TOWARD A NORTH AMERICAN UNION
PART 1 of 3

Patrick Wood
August 27, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

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

Introduction

The global elite, through the direct operations of President George Bush and his Administration, are creating a North American Union that will combine Canada, Mexico and the U.S. into a superstate called the North American Union (NAU). The NAU is roughly patterned after the European Union (EU). There is no political or economic mandate for creating the NAU, and unofficial polls of a cross-section of Americans indicate that they are overwhelmingly against this end-run around national sovereignty.

To answer Lou Dobbs, "No, the political elites have not gone mad", they just want you to think that they have.

NAFTA/NAU Emblem The reality over appearance is easily cleared up with a proper historical perspective of the last 35 years of political and economic manipulation by the same elite who now bring us the NAU.

This paper will explore this history in order to give the reader a complete picture of the NAU, how it is made possible, who are the instigators of it, and where it is headed.

It is important to first understand that the impending birth of the NAU is a gestation of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, not the Congress. This is the topic of the first discussion below.

The next topic will examine the global elite's strategy of subverting the power to negotiate trade treaties and international law with foreign countries from the Congress to the President. Without this power, NAFTA and the NAU would never have been possible.

After this, we will show that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the immediate genetic and necessary ancestor of the NAU.

Lastly, throughout this report the NAU perpetrators and their tactics will be brought into the limelight so as to affix blame where it properly belongs. The reader will be struck with the fact that the same people are at the center of each of these subjects.

The Best Government that Money Can Buy

Modern day globalization was launched with the creation of the Trilateral Commission in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Its membership consisted of just over 300 powerful elitists from north America, Europe and Japan. The clearly stated goal of the Trilateral Commission was to foster a "New International Economic Order" that would supplant the historical economic order.

In spite of its non-political rhetoric, The Trilateral Commission nonetheless established a headlock on the Executive Branch of the U.S. government with the election of James Earl Carter in 1976. Hand-picked as a presidential candidate by Brzezinski, Carter was personally tutored in globalist philosophy and foreign policy by Brzezinski himself. Subsequently, when Carter was sworn in as President, he appointed no less than one-third of the U.S. members of the Commission to his Cabinet and other high-level posts in his Administration. Such was the genesis of the Trilateral Commission's domination of the Executive Branch that continues to the present day.

With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Trilateral Commission member George H.W. Bush was introduced to the White House as vice-president. Through Bush's influence, Reagan continued to select key appointments from the ranks of the Trilateral Commission.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush began his four-year term as President. He was followed by fellow Trilateral Commission member William Jefferson Clinton, who served for 8 years as President and appointed fourteen fellow Trilateral members to his Administration.

The election of George W. Bush in 2000 should be no surprise. Although Bush was not a member of the Trilateral Commission, his vice-president Dick Cheney is. In addition, Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, is also a member of the Commission in her own right.

The hegemony of the Trilateral Commission over the Executive Branch of the U.S. government is unmistakable. Critics argue that this scenario is merely circumstantial, that the most qualified political "talent" quite naturally tends to belong to groups like the Trilateral Commission in the first place. Under examination, such explanations are quite hollow.

Why would the Trilateral Commission seek to dominate the Executive Branch? Quite simply - Power! That is, power to get things done directly which would have been impossible to accomplish through the only moderately successful lobbying efforts of the past; power to use the government as a bully platform to modify political behavior throughout the world.

Of course, the obvious corollary to this hegemony is that the influence and impact of the citizenry is virtually eliminated.

Modern Day "World Order" Strategy

After its founding in 1973, Trilateral Commission members wasted no time in launching their globalist strategy. But, what was that strategy?

Richard Gardner was an original member of the Trilateral Commission, and one of the prominent architects of the New International Economic Order. In 1974, his article "The Hard Road to World Order" appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine, published by the Council on Foreign Relations. With obvious disdain for anyone holding nationalistic political views, Gardner proclaimed,

"In short, the 'house of world order' would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."[1] [emphasis added]

In Gardner's view, using treaties and trade agreements (such as General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs or GATT) would bind and supercede constitutional law piece by piece, which is exactly what has happened. In addition, Gardner highly esteemed the role of the United Nations as a third-party legal body that could be used to erode the national sovereignty of individual nations.

Gardner concluded that "the case-by-case approach can produce some remarkable concessions of 'sovereignty' that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis"[2]

Thus, the end result of such a process is that the U.S. would eventually capitulate its sovereignty to the newly proposed world order. It is not specifically mentioned who would control this new order, but it is quite obvious that the only 'players' around are Gardner and his Trilateral cronies.

It should again be noted that the formation of the Trilateral Commission by Rockefeller and Brzezinski was a response to the general frustration that globalism was going nowhere with the status quo prior to 1973. The "frontal assault " had failed, and a new approach was needed. It is a typical mindset of the global elite to view any roadblock as an opportunity to stage an "end-run" to get around it. Gardner confirms this frustration:

"Certainly the gap has never loomed larger between the objectives and the capacities of the international organizations that were supposed to get mankind on the road to world order. We are witnessing an outbreak of shortsighted nationalism that seems oblivious to the economic, political and moral implications of interdependence. Yet never has there been such widespread recognition by the world's intellectual leadership of the necessity for cooperation and planning on a truly global basis, beyond country, beyond region, especially beyond social system."[3]

The "world's intellectual leadership" apparently refers to academics such as Gardner and Brzezinski. Outside of the Trilateral Commission and the CFR, the vast majority of academic thought at the time was opposed to such notions as mentioned above.

