The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Power

[Federal Farmer]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

Sounds like we agree about a great many things but to keep this from becoming a discussion devoted to patting each other on the back for our wisdom and use of relevant quotes on the subject, I would like to focus on the areas where we disagree.

That's fine, I find I learn more from playing the Devils Advocate with like minded people than I do from standing around having a Mutual Admiration Society meeting.

Now I don't have your years of experience on the matter but going through the courts sounds like a pretty difficult path - Particularly if you're appearing in the 9th Circus Court of California. BTW, Where are you doing this? I would like to keep an eye on how things progress.

No worries there, I'm on the East Coast and south of the Mason Dixon. If we are able to get his sorry butt dragged into court, I'm sure that you'll hear about it.

Another point of contention I would have is on your timetable... We have many long term treaties and trade obligations to consider. Forgive me for not remembering the specifics off the top of my head but Bush recently renewed a 100 year agreement with another country - or one of our provinces. (hearing he signed a 100 year agreement is what sticks out and I can look it up later if necessary)

Please do, I don't recall hearing anything about any 100 year treaty extensions. As to our Treaties and trade obligations, they would be uneffected by getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, Section 8 houseing, the Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor, Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and breaking up the Department of Homeland Security. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps and WIC chew up more than 56% of our $3 TRILLION dollar budget, every year, when less than 20% of the population regularly benefit from these programs, that they are simply unsustainable, period, end of discussion.

And speaking of American Provinces (such as Puerto Rico - who to my knowledge is not actually a state but votes in our elections anyway) perhaps you could enlighten me as to the Constitutionality of such provinces and where they would fit into a Constitutional re-organization of America.

Puerto Rico? They've got 5 more years to either become a State, or they get kicked to the curb, and the same for the rest of our "protectorates". If they can't get their **** in one bag in 5 years, they're beyond our help, and we don't need them. Article IV Section III provides for the admission of new States, and as such, they have to come from somewhere, so Territories and "protectorates" are Constitutional (especially given the territories west of the original 13 Colonies that were ceded to us by the British following the Revolution, and prior to the ratification of the Constitution).

Thanks for sharing your expertise...

My pleasure. Any "expertise" I may have on the issue comes strictly from decades of study. Once upon a LOOOOOONNNNNGGGGGG time ago, I took an Oath to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." and I felt it incumbent upon me to actually learn something about the document specified in that Oath. While I may no longer be serving in uniform, I was never relieved of that Oath, so I still take it quite seriously.

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

First, thanks for the info on Puerto Rico and for your continued service to our country. Don't let the Haters get you down!

Please do, I don't recall hearing anything about any 100 year treaty extensions.

Went back and found the article I was thinking of... It was from several months ago and I was flubbing the relevant numbers, so my appologies.

Still, what are our troop commitments and other related treaty obligations to countries like Germany and Japan? Japan in particular is forbidden from having a military so there would have to be some arrangement made concerning this issue. Additionally, our obligations at the UN... Hopefully our Constitution allows us to bail out of such useless, America-Hating, organizations.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps and WIC chew up more than 56% of our $3 TRILLION dollar budget, every year, when less than 20% of the population regularly benefit from these programs, that they are simply unsustainable, period, end of discussion.

You may like this pie chart - I have used it many times to point out how badly the Left lies about Military spending and the like:

----------------------------------
Concerning the Entitlement Programs, I see privatization as greatly speeding up the "weening" process where these are involved. Slowly, generationally, decreasing involvement in these programs. Is this akin to your theory or do you have something else in mind?

 

[Federal Farmer]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

Still, what are our troop commitments and other related treaty obligations to countries like Germany and Japan? Japan in particular is forbidden from having a military so there would have to be some arrangement made concerning this issue. Additionally, our obligations at the UN... Hopefully our Constitution allows us to bail out of such useless, America-Hating, organizations.

As your pie chart shows, our total military expendatures account for 17% of our current budget, (with GWOT, OIF and OEF going on) which is among the lowest it's been since WWII, and much lower than WWII, Korea, or Vietnam, so our current commitments in Europe and the Far East are a comparatively inexpensive (minor) part of that budget. A bit of trivia that you may not be aware of, but throughout the Cold War, the budget of the Strategic Air Command, and that was only one command in the Air Force, was higher than the budget of the entire United States Army, every year, for more than 40 years!

