North American Union

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

North American Union

arbilad · Head Chef

The integrity of those statements is in serious doubt. For instance, the planned superhighway is most assuredly real. Here in Colorado many farmers are livid about the government planning to condemn their land to sell it to the company planning the superhighway. The Texas legislature had been planning to ban it, but the federal government planned to withhold funds. Deriding something to stop people from believing in it is unfortunately an effective tactic, but the facts simply don't back up their statements.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Wait a sec... Why would the transtexas cooridor go through colorado!? I think you're being sold a bill of goods, but feel free to actually provide evidence to your fears...

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

I'll look up references, but all the time on the radio I hear from irate farmers who are battling legislators on this issue. The transtexas corridor will pass through Colorado on its way to Canada.

eta: BTW, they're not fears, as in I'm afraid, or it's having a negative effect on me. I think it's a shame that the North American Union is moving forward. But I know that God is on the side of the righteous and we have nothing to fear.

-- Edited by arbilad at 13:13, 2007-08-23

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Is there something inherently evil about shipping goods from Mexico to Canada?

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

Here's a website on the Colorado portion of the highway.

Before you start disparaging them as a bunch of whackos, look up the bills they mention. They're on the level.

Here's an article in general about the superhighway.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Me? Disparage!? Why, Arbi, I'm deeply wounded by your insinuation...

So you didn't answer my second question, why is building an interstate inherently evil?

--Ray

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Jeez, ray, don't you know anything? rolleyes

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

If the highway isn't evil then why would ACDC write a song about it entitled "Highway to Hell" and why would the proposed number for the highway be Route 666?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I'll admit I only have a BS in Geography, and that in the lowly field of map making, but last I had heard, Texas and Colorado are not contiguous states...

So, the route of this highway has changed from going up to Kansas City to Denver?

That really makes a lot of sense if the ostensible goal is to link up the hearts of Mexican, US, and Canadian manufacturing and distribution regions and infrastructure...

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Superhighway does not equal North American Union. It does mean easier shipment of goods between Mexico, the US and Canada. A corridor for that has been underway for some time as Amarillo is in the corridor. Roads north of here that were previously two lanes are being expanded to four that are part of the corridor route on the way through the corner of New Mexico and into Colorado. Portions of the corridor are controversial, namely the supercorridor portions proposed in East and South Texas. Much of the corridor system is merely an expansion of 2 lane to 4 lane highways.

The supercorridor in Texas just seems like overkill to me. It is not a done deal in that format but is what is proposed. The supercorridor is a long way from getting a go ahead.

How is a superhighway the highway to the North American Union? Don't see how it makes for the North American Union but it may technically serve to unify our close trading partners Mexico and Canada for the purpose of the movement of goods.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

The "corridors" are a little confusing in that there is more than one. What is currently underway (and has been for a while) is the Port-to-Plains Corridor (link includes a map). This is what has been underway around here. I have driven both routes north through Colorado where work is ongoing in expanding some 2-lane roads to 4-lanes. The Trans-Texas Corridor is a much more ambitious project that is being looked at in Texas. It is still very much in the planning stage.

Oh, and there is no proposed NAFTA Superhighway.

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 16:10, 2007-08-23

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I wonder... did the native americans decry as conspiracy the creation and use of transportation corridors like the Oregon and Santa Fe Trails?

Oh, yeah... I guess they did, except it was more or less treaty breaking as opposed to conspiracy theory... too bad they didn't really understand the concept of manifest destiny. But, they are getting back at the white man with the casino's and all!

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

Here is the official site for this silliness: http://www.spp.gov/index.asp and
http://www.nascocorridor.com/index.htm

Personally, I think it is more of "don't look at what we are doing, what we are doing is not what you think we are doing, nothing to see here" then when it is done it is too late.

OTOH, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2006/08/29/the_nafta_super_highway
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497

Yes, I-35 exists, but it is what they are going to do with it, the expansion, lack of oversight, ignoring US laws, etc.