Laying the Groundwork: Fast Track Authority

In Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, authority is granted to Congress "To regulate commerce with foreign nations." An end-run around this insurmountable obstacle would be to convince Congress to voluntarily turn over this power to the President. With such authority in hand, the President could freely negotiate treaties and other trade agreements with foreign nations, and then simply present them to Congress for a straight up or down vote, with no amendments possible. This again points out elite disdain for a Congress that is elected to be representative "of the people, by the people and for the people."

So, the first "Fast Track" legislation was passed by Congress in 1974, just one year after the founding of the Trilateral Commission. It was the same year that Nelson Rockefeller was confirmed as Vice President under President Gerald Ford, neither of whom were elected by the U.S. public. As Vice-President, Rockefeller was seated as the president of the U.S. Senate.

According to Public Citizen, the bottom line of Fast Track is that...

"...the White House signs and enters into trade deals before Congress ever votes on them. Fast Track also sets the parameters for congressional debate on any trade measure the President submits, requiring a vote within a certain time with no amendments and only 20 hours of debate."[4]

When an agreement is about to be given to Congress, high-powered lobbyists and political hammer-heads are called in to manipulate congressional hold-outs into voting for the legislation. (*See CAFTA Lobbying Efforts) With only 20 hours of debate allowed, there is little opportunity for public involvement.

Congress clearly understood the risk of giving up this power to the President, as evidenced by the fact that they put an automatic expiration date on it. Since the expiration of the original Fast Track, there been a very contentious trail of Fast Track renewal efforts. In 1996, President Clinton utterly failed to re-secure Fast Track after a bitter debate in Congress. After another contentious struggle in 2001/2002, President Bush was able to renew Fast Track for himself in the Trade Act of 2002, just in time to negotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and insure its passage in 2005.

It is startling to realize that since 1974, Fast Track has not been used in the majority of trade agreements. Under the Clinton presidency, for instance, some 300 separate trade agreements were negotiated and passed normally by Congress, but only two of them were submitted under Fast Track: NAFTA and the GATT Uruguay Round. In fact, from 1974 to 1992, there were only three instances of Fast Track in action: GATT Tokyo Round, U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Thus, NAFTA was only the fourth invocation of Fast Track.

Why the selectivity? Does it suggest a very narrow agenda? Most certainly. These trade and legal bamboozles didn't stand a ghost of a chance to be passed without it, and the global elite knew it. Fast Track was created as a very specific legislative tool to accomplish a very specific executive task -- namely, to "fast track" the creation of the "New International Economic Order" envisioned by the Trilateral Commission in 1973!

Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Because international treaties supercede national law, Fast Track has allowed an enormous restructuring of U.S. law without resorting to a Constitutional convention (Ed. note: Both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski called for a constitutional convention as early as 1972, which could clearly be viewed as a failed "frontal assault"). As a result, national sovereignty of the United States has been severely compromised - even if some Congressmen and Senators are aware of this, the general public is still generally ignorant.

North American Free Trade Agreement

NAFTA was negotiated under the executive leadership of Republican President George H.W. Bush. Carla Hills is widely credited as being the primary architect and negotiator of NAFTA. Both Bush and Hills were members of the Trilateral Commission!

With Bush's first presidential term drawing to a close and Bush desiring political credit for NAFTA, an "initialing" ceremony of NAFTA was staged (so Bush could take credit for NAFTA) in October, 1992. Although very official looking, most Americans did not understand the difference between initialing and signing; at the time, Fast Track was not implemented and Bush did not have the authority to actually sign such a trade agreement.

Bush subsequently lost a publicly contentious presidential race to democrat William Jefferson Clinton, but they were hardly polar opposites on the issue of Free Trade and NAFTA: The reason? Clinton was also a seasoned member of the Trilateral Commission.

Immediately after inauguration, Clinton became the champion of NAFTA and orchestrated its passage with a massive Executive Branch effort. For part two click below.


Footnotes:

1, Gardner, Richard, The Hard Road to World Order, (Foreign Affairs, 1974) p. 558
2, ibid, p. 563
3, ibid. p. 556
4, Fast Track Talking Points, Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen

Further Reading:
1. Meet Robert Pastor: Father of the North American Union, Human Events, Jerome R. Corsi, July 25, 2006
2. Robert A. Pastor Resume, American University, 2005
3. North America's Super Corridor Coalition, Inc. Website

© 2006 Patrick Wood - All Rights Reserved

TOWARD A NORTH AMERICAN UNION
PART 2 of 3


Patrick Wood
August 27, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

Some Unexpected Resistance to NAFTA

Prior to the the 1992 election, there was a fly in the elite's ointment -- namely, presidential candidate and billionaire Ross Perot, founder and chairman of Electronic Data Systems (EDS). Perot was politically independent, vehemently anti-NAFTA and chose to make it a major campaign issue in 1991. In the end, the global elite would have to spend huge sums of money to overcome the negative publicity that Perot gave to NAFTA.

At the time, some political analysts believed that Perot, being a billionaire, was somehow put up to this task by the same elitists who were pushing NAFTA. Presumably, it would accumulate all the anti-globalists in one tidy group, thus allowing the elitists to determine who their true enemies really were. It's moot today whether he was sincere or not, but it did have that outcome, and Perot became a lightning rod for the whole issue of free trade.

