How many Americans knew that Obama was in Canada yesterday?

MoPar Man wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ddgzww

I should add that there have been, somewhat recently, some agreements
signed between the US and Canada that pertain to the use of each-others
military on each-other's soil in the event of extraordinary events
(natural disaster, civil unrest or some other caos, terrorism, etc).
Naturally, it got very little press.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:29:15 -0800 (PST), cavedweller
> wrote:

>Well, you know, if a bail-out package of sufficient size could be
>split among a portion of 30 million (plus) Canadians, maybe certain
>parts could be purchased..................)

I would be happy to collect my portion in person if Washington will
spot me the gas money for my jet.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:37:01 -0500, MoPar Man > wrote:

>I should add that there have been, somewhat recently, some agreements
>signed between the US and Canada that pertain to the use of each-others
>military on each-other's soil in the event of extraordinary events
>(natural disaster, civil unrest or some other caos, terrorism, etc).

If Jack Layton ends up as Prime Minister, would this qualify as a
natural disaster? Send in the Marines...

Is this a conspiracy?

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
>I mean establishing a N.A. equivalent of the E.U., which is on the agenda
>of certain people.
>
> --
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')
>
>
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>> What?
>>
>> What about NAFTA?
>>
>> Or do you mean the assimilation of Canada within the USA...?...
>>
>> DAS
>>
>> To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
>> ---
>> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> [...]
>>> Perhaps these were some kickoff meetings towards dissolving borders and
>>> establishing the North American Union.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bill Putney
>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>> address with the letter 'x')
>>

I don't know if I should be embarrassed to admit that I had not heard of
this beast, the NAU, so the Wikipedia link MoPar Man supplied led to
interesting reading (even though I don't reply on Wikipeadia for facts).

There are some erroneous comments/conclusions (about the EU) in there,
especially in this quote "...analogous to the European Union (EU), with open
borders and a common currency among other features, was being made by the
fall of 2006, when conservative commentators Phyllis Schlafly, Jerome Corsi
and Howard Phillips started a website dedicated to quashing what they
perceived as the coming North American "Socialist mega-state."[6]"

Although it's an aim, we don't have open borders everywhere, and even where
there have been, they have been restricted again, for a while at least, when
a govt has felt the need, such as to control drugs smuggling from The
Netherlands.

It is the Schengen agreement that deals with it and notably Britain is not
party to it, yet Switzerland, NOT an EU member, is.

The fact is that one could never physically control all the byways that run
across borders, unless one stuck a barbed-wire barrier manned by armed
guards, as we had down the middle of Europe till 1989. We must also not
forget that 'modern' border controls were only introduced post-WW1.

Long before 'Schengen' I have driven across border without controls, and on
motorways with only defunctory ones.

Did Canada and USA not have, in effect, open borders until the measures
post-Sep 11, 2001?

Furthermore, the eurozone does not encompass all the EU members.
Scandinavian countries and Britain are notable absentees.

Furthermore, there has been criticism of the euro -- mainly from British
commentators -- that it will ultimately fail because

i) it covers a region that is too great in economic variation

ii) of barriers to free movement of labour from depressed to growing areas
(language, national controls, mutual recognition of qualifications where
relevant)

iii) there is no central political control with a commensurate single
economic policy.


However, I think these commentators indulge in wishful thinking because they
want to shout "I told you so", but so far it has been largely very
successful. Of course, we have to see how it survives the recession.

The factors that led to the Treaty/Treaties of Rome signed in 1957 do not
exist in
North America, The drivers for the creation of the European Community and
later the EU do not, I believe exist in NA either, so if the countries in NA
(it seems only 3 are under discussion, or would the Caribbean region be
included?) choose to integrate aspects of econonomic and political life to a
greater or lesser extent, the factors would be quite different, even if the
EU model were taken as a template.