Building the North American Union:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=North_American_Union
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52230

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Considering the quality of goods coming from China, it'd be nice to be able to get goods from Mexico (and then exert a little more control on their processes) and such cheaper.

arbilad · Head Chef

I know that a large highway is not the same thing as the north american union, although the highway is a big part of their plans. I brought it up because the article mocked that concept, amongst other things. So, in proving that they are planning a super highway, I impeached the integrity of the whole article.
And Ray, there's nothing evil in and of itself about a large highway, but there are several problems with this specific project.
First, they are planning to put the customs station for trucks coming in from Mexico well within the US borders, so any truck coming in from Mexico will have already been in the US for quite a while before any customs checking is done at all.
Second, this is a private highway, which means that you can only cross with permission. This highway will bisect the US. That means that, after this highway is complete, you'll only be able to cross from the western US to the eastern portion with this company's permission. Granted, I'm sure that in the vast majority of cases it will be a problem. But I don't like the idea of a private company restricting travel. The government can't get away with that with its highways because it still makes an effort to appear to follow the Constitution.
Third, they are planning to effectively steal vast tracts of private land to do this. The government will condemn the land, give the owner a small fraction of what it's worth, and then turn around and sell it to this private company. This will ruin many people, because in most cases they'll still have a mortgage, and the pittance they get from the government will nowhere near pay that amount off.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

What I see is a lot of conjecture. The North American Union is a huge assumption which I call fear mongering on the part of isolationists (Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and many at WorldNetDaily are of this ilk). I have read several articles such as what Valhalla has linked to and they all have no proof that a North American Union is being created secretly under our noses.

There is no proposed national superhighway. Most of the your comments on such a critter, Arbilad, are criticisms of the Trans-Texas corridor. As this is only in the planning stages (and such ventures take years to plan) so thus it is not a private highway as it does not even exist yet. It is proposed that it be a toll way (not quote equallying what you are calling a private highway). The Trans-Texas corridor, as current planning goes, will be managed a company composed of a Spanish interest (Cintra) and a US interest (Zachry). There are some viable concerns about the arrangement, however. While I won't say it will not happen - the effort to steal vast tracts of private land to construct the Trans-Texas corridor is again an assumption.

You quite obviously did not read the article I linked to, Arbilad.

Of course, if cargo switches from Los Angeles to Lázaro Cárdenas, more and more manufactured goods will have to travel through Mexico to reach their US destination, and there will be a significant uptick in the northbound overland traffic. The Kansas City Southern Railroad company is already betting on that eventuality, spending millions of dollars to purchase the rail routes that run from the port up to Kansas City. At the same time, a business improvement group called Kansas City SmartPort, whose members include the local chamber of commerce, is pushing for Kansas City, which is already a transportation hub, to transform itself fully into a "smart port," a kind of intermodal transportation and cargo center. The group recently advocated a pilot program that would place a Mexican customs official in Kansas City to inspect Mexico-bound freight, relieving bottlenecks at the border. The notion of a Mexican customs official on American soil fired the imaginations of those already disposed to see a North American Union on the horizon, and SmartPort staff have been fending off angry inquiries ever since.

I am currently not a fan of the Trans-Texas corridor. I really do not think it is needed on the scale that it is current being proposed and I do not like portions of the proposal.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

arbilad wrote:

First, they are planning to put the customs station for trucks coming in from Mexico well within the US borders, so any truck coming in from Mexico will have already been in the US for quite a while before any customs checking is done at all.

Customs stations are not the same thing as Ports of Entry, and neither necessarily has to be limited to being located at a border crossing.

Second, this is a private highway, which means that you can only cross with permission. This highway will bisect the US. That means that, after this highway is complete, you'll only be able to cross from the western US to the eastern portion with this company's permission. ... The government can't get away with that with its highways because it still makes an effort to appear to follow the Constitution.

Every limited access highway in the U.S., toll road or non-toll road "bisects" the free, unimpeded travel from one side to the other side. There exists absolutely nothing about "permission" to cross that sort of road, unless you feel it is some kind of deprivation of liberty for a fence to be put up along the side of a highway to keep people from trying to cross it at non designated crossing points or interchanges. It is simply a matter of engineering a high-speed, limited access highway. What you say makes it sound like one is going to have to pay a toll or get permission from the "company" funding / operating the toll road to drive over the designated overpasses. Where is the evidence that there will be no overpasses of the non-toll roads and free ways? Oh, and by the way, the government does create limited access highways very Constitutionally with every single toll road and free way (get it, free as in not having to pay a toll?) it has built and does build.