Perot hit the nail squarely on the head in one of his nationally televised campaign speeches:

"If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, hire young -- let's assume you've been in business for a long time and you've got a mature workforce - pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health care - that's the most expensive single element in making a car - have no environmental controls, no pollution controls, and no retirement, and you didn't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south..."[1] [emphasis added]

Perot's message struck a nerve with millions of Americans, but it was unfortunately cut short when he entered into public campaign debates with fellow candidate Al Gore. Simply put, Gore ate Perot's lunch, not so much on the issues themselves, but on having superior debating skills. As organized as Perot was, he was no match for a politically and globally seasoned politician like Al Gore.

The Spin Machine gears up

To counter the public relations damage done by Perot, all the stops were pulled out as the NAFTA vote drew near. As proxy for the global elite, the President unleashed the biggest and most expensive spin machine the country had ever seen.

Former Chrysler chairman Lee Iococca was enlisted for a multi-million dollar nationwide ad campaign that praised the benefits of NAFTA. The mantra, carried consistently throughout the many spin events: "Exports. Better Jobs. Better Wages", all of which have turned out to be empty promises.

Bill Clinton invited three former presidents to the White House to stand with him in praise and affirmation NAFTA. This was the first time in U.S. history that four presidents had ever appeared together. Of the four, three were members of the Trilateral Commission: Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Gerald Ford was not a Commissioner, but was nevertheless a confirmed globalist insider. After Ford's accession to the presidency in 1974, he promptly nominated Nelson Rockefeller (David Rockefeller's oldest brother) to fill the Vice Presidency that Ford had just vacated.

The academic community was enlisted when, according to Harper's Magazine publisher John MacArthur,

...there was a pro-NAFTA petition, organized and written my MIT's Rudiger Dornbusch, addressed to President Clinton and signed by all twelve living Nobel laureates in economics, and exercise in academic logrolling that was expertly converted by Bill Daley and the A-Team into PR gold on the front page of The New York Times on September 14. 'Dear Mr. President,' wrote the 283 signatories..."[2]

Lastly, prominent Trilateral Commission members themselves took to the press to promote NAFTA. For instance, on May 13, 1993, Commissioners Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance wrote a joint op-ed that stated:

"[NAFTA] would be the most constructive measure the United States would have undertaken in our hemisphere in this century."[3]

Two months later, Kissinger went further,

"It will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere." [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system."[4] [emphasis added]

It is hardly fanciful to think that Kissinger's hype sounds quite similar to the Trilateral Commission's original goal of creating a New International Economic Order.

On January 1, 1994, NAFTA became law: Under Fast Track procedures, the house had passed it by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor) and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38.

That Giant Sucking Sound Going South

To understand the potential impact of the North American Union, one must understand the impact of NAFTA.

NAFTA promised greater exports, better jobs and better wages. Since 1994, just the opposite has occurred. The U.S. trade deficit soared and now approaches $1 trillion dollars per year; the U.S. has lost some 1.5 million jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen significantly.

Patrick Buchanan offered a simple example of NAFTA's deleterious effect on the U.S. economy:

"When NAFTA passed in 1993, we imported some 225,000 cars and trucks from Mexico, but exported about 500,000 vehicles to the world. In 2005, our exports to the world were still a shade under 500,000 vehicles, but our auto and truck imports from Mexico had tripled to 700,000 vehicles.

"As McMillion writes, Mexico now exports more cars and trucks to the United States than the United States exports to the whole world. A fine end, is it not, to the United States as "Auto Capital of the World"?
"What happened? Post-NAFTA, the Big Three just picked up a huge slice of our auto industry and moved it, and the jobs, to Mexico."[5]

Of course, this only represents the auto industry, but the same effect has been seen in many other industries as well. Buchanan correctly noted that NAFTA was never just a trade deal: Rather, it was an "enabling act - to enable U.S. corporations to dump their American workers and move their factories to Mexico." Indeed, this is the very spirit of all outsourcing of U.S. jobs and manufacturing facilities to overseas locations.

Respected economist Alan Tonelson, author of The Race to the Bottom, notes the smoke and mirrors that cloud what has really happened with exports:

"Most U.S. exports to Mexico before, during and since the (1994) peso crisis have been producer goods - in particular, parts and components sent by U.S. multinationals to their Mexican factories for assembly or for further processing. The vast majority of these, moreover, are reexported, and most get shipped right back to the United States for final sale. In fact, by most estimates, the United States buys 80 to 90 percent of all of Mexico's exports."[6]

Tonelson concludes that "the vast majority of American workers has experienced declining living standards, not just a handful of losers."

Mexican economist and scholar Miguel Pickard sums up Mexico's supposed benefits from NAFTA:

"Much praise has been heard for the few 'winners' that NAFTA has created, but little mention is made of the fact that the Mexican people are the deal's big 'losers.' Mexicans now face greater unemployment, poverty, and inequality than before the agreement began in 1994."[7]

In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to the citizenry of the United States or Mexico. Still, this is the backdrop against which the North American Union is being acted out. The globalization players and their promises have remained pretty much the same, both just as disingenuous as ever.

Prelude to the North American Union

Soon after NAFTA was passed in 1994, Dr. Robert A. Pastor began to push for a "deep integration" which NAFTA could not provide by itself. His dream was summed up in his book, Toward a North American Union, published in 2001. Unfortunately for Pastor, the book was released just a few days prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and thus received little attention from any sector.