While Japan is forbidden from having a standing Army, they do have a quite formidible Defense Force (akin to an active National Guard). Now, to deal directly with the question at hand, re: our constant presence at overseas bases, they were quite necessary during the Cold War, and those that are still of use in support of our national interests abroad are still in operation, and those that are not are being closed down. In Germany for instance, we have less than 1/4 of the bases operating there that we did at the height of the Cold War since they simply aren't necessary any more. Even in Japan, we've reduced, or even ceased our presence at many of the bases we previously had a high presence at.

The UN? Shut it down, ship 'em to Geneva, and rent the building out for Office Space and apartments. As far as our continued presence in the UN? So long as we are the worlds sole "super power" we do need to maintain a presence there, but we do NOT need to keep on paying the lion's share of the tab.

You may like this pie chart - I have used it many times to point out how badly the Left lies about Military spending and the like:

Yes, thank you. I make it a habit every year of actually reading the US Budget from the OMB, which is how I came up with my numbers, which your chart confirms, I just hadn't considered putting it in pie chart form.

Concerning the Entitlement Programs, I see privatization as greatly speeding up the "weening" process where these are involved. Slowly, generationally, decreasing involvement in these programs. Is this akin to your theory or do you have something else in mind?

Exactly. There's nothing that we can do as far as cutting Social Security for those who have already paid into their entire working lives, and are now recuperating their "contributions". Contributions? Isn't that like saying that you're "contributing" to a muggers household when he robs you? Anyway, I digress, Firstly, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid should be immediately "means tested". If you've managed to do well over the years and don't "need" it, you shouldn't get it, period. That may sound harsh, and I know someone is going to bring up about "they paid into it, they're 'entitled' to get their money back" but that's not how it works. We all pay our taxes in support of schools, but unless you're between 5 and 18, you don't get to go to the government schools do you? Of course not. We all pay our taxes in support of our military, but unless you've joined, you don't get uniforms to wear do you? There are always 'conditions' with everything that we pay our taxes for, this would simply be another condition, and it would free up resources for those who actually NEED them.

I've been paying into the system for over 40 years, but you ought to see what happens when a "white male" tries to collecting anything. A close associate of mine (a few years older) was forced to 'retire' early a couple of years ago because of health issues (emphazema, COPD, and extremely high blood pressure) and he has consistantly been turned down for any 'assistance', yet we've had a couple of 'pigmentally challenged' females at work who were drawing full benefits for themselves and their illigetimate children, while still working, and bragged about it, which is why they no longer work for us (don't sit there and brag out "getting over" with MY money and expect to not get turned in for it). If it weren't for the fact that we decided to keep our friend on the company health plan by letting him come in and work a day here and there as he feels up to it (usually 1 or 2 days a week), he wouldn't be able to afford his treatment and medications! If it weren't for the fact that his home is paid for, and he's able to live and pay his property taxes on the few investments they've made over the years, he'd be SCREWED! They even told him that one of the reasons he was turned down is because he owns his home! Talk about punishing the hard working and rewarding the slackers!

I would like to see them start allowing a voluntary "opt out" of Social Security for anyone under 40, and a mandatory removal of anyone under 30. Most anyone over 40 has already spent too many years "contributing" to the system to be able to start any type of serious savings or investment to ensure their 'retirement' years, while those under 30 should have no problem doing so. Everyone can do something towards their retirement, but they will have to be TAUGHT how to save and invest (diversification is essential) for their own futures, regardless of how long they've been working.

Another thing that needs to be addressed in the "retirement age". Why do we have a "mandatory retirement age"? My grandfather worked until he was 80, when he finally retired because of government regulations. He wasn't ready to retire, he was FORCED to retire, and because of his specialized skill-set (developed in over 60 years in his industry), it took the company he worked for over 3 years to find someone to replace him, so he had to go in quite regularly, and on the QT, to help them through some of their tougher challenges. The only good thing about it was that the company offered him a months salary, in cash, no records, for every week he came in, so he made out like a bandit! So long as someone can work, wants to work, and is still contributing to their company, there's no logical reason in the world to force them to retire.

Welfare, food stamps and WIC should be completely done away with over the next 25 years. When cities, counties, and States realize that they're no longer going to be able to simply ignore the lower and lower middle class in their communities, without having them living on their streets, and starving to death on their door steps, they'll once again be forced to incentivize business in their communities where their citizens can earn a 'living wage'. Today there is no incentive as they know that anyone who isn't, or can't make it can simply go "on the dole", so they ignore the problem. The same for Section 8 and HUD housing. It's the responsibility of city and county government to incentivize business for their citizens to be able to work and earn a "living wage" so that they can provide for their OWN housing. Someone brought up China, and obviously overlooked the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, but the first thing that has to happen is to make it worth it for a business to manufacture those things here, without punishing them for providing the jobs that put money into the economy! A business cannot operate efficiently, and provide more and higher paying jobs if they're constantly overwhelmed with government regulation and taxed into obscurity. If you want to see some REAL "corporate welfare", I'd propose eliminating ALL business taxes, and all personal income taxes for that matter, and impliment the FairTax immediately. That way, everyone, regardless of income pays their fair share every time they make a purchase, and it eliminates the "underground" economies that go completely untaxed, which would bring billions into the government every year.