Thinking about it, the USA is itself an integrated country, given the
previous separate colonies and territories belonging to various countries
(Britain, France, Mexico...). The foundation is conflict and war. It just
happened in the 19th century or thereabouts...

DAS
--
To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Brian Priebe" <'> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:37:01 -0500, MoPar Man > wrote:
>
[...]
>
> If Jack Layton ends up as Prime Minister, would this qualify as a
> natural disaster? Send in the Marines...

I believe that prior to 9/11/2001, US/Canada border crossings required
passing through designated customs checkpoints. Prior to rules for 9/11,
passenger vehicles did not receive a whole lot of scrutiny. (Unless you
were a teenager traveling with other young companions, in which case the
customs agents might well nearly dissemble the vehicle to search for drugs
and paraphernalia.)

When I crossed the border several times in the 1970's and 1980's, entry into
Canada did not require stopping, but on the return to the US, the vehicle's
driver was required to show a US driver's license. I believe after 9/11,
there was a grace period when the DL was still an approved form of ID, but
at some point, I believe that all passengers in vehicles crossing the border
needed to show a valid US birth certificate. When I crossed by foot last
year near Niagara Falls, I was required to show my US passport.

Bob

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
>I don't know if I should be embarrassed to admit that I had not heard of
> this beast, the NAU, so the Wikipedia link MoPar Man supplied led to
> interesting reading (even though I don't reply on Wikipeadia for facts).
>
> There are some erroneous comments/conclusions (about the EU) in there,
> especially in this quote "...analogous to the European Union (EU), with
> open
> borders and a common currency among other features, was being made by the
> fall of 2006, when conservative commentators Phyllis Schlafly, Jerome
> Corsi
> and Howard Phillips started a website dedicated to quashing what they
> perceived as the coming North American "Socialist mega-state."[6]"
>
> Although it's an aim, we don't have open borders everywhere, and even
> where
> there have been, they have been restricted again, for a while at least,
> when
> a govt has felt the need, such as to control drugs smuggling from The
> Netherlands.
>
> It is the Schengen agreement that deals with it and notably Britain is not
> party to it, yet Switzerland, NOT an EU member, is.
>
> The fact is that one could never physically control all the byways that
> run
> across borders, unless one stuck a barbed-wire barrier manned by armed
> guards, as we had down the middle of Europe till 1989. We must also not
> forget that 'modern' border controls were only introduced post-WW1.
>
> Long before 'Schengen' I have driven across border without controls, and
> on
> motorways with only defunctory ones.
>
> Did Canada and USA not have, in effect, open borders until the measures
> post-Sep 11, 2001?
>
> Furthermore, the eurozone does not encompass all the EU members.
> Scandinavian countries and Britain are notable absentees.
>
> Furthermore, there has been criticism of the euro -- mainly from British
> commentators -- that it will ultimately fail because
>
> i) it covers a region that is too great in economic variation
>
> ii) of barriers to free movement of labour from depressed to growing areas
> (language, national controls, mutual recognition of qualifications where
> relevant)
>
> iii) there is no central political control with a commensurate single
> economic policy.
>
>
> However, I think these commentators indulge in wishful thinking because
> they
> want to shout "I told you so", but so far it has been largely very
> successful. Of course, we have to see how it survives the recession.
>
> The factors that led to the Treaty/Treaties of Rome signed in 1957 do not
> exist in
> North America, The drivers for the creation of the European Community and
> later the EU do not, I believe exist in NA either, so if the countries in
> NA
> (it seems only 3 are under discussion, or would the Caribbean region be
> included?) choose to integrate aspects of econonomic and political life to
> a
> greater or lesser extent, the factors would be quite different, even if
> the
> EU model were taken as a template.
>
> Thinking about it, the USA is itself an integrated country, given the
> previous separate colonies and territories belonging to various countries
> (Britain, France, Mexico...). The foundation is conflict and war. It
> just
> happened in the 19th century or thereabouts...
>
> DAS
> --
> To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Brian Priebe" <'> wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:37:01 -0500, MoPar Man > wrote:
>>
> [...]
>>
>> If Jack Layton ends up as Prime Minister, would this qualify as a
>> natural disaster? Send in the Marines...
>
>
>

Quite.