Third, they are planning to effectively steal vast tracts of private land to do this. The government will condemn the land, give the owner a small fraction of what it's worth, and then turn around and sell it to this private company. This will ruin many people, because in most cases they'll still have a mortgage, and the pittance they get from the government will nowhere near pay that amount off.

Yeah, I read the websites that you linked. Sounds like the same sort of alarmist NIMBY argument that is always made with just about any public works projects where folks don't want to sell. I had a class in Public Policy and Urban Planning, so have had a little exposure to the concepts. Not an expert, but let's just say I've seen more than the reactionary response the "public" too often gives, villifying the whole thing.

For ease of explanation, excerpts from Wikepedia:

Some states require that the government body offer to purchase the property before resorting to the use of eminent domain.

The term condemnation is used to describe the act of a government exercising its power of eminent domain to transfer title to private property from its rightful owner to itself.

Condemnation via eminent domain indicates the government is taking the property or an interest in it, such as an easement. In most cases the only thing that remains to be decided when a condemnation action is filed is the amount of just compensation, although in some cases the right to take may be challenged by the property owner on the grounds that the attempted taking is not for a public use, or has not been authorized by the legislature, or because the condemnor has not followed the proper procedure required by law.

Three points to consider in all that discussion of condemnation and eminent domain...

1. Does the State of Colorado law require the government to make a market value offer to land owners first? If not... well, landowners are pretty much SOL for getting what they feel is fair compensation.

2. If landowners refuse a government pre-condemnation buyout offer, they are SOL, because the government will have done it's due diligence in being compliant with the law and the landowner then has to accept whatever the government offers as just compensation for condemned property.

3. Are those that are fighting the project really grasping at straws by trying to make the argument that this amounts to a government taking for then transferring to a private entity (e.g. not for public use)? I think so. And the opponents are trying to make out as if this private entity is going to become essentially a government unto itself. The fact still remains, though, regardless of what speed limits or amenities will be allowed on or accessible to said roads, they will still be public venues. Just like any other toll road, anyone who has a legal vehicle for highway use will be able to drive on it, they simply have to pay the toll. Hence, it is not for private use.

arbilad · Head Chef

What I see is a lot of conjecture. The North American Union is a huge assumption which I call fear mongering on the part of isolationists (Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and many at WorldNetDaily are of this ilk). I have read several articles such as what Valhalla has linked to and they all have no proof that a North American Union is being created secretly under our noses.

It all depends on what you consider proof. For instance, if I decide to be obstinant about it I could claim that there is no proof that there is an actual, living person who is posting on Bountiful, instead of a computer program that could easily pass the Turing test.
I find the evidence pretty convincing, especially since it explains many things. For instance, Bush's refusal to enforce the border. He talks about it all the time, but there is no action to accompany the talk. However, his inaction on sealing the border makes sense in the light of the north american union.
The eminent domain issue is of very real concern to people who are looking at having their houses taken for well below market value. The Constitution constrains government to offer fair compensation, which it has not bothered to do in a long time.

arbilad · Head Chef

2. If landowners refuse a government pre-condemnation buyout offer, they are SOL, because the government will have done it's due diligence in being compliant with the law and the landowner then has to accept whatever the government offers as just compensation for condemned property.

This is a false statement. First, where is the guarantee that the government has done due diligence? Second, it is a slave's attitude to say that you have to accept whatever the government does and like it. The first amendment gives you the right to petition government for a redress of grievances. A government that can do what it wants, when it wants, as you suggest government should be, is tyranical.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Arbi, I do not suggest that a governmant can do what it wants when it wants. Our concept of condemnation and eminent domain was not invented with the fifth ammendment, the fifth ammendment simply reinforced what was the de facto concept from English Common Law.