Anyway, that's all I've got for now (as I'm off to work), so I look forward to seeing responses to my humble proposals when I get home this evening.

Your humble & obt. svt.
Federal Farmer

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

Farmer, check your PM's...

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

How does this play into things?

Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment

In response, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified by the requisite number of states in 1913[3]), which states:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), indicated that the amendment did not expand the federal government's existing power to tax income (meaning profit or gain from any source) but rather removed the possibility of classifying an income tax as a direct tax on the basis of the source of the income. The Amendment removed the need for the income tax to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Income taxes are required, however, to abide by the law of geographical uniformity.

Some tax protesters and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never "properly ratified," based in large part on materials sold by William J. Benson.

In December of 2007, Benson's "Defense Reliance Package" containing his non-ratification argument which he offered for sale on the internet, was ruled by a federal court to be a "fraud perpetrated by Benson" that had "caused needless confusion and a waste of the customers' and the IRS' time and resources."[4]

The court stated: "Benson has failed to point to evidence that would create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified or whether United States Citizens are legally obligated to pay federal taxes."[5] See also Tax protester constitutional arguments.

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

I can give you some better examples.

1) I offer into evidence the words of Thomas Jefferson, one of the original Founding Fathers, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, an Ambassador to France, and our 3rd President, who said in his letter to Albert Gallatin in 1817;

the problem with arguing original intent and then having the unmitigated gall to use Jefferson as a sourced justification is that it makes one look smart if the audience is in the dark---ignorant.

using Jefferson as a justification for putting things back to the way they never were --- and using his old words, is amusing.

Jefferson's dedication to "consent of the governed" was so thorough that he believed that individuals could not be morally bound by the actions of preceding generations.

This included debts as well as law.

He said that "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation."

He even calculated what he believed to be the proper cycle of legal revolution: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

He arrived at nineteen years through calculations with expectancy of life tables, taking into account what he believed to be the age of "maturity"—when an individual is able to reason for himself.[39] He also advocated that the national debt should be eliminated. He did not believe that living individuals had a moral obligation to repay the debts of previous generations. He said that repaying such debts was "a question of generosity and not of right."[40]

 

[Federal Farmer]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

the problem with arguing original intent and then having the unmitigated gall to use Jefferson as a sourced justification is that it makes one look smart if the audience is in the dark---ignorant.

using Jefferson as a justification for putting things back to the way they never were --- and using his old words, is amusing.

Then allow me to turn on a light for you so that you can see the part where I also quoted James Madison, who was politically diametrically opposed to Jefferson, but where they both agreed on this one point, that the Generally Welfare meant ONLY those things specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

It would also help you understand what Jefferson was getting at, and the reasons behind his thinking, if you had read his entire letter to Madison, and then you may not be quite so quick to attempt to paint him as some form of anarchist.

Now, you were saying... what?

BTW, when you quote sources, I believe you're supposed to give appropriate credit by including a link to your source, even if it is Wiki.

[EDIT] And for the record, I'm arguing "original meaning", not "original intent". Since it is impossible to properly ascertain, and impudent to assume, that 55 men, locked up in a room in the sweltering summer of 1787, had a single "intent" other than to establish a Constitution. The fact that so much compromise was required in the drafting of the Constitution in itself precludes the possibility of assuming a singular "intent" on their part, so one must restrict oneself to their "meaning", in the words used in the actual document that was ratified by all 13 of the original States.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

Problem is... this is 2008. In the last 232 years of politicians trying to make a name for themselves, we have taken on many obligations and responsibilities. Point being, we cannot just take a mulligan and start over without consequence.

But there are ways to repeal taxes, cut spending and return to a Constitutional government without hurting anyone in the process. Such plans have usually been put forward by Libertarians, such as Harry Browne, but they are feasible.

Someone mentioned Ron Paul, I found him to be disappointing on multiple levels. In particular, Paul's tacit support for Earmarks and Conspiracy theories turned me off to him.