You remind me of an occasion (in the 70s?) when I was visiting a friend
living in Germany (as it happened, a US citizen employed by the American
military) close to the Belgian border (Eiffel district, rather pretty). He
drove me round and we crossed into Belgium on a small road (off a 'main'
road parallel to the border) that lead also to some houses that fronted in
Germany but had access only via Belgium.

Anyway, this was an 'unmanned' crossing point and there was a sign from the
German authorities declaring that crossing the border was only permitted at
authorised crossing points elsewhere.

We ignored this, especially as we had no relevant papers on us.... We
continued on our spin in the (now Belgian) countryside and then had to
return the same way otherwise we might have been held up...

BTW, small correction in my previous message: I meant to say PERfunctory
controls rather than "defunctory"...

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Bob Shuman" > wrote in message
...
>I believe that prior to 9/11/2001, US/Canada border crossings required
>passing through designated customs checkpoints. Prior to rules for 9/11,
>passenger vehicles did not receive a whole lot of scrutiny. (Unless you
>were a teenager traveling with other young companions, in which case the
>customs agents might well nearly dissemble the vehicle to search for drugs
>and paraphernalia.)
>
> When I crossed the border several times in the 1970's and 1980's, entry
> into Canada did not require stopping, but on the return to the US, the
> vehicle's driver was required to show a US driver's license. I believe
> after 9/11, there was a grace period when the DL was still an approved
> form of ID, but at some point, I believe that all passengers in vehicles
> crossing the border needed to show a valid US birth certificate. When I
> crossed by foot last year near Niagara Falls, I was required to show my US
> passport.
>
> Bob
>
> "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I don't know if I should be embarrassed to admit that I had not heard of
>> this beast, the NAU, so the Wikipedia link MoPar Man supplied led to
>> interesting reading (even though I don't reply on Wikipeadia for facts).
>>
>> There are some erroneous comments/conclusions (about the EU) in there,
>> especially in this quote "...analogous to the European Union (EU), with
>> open
>> borders and a common currency among other features, was being made by the
>> fall of 2006, when conservative commentators Phyllis Schlafly, Jerome
>> Corsi
>> and Howard Phillips started a website dedicated to quashing what they
>> perceived as the coming North American "Socialist mega-state."[6]"
>>
>> Although it's an aim, we don't have open borders everywhere, and even
>> where
>> there have been, they have been restricted again, for a while at least,
>> when
>> a govt has felt the need, such as to control drugs smuggling from The
>> Netherlands.
>>
>> It is the Schengen agreement that deals with it and notably Britain is
>> not
>> party to it, yet Switzerland, NOT an EU member, is.
>>
>> The fact is that one could never physically control all the byways that
>> run
>> across borders, unless one stuck a barbed-wire barrier manned by armed
>> guards, as we had down the middle of Europe till 1989. We must also not
>> forget that 'modern' border controls were only introduced post-WW1.
>>
>> Long before 'Schengen' I have driven across border without controls, and
>> on
>> motorways with only defunctory ones.
>>
>> Did Canada and USA not have, in effect, open borders until the measures
>> post-Sep 11, 2001?
>>
>> Furthermore, the eurozone does not encompass all the EU members.
>> Scandinavian countries and Britain are notable absentees.
>>
>> Furthermore, there has been criticism of the euro -- mainly from British
>> commentators -- that it will ultimately fail because
>>
>> i) it covers a region that is too great in economic variation
>>
>> ii) of barriers to free movement of labour from depressed to growing
>> areas
>> (language, national controls, mutual recognition of qualifications where
>> relevant)
>>
>> iii) there is no central political control with a commensurate single
>> economic policy.
>>
>>
>> However, I think these commentators indulge in wishful thinking because
>> they
>> want to shout "I told you so", but so far it has been largely very
>> successful. Of course, we have to see how it survives the recession.
>>
>> The factors that led to the Treaty/Treaties of Rome signed in 1957 do not
>> exist in
>> North America, The drivers for the creation of the European Community
>> and
>> later the EU do not, I believe exist in NA either, so if the countries in
>> NA
>> (it seems only 3 are under discussion, or would the Caribbean region be
>> included?) choose to integrate aspects of econonomic and political life
>> to a
>> greater or lesser extent, the factors would be quite different, even if
>> the
>> EU model were taken as a template.
>>
>> Thinking about it, the USA is itself an integrated country, given the
>> previous separate colonies and territories belonging to various countries
>> (Britain, France, Mexico...). The foundation is conflict and war. It
>> just
>> happened in the 19th century or thereabouts...
>>
>> DAS
>> --
>> To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
>> ---
>> "Brian Priebe" <'> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:37:01 -0500, MoPar Man > wrote:
>>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> If Jack Layton ends up as Prime Minister, would this qualify as a
>>> natural disaster? Send in the Marines...
>>
>>
>>
>
>

