big Government. He did not act on behalf of the pro-life constituency. Indeed, his appointmet of a pro-choice Supreme Court justice is all that is needed to disqualify him from being what he and the media portrayed him to be.

Yes, I'm actually suggesting that the whole thing was fake, and that communism is as big a threat today as it was then. And it always been supported and helped along by Western financial powers, who, it would seem, would be the most opposed to communism in ideology but are in fact it's biggest helpers.

And these are the same people who are actively seeking to create the North American Union, with an eye toward world government.

[BummyL]

You might want to go to Snopes and read about North American Union and the Amero. Snopes says they are both false. However, Snopes is being specific about emails that have been sent, not the film clip that was presented here.

To get to Snopes: www.snopes.com

Then search on "North American Union".

[lenny]

You might want to go to Snopes and read about North American Union and the Amero. Snopes says they are both false. However, Snopes is being specific about emails that have been sent, not the film clip that was presented here.

To get to Snopes: www.snopes.com

Then search on "North American Union".

Not sure if this was a response to me?

Just to be clear, again, I wasn't arguing that the NAU or the Amero are something that exist today, or that their emergence is set in stone based on past legislation. I think the only thing I was really focusing on was the potential of such things occurring in the future. :)


_______________________

[gooddoggy]

Snopes.com is not the final authority in every issue.

One of the longest entries they ever posted was a rebuttal to the Clinton "Body List".The sheer length of the article shows you that they knew the burden of proof was on them, since they tried to specifically address each death and, I might add, with some ridiculous concessions to the power of coincidence.

If you look at the EU, it began as simply the European Economic Community--some trade agreements, nothing more. Today it has it's own constitution, it's own judiciary, it's own currency, it's own military force, and it's own intelligence service. So don't let the social planners wave off the possibility of the NAU plan with double talk like "It's only about trade and economics".

[McGyver]

Snopes.com is not the final authority in every issue.

Well, maybe not, but I'd sure as hell take the word of Snopes.com before I would the word of any of the left or right partisan hacks. Or for that matter any of the posters on this forum. As least Snopes.com "TRIES" to get to the truth!



************************************************** ************************************************** *

[gooddoggy]

Snopes is useful as a fact checking tool but like Wikipedia and You Tube they should be taken with a grain of salt. You Tube does censor videos, for example. Surviellance videos taken by militia members which incriminate police and public officials have been deleted by admin. there. Do not for a minute believe the hype about the Internet being some engine of democracy--it is already controlled though cracks in the system exist.

The government never permitted the Net to be introduced to the public until they were equipped to deal with any potential damage it might provoke. It is no signifigant threat to their power.

It is the greatest intelligence gathering tool they have ever developed since potential dissidents are all already telling on themselves and traceable through their IP numbers and Internet ramblings. The profiling engine of the web will enable government to pinpoint problem areas and customize any broad military action taken against the people of the States, thus helping their chances for success in disarming and subjugating the American people.

As an example: on one hand, the Irish Republican Army was able to get the truth about conflict in Northern Ireland out to the world via You Tube and other Internet forums. They scored a propoganda victory with millions. On the other hand, how many of these videos were uploaded by actual IRA members who previously slipped through the British intelligence net? This opens a wide assortment of tools to the authorities. Video signatures, facial and body recognition software, IP numbers, etc, etc. The conflict is not over forever there and the British will not honor their agreements with Sinn Fien. In the future, they will have the asset of the IRA presence on the Web to assist in the identification of Provisionals.

If U.S. patriots are to resist the NAU and other programs of the social planners, they should stay well away from the Internet in these matters and follow the concept of "Leaderless Resistance"--the phantom resistance cell. They should adopt the methods and organization of the IRA in the 70's - 90's. They should be as silent and unassuming as possible, and only carefully use the Web for propaganda purposes.