Ron Paul has allocated earmarks - but his rational is the same one you're using for corporate welfare below. He is returning money to his constituents, who are losing lots of money to taxes. And he informs everyone in his district that he will be voting against the final budget. He has a perfect record of voting against every unbalanced budget and every single tax increase. He votes against his own earmarks, every single time.

As for conspiracy theories, what conspiracy theory do you allege that Ron Paul supports? He does not believe that the government planned and carried out 9/11.

He also oversimplifies the problems we face in dealing with our past obligations and commitments, preferring to spout flowery Constitutional rhetoric when he should be proposing rational and detailed measure to begin our return.

He has proposed several specific plans and introduced legislation. Is it his fault that the socialists in Congress always vote against him?

One last thing I wanted to address, Corporate Welfare.

Depending on which corporation we're talking about, this is a complete misnomer. Corporations pay a huge percentage of our budget in taxes - thus when they get money back, I see it as being no different than returning money to any other taxpayer who overpaid in taxes.

True. I would end all corporate welfare, but I would also repeal corporate taxes. However, one of the main reasons people form corporations is for legal tax avoidance, so you would see the "influence" of corporations wane if you repealed the income tax and other business related taxes.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

Thanks for sharing your expertise and no offense to TB but you're much more pleasant to chat with. TB seemed more interested in proving intellectual superiority on the subject, rather than dealing with the types of questions I have posed to you, hopefully the kind that lead to realistically applicable solutions.

I have no desire to prove "intellectual superiority" over anyone. As the saying goes "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own set of facts." And you guys are ignoring volumes of facts.

If you want "applicable solutions" then stop voting for Republicans (except for Ron Paul) or Democrats.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

I have no desire to prove "intellectual superiority" over anyone. As the saying goes "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own set of facts." And you guys are ignoring volumes of facts.

No, we're ignoring YOU, and your "version" of the facts. You consistently use facts to support your preconceived conclusions rather than drawing your conclusions FROM the facts.

If you want "applicable solutions" then stop voting for Republicans (except for Ron Paul) or Democrats.

RP is a flaming BARKING MOON BAT who needs to be hooded like a falcon. Anybody with as woefully ignorant a comprehension of the Constitution has absolutely NO business being allowed anywhere NEAR 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., even as a TOURIST!

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

Ron Paul has allocated earmarks - but his rational is the same one you're using for corporate welfare below.

Not quite... Corporations that receive his earmarks are already getting tax rebates. He is seeing to it that Corporations in his district pay as little in taxes as possible to make them as competitive as possible.
Earmarks are a violation of the LP platform, which is why he's a Republican.

As for conspiracy theories, what conspiracy theory do you allege that Ron Paul supports? He does not believe that the government planned and carried out 9/11.

North American Union and the NWO:

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

No, we're ignoring YOU, and your "version" of the facts.

If my facts or logic are flawed THEN PROVE IT or STFU. Saying something isn't true and proving it are two different things, foolish one.

RP is a flaming BARKING MOON BAT

Appeal to Ridicule. Your constant use of logical fallacies is really rather pathetic. Do you have any valid arguments at all?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

Not quite... Corporations that receive his earmarks are already getting tax rebates. He is seeing to it that Corporations in his district pay as little in taxes as possible to make them as competitive as possible.
Earmarks are a violation of the LP platform, which is why he's a Republican.

Regardless, he has a 100% record of voting against all the final spending bills. Name another Congressman who allocates earmarks who does that.

And what about the constituents in his district? They're paying income tax and other federal taxes. You left them out of your analysis. They would benefit from some of the earmarks also.

Here's piece from the conservative Club for Growth, which, after factoring in all the evidence (including earmarks), concludes:

“When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul.”

Obviously, I think they’re wrong on their negative assessment of the earmark amendments, because they did not acknowledge his up and down votes. Again, Ron Paul's record on final votes is 100%. But they don’t mention that. And that's a flaw in their otherwise very thorough report.

North American Union and the NWO:

There do appear to be plans for a North American Union, and that was reported on CNN.

There's are lots of various groups who want to see a North American Union:

Look first at the website of Arizona State University: Home | NACTS

Then look at the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America:
2006 Report to Leaders

Here is an interview with a senior vice-president of a prestigious international investment firm regarding the new common currency for America, Canada, and mexico.

[youtubevid]_3jdQxDC7pA[/youtubevid]


From there, look at a study that was done by a task force from the Council on Foreign Relations:

Building a North American Community - Council on Foreign Relations

Building a North American Community- Report of the Independent Task Force:

Building a North American Community: Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America - Council on Foreign Relations

Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010:

Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010 - Council on Foreign Relations

At this point, a short bio on Robert Pastor (reputed as being the architect of the NAU) would be suggested.