What I'm stating is that there are laws of due process the government has to abide by in order to condemn land in cases of eminent domain. It appears that these laws are state specific. So, what ever happens will be according to the state law of Colorado in the example you brought up. The assumption I make is that the State or Federal government in acquiring land for a highway is going to make sure it has the i's dotted and the t's crossed in following whatever the state and local law is. This is to avoid the cost of legal action that could cost the government dearly if it has been shown that due process has not been followed.

Under that assumption, if a landowner refuses a pre-condemnation buyout offer (if it is required by law), they will be SOL for getting anything close to what they could have gotten if the government has to go through the legal process and expense of condemning the land in order to obtain title to it. But, even with condemnation, the law is clear that a just compensation must be given. Just does not mean fair market value from a time before the land was condemned. Once land is condemned, there is no fair market value because no one else can purchase it but the government.

And that is where I think a lot of the anger and antagonism comes from. People think that suddenly because their land is desired by the government, they should be compensated above what it is really worth. I don't have anything to support this following thought, but by and large, I think the government in general has of necessity been forced do pay pretty close to market value for land in pre-condemnation buyout offers, simply to avoid the legal harassment of loss of property value. But, once those buyouts are refused, there ain't a thing to bolster the property value because no one else is going to come in and buy the land from the land owner and take a loss by then selling it to the government.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

eminient domain is one of those scary things that everyone hates... until they're cruizing down the freeway and 90mph with no traffic in sight. Huge fits and arguments have been had here in Seattle over Lightrail projects. Heck they bought up tons of land in choice places, at 'forced "fair market" prices' then spent their budget too quickly, and the voters nixed the project... so now they have all this land that once belonged to people who wanted it, and the realestate values have gone up astronomically, so they're essentially selling it back for a huge profit. Pretty sick stuff...

--Ray

Pt314 · Senior Member

In order for a North American Union to become reality, there would need to be a constitutional amendment, 2/3rd of both houses of congress, and 3/4ths of the states.

I feel that this isn't something to worry about right now.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

For instance, Bush's refusal to enforce the border. He talks about it all the time, but there is no action to accompany the talk. However, his inaction on sealing the border makes sense in the light of the north american union.

Don't see the connection. Can you elaborate?

How does continuing to allow illegal immigrants into the US further a so-called North American Union? The SPP and the corridors are about commerce, trade and security with some claiming a hidden agenda to make a North American Union - how does allowing illegal immigrants in help that along?

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 16:07, 2007-08-24

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

If anything, creating prosperity in Mexico should stem illegal immigration...

At least that's what the folks who hate the illegals keep saying they WANT to do... (though I (as a Pompous Windbag) honestly doubt they're sincere, about that component of their supposed well-intentioned concerns...)

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

TitusTodd wrote:

For instance, Bush's refusal to enforce the border. He talks about it all the time, but there is no action to accompany the talk. However, his inaction on sealing the border makes sense in the light of the north american union.

Don't see the connection. Can you elaborate?

Ahem... let's see if a skeptic like me can create the connection...

If the border laws are not enforced, then it becomes easier to say, hey, this is what we're doing right now anyway, so lets just dispense with the archaic border law and do like Europe did with the Schlengen Convention of 1985, and thus make borders a mere formality if that much...

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Well, since we are no where near creating a North American Union, allowing illegals in now does Bush little good. As was discussed previously, much must happen before the North American Union can remotely be a reality. Frankly, who can picture the US willingly opening up the border with Mexico anytime soon? The flow of workers would be overwhelming and I do not see many politicians open to that - not near enough to accomplish it.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

"Good evening, everybody. Tonight, an astonishing proposal to expand our borders to incorporate Mexico and Canada and simultaneously diminish U.S. sovereignty. Have our political elites gone mad?" (Lou Dobbs Tonight, June 9, 2005)

World Affairs Brief reported on 24 August "Just before President Bush left for his meeting with the Mexican and Canadian Prime Ministers in Montebello Resort in Quebec, he received a letter from 22 congressmen demanding that he openly detail to Congress what his administration has been doing since signing the 2005 Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

WAB also reports that "Protest organizers at the SPP meeting at Montebello, Quebec have defiinitive evidence that 3 masked protesters were police agents intent on provoking violence so that police could have an excuse to attack demonstrators." This and other reports on the internet state that the agents provocateurs were actually policemen wearing red bandanas to cover their faces, and one carrying a rock. they were reportedly identified as policemen by markings on the soles of their shoes.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

@ shiz

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

TitusTodd · Senior Member

I don't see the point of your post, lundbaek.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

The purpose of my above post is to try to motivate more interest in and concern about the North American Union.