However, Pastor had the right connections. He was invited to appear before the plenary session (held in Ontario, Canada) of the Trilateral Commission on November 1-2, 2002, to deliver a paper drawing directly on his book. His paper, "A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral Commission", made several recommendations:

*
"... the three governments should establish a North American Commission (NAC) to define an agenda for Summit meetings by the three leaders and to monitor the implementation of the decisions and plans.
*
"A second institution should emerge from combining two bilateral legislative groups into a North American Parliamentary Group.
*
"The third institution should be a Permanent Court on Trade and Investment
*
"The three leaders should establish a North American Development Fund, whose priority would be to connect the U.S.-Mexican border region to central and southern Mexico.
*
The North American Commission should develop an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure.
*
"...negotiate a Customs Union and a Common External Tariff
*
"Our three governments should sponsor Centers for North American Studies in each of our countries to help the people of all three understand the problems and the potential of North America and begin to think of themselves as North Americans"[8] [emphasis added]

Pastor's choice of the words "Modest Proposal" are almost comical considering that he intends to reorganize the entire north American continent.

Nevertheless, the Trilateral Commission bought Pastor's proposals hook, line and sinker. Subsequently, it was Pastor who emerged as the U.S. vice-chairman of the CFR task force that was announced on October 15, 2004:

"The Council has launched an independent task force on the future of North America to examine regional integration since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement ten years ago... The task force will review five spheres of policy in which greater cooperation may be needed. They are: deepening economic integration; reducing the development gap; harmonizing regulatory policy; enhancing security; and devising better institutions to manage conflicts that inevitably arise from integration and exploit opportunities for collaboration."[9]

Independent task force, indeed! A total of twenty-three members were chosen from the three countries. Each country was represented by a member of the Trilateral Commission: Carla A. Hills (U.S.), Luis Robio (Mexico) and Wendy K. Dobson (Canada). Robert Pastor served as the U.S. vice-chairman.

This CFR task force was unique in that it focused on economic and political policies for all three countries, not just the U.S. The Task Force stated purpose was to

"... identify inadequacies in the current arrangements and suggest opportunities for deeper cooperation on areas of common interest. Unlike other Council-sponsored task forces, which focus primarily on U.S. policy, this initiative includes participants from Canada and Mexico, as well as the United States, and will make policy recommendations for all three countries."[10] [Emphasis added]

Richard Haass, chairman of the CFR and long-time member of the Trilateral Commission, pointedly made the link between NAFTA and integration of Mexico, Canada and the U.S.:

"Ten years after NAFTA, it is obvious that the security and economic futures of Canada, Mexico, and the United States are intimately bound. But there is precious little thinking available as to where the three countries need to be in another ten years and how to get there. I am excited about the potential of this task force to help fill this void,"[11]

Haass' statement "there is precious little thinking available" underscores a repeatedly used elitist technique. That is, first decide what you want to do, and secondly, assign a flock of academics to justify your intended actions. (This is the crux of academic funding by NGO's such as Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie-Mellon, etc.) After the justification process is complete, the same elites that suggested it in the first place allow themselves to be drawn in as if they had no other logical choice but to play along with the "sound thinking" of the experts.

The task force met three times, once in each country. When the process was completed, it issued its results in May, 2005, in a paper titled "Building a North American Community" and subtitled "Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America." Even the sub-title suggests that the "future of north America" is a fait accompli decided behind closed doors. For part three click below.


Footnotes:

1, Exerpts From Presidential Debates, Ross Perot, 1992
2, MacArthur, The Selling of Free Trade, (Univ. of Cal. Press, 2001) p. 228
3, Washington Post, op-ed, Kissinger & Vance, May 13, 1993
4, Los Angeles Times, op-ed, Kissinger, July 18, 1993
5, The Fruits of NAFTA, Patrick Buchanan, The Conservative Voice, March 10, 2006
6, Tonelson, The Race to the Bottom (Westview Press, 2002) p. 89
7, Trinational Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA Plus", Manuel Pickard, IRC Americas website
8, A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral Commission, Presentation by Dr. Robert A. Pastor, 2002
9, Council Joing Leading Canadians and Mexicans to Launch Intependent Task Force on the Future of America, Press Release, CFR Website
10, ibid.
11, ibid.

Further Reading:
1. Meet Robert Pastor: Father of the North American Union, Human Events, Jerome R. Corsi, July 25, 2006
2. Robert A. Pastor Resume, American University, 2005
3. North America's Super Corridor Coalition, Inc. Website

© 2006 Patrick Wood - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Patrick M. Wood is editor of The August Review, which builds on his original research with the late Dr. Antony C. Sutton, who was formerly a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution for War, Peace and Revolution at Stanford University. Their 1977-1982 newsletter, Trilateral Observer, was the original authoritative critique on the New International Economic Order spearheaded by members of the Trilateral Commission.

Their highly regarded two-volume book, Trilaterals Over Washington, became a standard reference on global elitism. Wood's ongoing work is to build a knowledge center that provides a comprehensive and scholarly source of information on globalism in all its related forms: political, economic and religious.