Meet Robert Pastor:
Meet Robert Pastor: Father of the North American Union - HUMAN EVENTS

Robert Pastor is a director at American University, here is what he is "directing":

Center for North American Studies:
Center for North American Studies

Here is a book he has written-
Toward A North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New

Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics Bookstore

Here is a model for a North American Parliament: FINA-NAFI - The North American Forum on Integration

FINA-NAFI - The North American Forum on Integration:

FINA-NAFI - Triumvirat 2007

This is the corridor being used to open our borders with trade-NASCO's Inland Ports Network:
North America's SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc.

Here is info on the mexican owned distribution center in Kansas City where all those mexican truckers will go:

http://www.kcsmartport.com/pdf/SmtPrtOneRoute.pdf



Below is an article that puts favorable light on the integration of mexico with america- HISPANICTrends.com - March/April 2006 - Regional Report

Hispanic Online

Here is a report done by a mexican official regarding the integration. It is lengthy but worth reading, especially starting at "The fly in the ointment' segment". Apparently not all Mexicans are gung -ho about this-

IRC Americas Program | Trinational Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA:

IRC Americas Program | Trinational Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA Plus"

Here is an article by a Canadian paper regarding a recent meeting with Chertoff and Rice. Canadians aren't thrilled with this either:

CNW Group | COUNCIL OF CANADIANS | High-level meeting aimed at integrating North America says Council of Canadians

This is the resolution to stop the SPP/NAU/NAFTA that has been introduced into legislation by Congressman Virgil Goode - H.CON.RES.40:

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

This is a list of the States and their links to legislation to stop the SPP/NAU/NAFTA:

http://www.stopthenau.org/Current_Activities.htm

Here is a link to PRO-NAU organizations, etc:

North American Union Links--AmeroCurrency.com Security and Prosperity Partnership, SPP

This is an article about the ranchers in Texas who stand to lose their lands over the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor:
AIM Report: U.S. Borders: Going-Going-Gone! - December B

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

The "General Welfare" Clause: What Does It Really Mean?

By Alan Chapman

There seems to be some disagreement as to what the word "welfare" means with regard to the phrase "general welfare" as it appears in the Constitution. Many on FR use the "general welfare" clause as the basis of their support for government schools and Social Security. I started this thread with the intent to discover the true meaning of the term "welfare" with regard to it's use in the Constitution.

I would think that the word "general" would also be important. As opposed to the word specific.

Congress is supposed to do what is good for everyone and not just for a few.

Individual and corporate Welfare would thus by obviously a no-no. Whichis of course why two of our presidents who were still in touch with the constitution said:

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.​

As good as those programs may have been they were just not in the scope of what the Fed could do.

Here is one from Madison:

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)​

and

" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794
​

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Pow

There do appear to be plans for a North American Union

There is a difference between people talking about what could one day happen, and people actually in power making it happen.

North American Union (NAU) is a theoretical regional union of Canada, Mexico and the United States similar in structure to the European Union, sometimes including a common currency called the Amero. Officials from all three nations have said there are no government plans to create such a union,[1] although the idea has been discussed and proposed in academic and scholarly circles, either as a union or as a North American Community (see Independent Task Force on North America). The formation of a North American Union has been the subject of various conspiracy theories. --Wiki

This would not come about without the public demanding and supporting it... and I can't imagine a circumstance we would want to merge with Mexico and Canada. Well, Obama could do it behind our backs and say Bush did it.

The rumor is sweeping the Internet, radio and magazines, spread by bloggers, broadcasters and writers who cite the "proof" in the writings of a respected American University professor, in a task force put together by the Council on Foreign Relations and in the workings of the Commerce Department.
As do many modern rumors, fears of a North American Union began with a few grains of truth and leapt to an unsubstantiated conclusion. SeattleTimes

Sound familiar?

If you haven't heard about the NAU, that may be because its plotters have succeeded in keeping it secret. Or, more likely, because there is no such thing. Government officials say a continental union is out of the question, and economists and political analysts overwhelmingly agree that there will not be a North American Union in our lifetimes....Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul has made the North American Union one of his central issues. --Herald Tribune

Poor Ron... He needs to drop all the CT's to become a national candidate but the bulk of his supporters belong to one CT or another... So he's stuck. I actually agree with his assessment of a 9/11 conspiracy - cover up on the failures is much more likely than a cover up of involvement.