I quoted CNN's Lou Dobbs because he is, as far as I can find, the only person in the mainstream media reporting on the SPP, the NAFTA highway, and the North American Union. In addition to his 9 June 2005 statement, on 5 February 2007 he stated "The Bush Administration is pushing, rather publicly now, its Security and Prosperity Partnership, a plan to 'integrate the economies' of the Unites States, Mexico and Canada by the year 2010. You're thinking, you didn't vote for that, your congressman didn't vote for that, your senator didn't vote for that. You're correct." On another occasion, the date of which I've lost, Dobbs said on CNN, speaking of the North American Union: "It is an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value...If not stopped, the plan for a North American Union will supplant the former independent states of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. And this is not conjecture. The North American Union is official U.S. policy." That was a I think popular CNN news commenttor speaking, not me.

From my perspective, in a nutshell, we are being sold out by a group of global politicians who have been bought and paid for by multinationals who stand to make trillions of dollars by creating a single "North American Union." This union will not be controlled by the people thru their elected representatives, but by bureaucrats and international agreements. This should help explain why President Bush & Co. are so openly supporting open borders, amnesty for illegals.

Even close to acccurate analysis of reported news is a complex process. All the information we see or gather is generally a combination of truth, half truth, error, and lies. Filtering out the truth requires finding honest, reliable sources and carefully scrutinizing sources known to have a specific bias.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

The purpose of my above post is to try to motivate more interest in and concern about the North American Union.

Pardon me while I have a good natured chuckle (at the expense of how you worded that sentence)...

I always thought you wanted us to be motivated against said North American Union. Oh the irony! Oh the humanity! Our own Lundbaek is now trying to get us interested in the North American union

(Hey, you know I love ya man, but that was just too good to pass up a little tongue in cheek ribbin' on... )

TitusTodd · Senior Member

The purpose of my above post is to try to motivate more interest in and concern about the North American Union.

The problem is, Lou Dobbs can say all he wants but it doesn't make it so. Where in his comments is the proof of such a union being pushed? I see a mischaracterization of the SPP. If he is touting a NAFTA highway and a North American Union as factual, he's not much of a journalist if he doesn't have the facts to back it up but rather is expressing his mere opinion.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

President Bush can say all he wants (or is told) to say and that tells us nothing either, except that there is a good chance the truth lies elsewhere.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

How does the onus lie with Bush in proving that the SPP is not what the fear mongers say it is beyond stating what its purpose is? The SPP states its agenda and there has been nothing produced to show it is to create a North American Union.

I see a lot of beating around the bush hoping the makings of a North American Union and a NAFTA Superhighway pops out. What ain't there ain't gonna pop out - as has been plainly shown here. Lots of declarations made about a North American Union and no proof to show it is in the works beyond distortions of the SPPs stated purpose. I'm still waiting for facts.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

What about the Denver Airport. http://www.geocities.com/Baja/5692/

arbilad · Head Chef

TitusTodd wrote:

How does the onus lie with Bush in proving that the SPP is not what the fear mongers say it is beyond stating what its purpose is? The SPP states its agenda and there has been nothing produced to show it is to create a North American Union.

I see a lot of beating around the bush hoping the makings of a North American Union and a NAFTA Superhighway pops out. What ain't there ain't gonna pop out - as has been plainly shown here. Lots of declarations made about a North American Union and no proof to show it is in the works beyond distortions of the SPPs stated purpose. I'm still waiting for facts.

It is easy to claim there is no evidence when you ignore the evidence that has been presented to you. I've been avoiding this discussion because what point is it to present evidence if it is simply ignored?