E-Mail: pwood@augustreview.com

Web Site: www.AugustReview.com

TOWARD A NORTH AMERICAN UNION
PART 3 of 3


Patrick Wood
August 27, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

Some of the recommendations of the task force are:

*
"Adopt a common external tariff."
*
"Adopt a North American Approach to Regulation"
*
"Establish a common security perimeter by 2010."
*
"Establish a North American investment fund for infrastructure and human capital."
*
"Establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution."
*
"An annual North American Summit meeting" that would bring the heads-of-state together for the sake of public display of confidence.
*
"Establish minister-led working groups that will be required to report back within 90 days, and to meet regularly."
*
Create a "North American Advisory Council"
*
Create a "North American Inter-Parliamentary Group."[1]

Shortly after the task force report was issued, the heads of all three countries did indeed meet together for a summit in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The specific result of the summit was the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPPNA). The joint press release stated

"We, the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, have met in Texas to announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

"We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals. They will outline concrete steps that our governments can take to meet these goals, and set dates that will ensure the continuous achievement of results.
"Within 90 days, ministers will present their initial report after which, the working parties will submit six-monthly reports. Because the Partnership will be an ongoing process of cooperation, new items will be added to the work agenda by mutual agreement as circumstances warrant."[2]

Once again, we see Pastor's North American Union ideology being continued, but this time as an outcome of a summit meeting of three heads-of-states. The question must be raised, "Who is really in charge of this process?"

Indeed, the three premiers returned to their respective countries and started their "working parties" to "consult with stakeholders." In the U.S., the "specific, measurable, and achievable goals" were only seen indirectly by the creation of a government website billed as "Security and Prosperity Partnetship of North America." (www.spp.gov) The stakeholders are not mentioned my name, but it is clear that they are not the public of either of the three countries; most likely, they are the corporate interests represented by the members of the Trilateral Commission!

The second annual summit meeting took place on March 30-31, 2006, in Cancun, Mexico between Bush, Fox and Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper. The Security and Prosperity Partnership agenda was summed up in a statement from Mexican president Vicente Fox:

"We touched upon fundamental items in that meeting. First of all, we carried out an evaluation meeting. Then we got information about the development of programs. And then we gave the necessary instructions for the works that should be carried out in the next period of work... We are not renegotiating what has been successful or open the Free Trade Agreement. It's going beyond the agreement, both for prosperity and security."[3] [emphasis added]

Regulations instead of Treaties

It may not have occurred to the reader that the two SPP summits resulted in no signed agreements. This is not accidental nor a failure of the summit process. The so-called "deeper integration" of the three countries is being accomplished through a series of regulations and executive decrees that avoid citizen watchdogs and legislative oversight.[4]

In the U.S., the 2005 Cancun summit spawned some 20 different working groups that would deal with issues from immigration to security to harmonization of regulations, all under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (www.spp.gov). The SPP in the U.S. is officially placed under the Department of Commerce, headed by Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, but other Executive Branch agencies also have SPP components that report to Commerce.

After two years of massive effort, the names of the SPP working group members have not been released. The result of their work have also not been released. There is no congressional legislation or oversight of the SPP process.

The director of SPP, Geri Word, was contacted to ask why a cloud of secrecy is hanging over SPP. According to investigative journalist Jerome Corsi, Word replied

"We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public."[5]

This paternalistic attitude is a typical elitist mentality Their work (whatever they have dreamed up on their own) is too important to be distracted by the likes of pesky citizens or their elected legislators.

This elite change of tactics must not be understated: Regulations and Executive Orders have replaced Congressional legislation and pubic debate. There is no pretense of either. This is another Gardner-style "end-run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece."

Apparently, the Trilateral-dominated Bush administration believes that it has accumulated sufficient power to ram the NAU down the throat of the American People, whether they protest or not.

Robert A. Pastor: A Trilateral Commission Operative

As mentioned earlier, Pastor is hailed as the father of the North American Union, having written more papers about it, delivered more testimonies before Congress, and headed up task forces to study it, than any other single U.S. academic figure. He would seem a tireless architect and advocate of the NAU.

Although he might seem to be a fresh, new name to in the globalization business, Pastor has a long history with Trilateral Commission members and the global elite.

He is the same Robert Pastor who was the executive director of the 1974 CFR task force ( funded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations) called the Commission on US-Latin American Relations - aka the Linowitz Commission. The Linowitz Commission, chaired by an original Trilateral Commissioner Sol Linowitz, was singularly credited with the giveaway of the Panama Canal in 1976 under the Carter presidency. ALL of the Linowitz Commission members were members of the Trilateral Commission save one, Albert Fishlow; other members were W. Michael Blumenthal, Samuel Huntington, Peter G. Peterson, Elliot Richardson and David Rockefeller.

One of Carter's first actions as President in 1977 was to appoint Zbigniew Brzezinski to the post of National Security Advisor. In turn, one of Brzezinski's first acts was to appoint his protege, Dr. Robert A. Pastor, as director of the Office of Latin American and Caribbean Affairs. Pastor then became the Trilateral Commission's point-man to lobby for the Canal giveaway.

To actually negotiate the Carter-Torrijos Treaty, Carter sent none other than Sol Linowitz to Panama as temporary ambassador. The 6-month temporary appointment avoided the requirement for Senate confirmation. Thus, the very same people who created the policy became responsible for executing it.

The Trilateral Commission's role in the Carter Administration is confirmed by Pastor himself in his 1992 paper The Carter Administration and Latin America: A Test of Principle:

"In converting its predisposition into a policy, the new administration had the benefit of the research done by two private commissions. Carter, Vance, and Brzezinski were members of the Trilateral Commission, which provided a conceptual framework for collaboration among the industrialized countries in approaching the full gamut of international issues. With regard to setting an agenda and an approach to Latin America, the most important source of influence on the Carter administration was the Commission on U.S.-Latin American Relations, chaired by Sol M. Linowitz."[6]

As to the final Linowitz Commission reports on Latin America, most of which were authored by Pastor himself, he states:

"The reports helped the administration define a new relationship with Latin America, and 27 of the 28 specific recommendations in the second report became U.S. policy."[7]

Pastor's deep involvement with Trilateral Commission members and policies is irrefutable, and it continues into the present.