On Feb 23, 1:08*pm, "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote:
> Quite.
>
> You remind me of an occasion (in the 70s?) when I was visiting a friend
> living in Germany (as it happened, a US citizen employed by the American
> military) close to the Belgian border (Eiffel district, rather pretty). *He
> drove me round and we crossed into Belgium on a small road (off a 'main'
> road parallel to the border) that lead also to some houses that fronted in
> Germany but had access only via Belgium.
>
> Anyway, this was an 'unmanned' crossing point and there was a sign from the
> German authorities declaring that crossing the border was only permitted at
> authorised crossing points elsewhere.
>
> We ignored this, especially as we had no relevant papers on us.... We
> continued on our spin in the (now Belgian) countryside and then had to
> return the same way otherwise we might have been held up...
>
> BTW, small correction in my previous message: I meant to say PERfunctory
> controls rather than "defunctory"...
>
We knew that

On Feb 23, 12:54*pm, "Bob Shuman" > wrote:
> I believe that prior to 9/11/2001, US/Canada border crossings required
> passing through designated customs checkpoints. *

They always did, save for some exceptions (in the Great Lakes, for
instance, pleasure boaters landing but remaining near their
vessels....still a requirement that they make a telephone call to US
officials)

>Prior to rules for 9/11, passenger vehicles did not receive a whole lot of scrutiny. *

Not correct. There was always the possibility, on both sides of the
border, for a vehicle to be detained for "secondary" inspection.
Happily, it was usually a matter of a polite exhange with a few
questions asked, and answered and then one could be on one's way. It
could go in another direction very quickly if the official had reason
to feel that it should....sometimes, a smart ass response to one of
his questions could be enough...as well it should.

> When I crossed the border several times in the 1970's and 1980's, entry into
> Canada did not require stopping,

Sorry, that's not true either. Exit from Canada doesn't require
stopping, (although in the years just after WW2 there was such a
requirement) but entry into Canada from the US has always entailed
stopping for an interview by an officer.

>but on the return to the US, the vehicle's
> driver was required to show a US driver's license. *

That might usually have worked for a US citizen, but a Canadian was
always well advised to have his birth certificate and other ID
available for presentation to the US official on entry.

It's all changing now and the requirement for either a passport or
other "acceptable" documentation is virtually a reality....required
for air travel, advised for car....stay tuned.

There's also the Nexxus program...a pre-approval system designed for
commuters and that's in place at the busier border crossings like
Windsor/Detroit and Blaine/Douglas in BC, etc.


>
> * Bob

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:08:43 UTC, "Dori A Schmetterling"
> wrote:
Didn't that little part of countryside bordering Belgium used to be
German before WWI, around Eupen, I think?



"What do you mean there's no movie?"