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Fight! Fight!

Titus, you know I've got your back, right?

TitusTodd · Senior Member

I've been avoiding this discussion because what point is it to present evidence if it is simply ignored?

I know exactly what you mean. All the evidence that there is no conspiracy to create an North American Union is ignored by those who claim it is in the works. Unlike yourself, I apparently have made the mistake of continuing to try to present my side.

I honestly do not see how anything presented thus far can be considered evidence that the conspiracy is real and if that is it, well I guess there is no point in continuing with the topic. The problem I have with this whole North American Union is that its creation isn't so simple an organization can bring it about under our noses, especially an organization that has no authority.

So, I guess I'm done.

I am disappointed no one caught my "beat around the bush" comment. biggrin

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I did... I just didn't think you were baiting for me.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Oh good grief, Cat. What ever made you think I would have anything good to say about something like the North American Union. I'm crushed. My communications skills are really falling off.

I am convinced the intent of its chief promoters is to make the NAU very much like the European Union, which is already up and running, much to the dismay of I think all of my close friends in Europe. A good LDS friend and regional chairman of the Danish Conservative Party just today sent me the following comments about his impressions of the EU.

"Denmark had to make many changes and adjustments to its laws. It's not a few laws, it's so many, that everyone has lost count for years ago. I can't find any law changes that has been to any benefit for the average Dane.

"Examples. The environment laws had to be loosen up. We now have to accept food additives that are more dangerous than we did before. We had to open our borders to anyone coming from or thru another country. That has given a crimewave by people from eastern Europe: Pickpocketing, shoplifting, money fraud, counterfeit money, threats on the street by "gypsy types".

"Danish people are hurt by Danmark being in the EU do to laws forced by EU (and EEC before that)

* fishermen has got a lot of restrictons that has sent most of them into unemployment

* farmers had to stop farming 10% of their land

* farmers had a quota of how much every cow can deliver. If more the farmer gets a fine.

* people can be arrested for things that are not crimes in their own country, and be extradited to another EU country for trial.

"Most Danes don't care abourt the EU, they consider it just something for the politicians."

"Danes are being accused of being too national minded. e are being told that we have to remember that we are living in a "global village". If every Dane says NO to an EU law, we have to accept it anyway if it has majority among the EU politicians."

"The corruption in many EU countries takes a lot of money away from its intended purpose."

"Grocery from southern EU are being sold with heavy subsidy to the northern EU, that makes it difficult for the local farmers to sell their products."

The best proof I can give for this is 1.) my wife and I were well aware of this while we were on a mission in Denmrk 2001 - 2003, especially the fishing issue and the crime, and 2.) the man who wrote this is an active politician in SE Denmark and was my branch clerk for almost a year.

Anybody else see us headed that direction now? Or is it just me. I keep telling myself I'm OK; it's the rest of the world that's screwed up

-- Edited by lundbaek at 15:36, 2007-08-28

TitusTodd · Senior Member

How long has it taken for the EU to get where it is? Many years. Was it done under the nose of its people? No. Has it been successful? No, some further integration has been halted by the vote of the people.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

That is where I thought the fear was coming from, that an EU would be forced upon us.

And, in a certain respect, I can appreciate the fear and concern something like that would have.

But, I don't think it is really something we have to worry about here in North America.

Why? The nations here are too independent and sovereign to form a "super-union" like this except in the trade arena (which we already have). Europe has a completely different mindset when it comes to being ruled than US and Canadian citizens. The cultures are completely different too. We are far less socialistic in our outlook as a culture then they are. Canada is even less socialistic in outlook than the typical European nation.

Unlike in Europe, where diplomacy and alliances and all that sort of stuff were part of the cause in WWI and WWII even happening, we are not going to see a mindset or desire by the people to "merge". We see no benefit in it, and aren't able to be duped into like the short to remember the past because of all the cultural guilt and baggage of so many Europeans from all the wars fought there.

We will see the collapse of the EU and warfare in Europe again before North America would ever come close to thinking it would be a good thing to merge into a uber-state.

That's my