In 1996, when Trilateral Commissioner Bill Clinton nominated Pastor as Ambassador to Panama, his confirmation was forcefully knocked down by democratic Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), who held a deep grudge against Pastor for his central role in the giveaway of the Panama Canal in 1976.

The setback obviously did not phase Pastor in the slightest.

Where from here?

The stated target for full implementation of the North American Union is 2010.

"The Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that 'our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.' Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America."[8]

Don't underestimate the global elite's ability to meet their own deadlines!

Conclusion

This paper does not pretend to give thorough or even complete coverage to such important and wide-ranging topics as discussed above. We have shown that the restructuring of the United States has been accomplished by a very small group of powerful global elitists as represented by members of the Trilateral Commission.

The Trilateral Commission plainly stated that it intended to create a New International Economic Order. We have followed their members from 1973 to the present, only to find that they are at the dead center of every critical policy and action that seeks to restructure the U.S.

Some critics will undoubedly argue that involvement by members of the Trilateral Commission is merely incidental. However, the odds for their involvement at random is too large to be even remotely understandable; it would be like winning the lottery jackpot five times in a row, with the same numbers!

The credo of The August Review is "Follow the money, follow the power." In this view, the United States has literally been hijacked by less than 300 greedy and self-serving global elitists who have little more than contempt for the citizens of the countries they would seek to dominate. According to Trilateralist Richard Gardner's viewpoint, this incremental takeover (rather than a frontal approach) has been wildly successful.

To again answer Lou Dobbs question, "Have our political elites gone mad?" -- No Lou, they are not "mad", nor are they ignorant. To look into the face of these global elites is to look into the face of unmitigated greed, avarice and treachery.

Footnotes:

1, Building a North American Community, Council on Foreign Relations, 2005
2, North American Leaders Unveil Security and Prosperity Partnership, International Information Programs, U.S. Govt. Website
3, Concluding Press Conference at Cancun Summit, Vicente Fox, March 31, 2006
4, Traditional Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA Plus", Miguel Pickard, p. 1, IRC Website
5, Bush sneaking North American super-state without oversight?, Jerome Corsi,WorldNetDaily, June 12, 2006.
6, [The Carter Administration and Latin America: A Test of Principle, Robert A. Pastor, The Carter Center, July 1992, p. 9
7, Ibid,
8, Building a North American Community, Council on Foreign Relations, 2005, p. 2]

Further Reading:
1. Meet Robert Pastor: Father of the North American Union, Human Events, Jerome R. Corsi, July 25, 2006
2. Robert A. Pastor Resume, American University, 2005
3. North America's Super Corridor Coalition, Inc. Website

© 2006 Patrick Wood - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Patrick M. Wood is editor of The August Review, which builds on his original research with the late Dr. Antony C. Sutton, who was formerly a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution for War, Peace and Revolution at Stanford University. Their 1977-1982 newsletter, Trilateral Observer, was the original authoritative critique on the New International Economic Order spearheaded by members of the Trilateral Commission.

Their highly regarded two-volume book, Trilaterals Over Washington, became a standard reference on global elitism. Wood's ongoing work is to build a knowledge center that provides a comprehensive and scholarly source of information on globalism in all its related forms: political, economic and religious.

E-Mail: pwood@augustreview.com

Web Site: www.AugustReview.com

http://www.sierratimes.com/06/08/29/Paul.htm
A North American United Nations?
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.

According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.

What is a "dialogue"? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union.

According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.

Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.

Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website:

"We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007"

Though the US administration insists that the SPP does not undermine US sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty?

The website also states SPP's goal to "improve the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the US taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?

Also alarming are SPP pledges to "work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products." That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans' health freedom.

Even more troubling are reports that under this new "partnership," a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the US taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the US more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm.

This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.

LATE UPDATE:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51779

"MEXICAN TRUCK DRIVERS will be on our Roads by NEXT YEAR!"

Read this......as a partial conclusion to ConSigCorp's above material.

I'm usually one of the first to point & laugh and accuse someone have having the tinfoil hat on too tight.

SPP is not one of those tabloid jokes. I'm sad to say, it's the real deal, and just as ugly as it sounds.

If you didn't read all of that above, there was a web site embedded in one of the articles that you need to see. http://www.spp.gov

Note that ".gov" web sites can only be run by the US Federal Government.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by swabjocky:
[qb] Then there is this. I'm not sure where he got it but lets hope there is no ratification.
====================================================

Subject: Constitution of the North American Union

Date: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:51 PM

The Constitution of the North American Union
Preamble [quote]

Can someone give the link to where you got this from I want to see it for myself.

To hell with the North American Union and the United Nations too. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law contrary to it (and or piece of crap like this) is null and void.

Our rights are given to us by The Lord God Almighty creator of the universe not by any government of man.

It was sent to me in an e-mail from a friend. He didn't have the link on it. When he sends it I'll post it.

Should have done that in the first place.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/6/16/141829.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/7/3/181336.shtml
http://donkephant.blogspot.com/2006/05/new-constitution-for-north-american.html
http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=13450

Thanks for the links, Now how can we get this out to the sheep and make it public? I want to give it to people like Mike Church, Bill O'Rilye, Sean Hannity, Andrew Wilkow... The reason i suggest these people is the simple fact that I have seen what happens when they get a hold of something that needs to be put out..What do you think?

Well I have been looking all over for the origin of this "Constitution of the North American Union" and have found absolutly nothing but a hand full of articles talking about it.

Since it doesn't seem to have any valid origin as to it's creation, I'm going to have to assume it is just a spoof that someone with a sick sense of humor made up to get folks worked up.

I also received it as an email but it is just something that has been passed around and nobody knows where it came from.

So until such time as someone can prove it has a valid origin, I'm going to say it's just BS.

Don't worry so much about their constitution. The trade agreements and "memo's of understanding" are enough. This so called "union" is verifiable, blatently treasonous and ought not be tolerated by us.

I couldn't care less what constipation...(oops) they adopt. I will recognise none other than that of my State and of these united States.

Well with as long as it is we can ALL bet the farm some lawyer was involved in drawing it up. As such I do not trust it for that very reason.

There are enough loop holes in there to march a division thru, and we can be sure of one thing they are there for a reason.

Here's something from Ron Paul


http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm
Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - A weekly Column"
A North American United Nations?
August 28, 2006
Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.
According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.
What is a "dialogue"? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union.
According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.
Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.
Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website:
"We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007"
Though the US administration insists that the SPP does not undermine US sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty?
The website also states SPP's goal to "[i]mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the US taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?
Also alarming are SPP pledges to "work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products." That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans' health freedom.
Even more troubling are reports that under this new "partnership," a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the US taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the US more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm.
This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.

Here is where the "Constitution of the North American Union" came from: http://www.mrouse.com/const.htm

Just as I thought. Thanks NF

Whether it is "The Constitution of the North American Union," The Constitution of the United States of America, or any other laws, we need to face one fact.

We live in a society when the government picks and chooses which laws they will follow and which laws they won't. A perfect example are all the laws on immigration. Ignored. But, let a preacher in a California church say something against Bush's war in Iraq, and the IRS is called in "to enforce the law" and start taxing the church as a business (so much for separation of church and state, huh ?).

Our Constitution is only quoted when it serves the purpose of the tyrants. They wave the flag of "this is a nation of laws." But, if WE openly mention the Constitution in public, or in Court, we are put on a list as "terrorists."

The Soviet Constitution wasn't really so bad. It even guarenteed freedom of religion. But, just as that Soviet group of leaders was corrupt, and chose whatever they wanted from their constitution, and ignored the rest, so do our leaders today.

So, even IF the Constitution of the North American Union was real (which it isn't), be assured that any laws are meaningless unless they fit the purposes of those in power.

Here's another bit I just got

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

Great discussion here. the failure of the government to protect our sovereignty, shows they have no intention of protect the economy or the constitution.

one who would sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither. Ben Franklin

The NAU Constitiution is fiction, did not notice it before.

Side Note:
Why is fiction on this board if for no other purpose then to say the sky is falling?



Kerb out

W isnt a CFR member is he?He wouldnt be antiamerican sovereignty would he?wonder if he goes to bilderberg also?Skull and bones is enough for him I guess

I forgot,just like 2 weeks ago W had a meeting in crawford with mexico and canada,wonder what they were talkin about,maybe defaulting on our deficit with china by becoming another entity,ie AU,therefore we wouldnt be liable for the US debt,we would be the AU.

Actually, I would kind of like to see a United North America under the US Constitution, with it's capital in Washington DC.

We jsut had a large debate about this in World Issues. I mopped up the floor with people (in a respectful and decent way, of course).

300 Million vs 32 million.

I think it's unrealistic to say that terms should be equal for both Canadian citizens and US citizens.

Call me an idealist, but I think a Union would be beneficial for all North Americans. Canadians get a real voice, and the purging of all this PC crap, and The lower 48 get unrestricted, untzed access to a whole lot of resources. Win/Win!

Mind you, The nation would be slightly shifted to the political left, which might mean such things as more txes and socialized programs, and possibly more gun control. . .

Which is EXACTLY why we shouldn't do it. The US doesnt gain anything, except a whole bunch of new welfare cases (all of Mess-co).

And while the individual Cannuck might be a decent person, they've pretty well turned their own damn country into a Worker's Paradise, I really have NO interest in letting them get their grubby paws on MY country.

lol

Oh my lord, you're right!

What the hell have I said?

lol

300 mil. people and growing, canuck our hope is that Canadian decide they had more then they can stand and start a republic like we use to have. that way when the US collapes we have a border to cross

lol, fat chance of that, my friend!

Well actually maybe not. We have this gorwing concept called the Western Canada Concept (look it up) basically, its for an independant Western Canada. Grass-roots, 47% of Albertans wish to seperate. It could actually be a reality!

Anyone else find it ironic they met in Waco, Texas? I know its not the same one, but that name seems to plague bad moves by the government.

It IS the same one.

URL: http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/444/1/

NORTH AMERICAN UNION "CONSPIRACY" EXPOSED

By Cliff Kincaid

February 21, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

A top Democratic Party foreign policy specialist said on Friday that a "very small group" of conservatives is unfairly accusing him of being at the center of a "vast conspiracy" to implement the idea of a "North American Union" by "stealth." He called the charges "absurd."

But Robert Pastor, a former official of the Carter Administration and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University (CNAS), made the remarks at an all-day February 16 conference devoted to the development of a North American legal system. The holding of the conference was itself evidence that a comprehensive process is underway to merge the economies, and perhaps the social and political systems, of the three countries.

Pastor said that he favors a "North American Community," not a formal union of the three countries, and several speakers at the conference ridiculed the idea of protecting America's borders and suggested that American citizenship was an outmoded concept.

Wearing a lapel pin featuring the flags of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, Pastor told AIM that he favors a $200-billion North American Investment Fund to pull Mexico out of poverty and a national biometric identity card for the purpose of controlling the movement of people in and out of the U.S.

So the "conspiracy" is now very much out in the open, if only the media would pay some attention to it.

Media Cover-Up

Accuracy in Media attended the conference in order to produce this report and shed light on a process that is being conducted largely beyond the scrutiny of the public or the Congress.

AIM has previously documented that Pastor's campaign for a North American Community has received precious little attention from the major media, except for the notable case of CNN's Lou Dobbs, who has called it "utterly mad." In fact, a survey of news coverage discloses that several high-profile mentions of the concept of a North American economic, social or political entity have come from Pastor himself, such as a Newsweek International article that he wrote.

The conference, conducted in cooperation with the American Society of International Law, an organization affiliated with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, was held at the American University Washington College of Law. A large number of speakers came from American University.

Overruling the U.S. Supreme Court

Academic literature distributed in advance to conference participants about a common legal framework for the U.S., Canada and Mexico included proposals for a North American Court of Justice (with the authority to overrule a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court), a North American Trade Tribunal, a North American Court of Justice, and a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights for North America, also dubbed the North American Social Charter.

Under the latter concept, according to Laura Spitz of the University of Colorado Law School, North Americans might be able to enjoy "new rights" essential to "human flourishing" such as gay marriage. She argues in one paper that U.S. economic integration with Canada will make it nearly impossible for the United States not to recognize same-sex marriage so long as it is lawful in Canada.

Pastor himself talked about new institutions, such as a "permanent tribunal" on trade issues, but emphasized that such ideas "take time" and have to "take root." He advised conference participants to "think about the horizon," in terms of what is possible, over the course of 5, 10 or even 20 years from now.

Conservative concerns about Pastor's agenda were not assuaged by conference literature disclosing that the CNAS is sponsoring an event in May in which students participate in a model "North American Parliament." The concept suggests creation of a regional body to supersede the U.S. Government itself.

Such talk does indeed raise the specter of a North American Union similar to the currently functioning European Union, a political and economic entity of 27 European states that includes a European Parliament and a European Court of Justice. The EU has been charged with usurping the sovereignty of member states and moving European nations in a left-wing direction on matters such as acceptance of abortion and gay rights and abolition of the death penalty.

Indeed, the academic literature distributed to conference participants alluded to how the three countries of North America are "polarized" on "sensitive" cultural issues such as the death penalty, abortion and gay marriage and that it might take a long time to "harmonize" their legal systems on such matters.

While Pastor, a foreign policy advisor to each of the Democratic presidential candidates since 1976, tried to dismiss talk of a North American Union, he did emphasize in his remarks to the conference that North America is "more than a geographical entity" and is in fact a "community." His 2001 book, Toward a North American Community, begins by emphasizing his status as a resident of North America, rather than just a U.S. citizen, and outlines a vision of the three countries taking their relationship "to a new level."

Rather than use the phrase "union," he described the creation of an "emerging entity called North America" growing out of the fact that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), passed in 1993, had brought about a "remarkable degree of economic integration" among the three countries. One panel was devoted to analyzing how NAFTA could be expanded into the areas of intellectual property and taxation and regulations.

Attacking Conservatives

One speaker, Stephen Zamora of the University of Houston Law School, denounced the idea of a wall separating Mexico and the U.S., in order to control illegal immigration, asking, "What does citizenship mean anymore?" He expressed pleasant surprise when a Mexican in the audience said she had dual citizenship in Mexico and the U.S. Later, he said he was just as concerned about people living in Mexico as people living in the U.S.

Another speaker, Tom Farer, Dean of the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver, made a point of saying that his representative in Congress, Tom Tancredo (R-Col.), a staunch advocate of U.S. border security, was a backward thinker. Tancredo could be seen "dragging his knuckles along the ground," Farer said, trying to crack a joke.

No Border Control

Pastor acknowledged that the U.S. Government doesn't want to enforce its immigration laws. He said, however, that the solution is not a fence, except in some isolated high-crime areas along the border, and it's not to punish companies for hiring illegal aliens, since identity documents can be too easily forged. He said the solution is a national biometric and fraud-proof identification card that identifies national origin and legal status.

Another part of his solution, a $200-billion North American Investment Fund, is for the purpose of narrowing the income disparity between Mexico , on the one hand, and the U.S. and Canada, on the other. "You need a lot of money to do it and do it effectively," he said. He said Mexico would be required to put up half of the money, with the U.S. contributing 40 percent and Canada 10 percent. It would be done over 10 years.

The fund, he said, would focus on economic development in the southern and middle parts of Mexico, which haven't been touched to any significant degree by NAFTA. This, he indicated, would go a long way toward stemming illegal immigration to the U.S.

So the failures of NAFTA are now being used not to repeal the measure but to expand it and increase foreign aid to Mexico.

Pastor said Senator John Cornyn, known as a conservative Republican, had introduced his North American Investment Fund as a bill in Congress but had backed away from it under conservative fire.

The Nature of NAFTA

An important moment in the conference occurred when Alan Tarr, director of the Center for State Constitutional Studies at Rutgers University, was challenged about glossing over President Clinton's submission of NAFTA as an agreement, requiring only a majority of votes in both Houses of Congress for passage, and not a treaty, requiring a two-thirds vote in favor in the Senate. NAFTA passed by votes of 234-200 in the House and 61-38 in the Senate. Tarr said he had not intended to be uncritical of what Clinton did. Pastor quickly interjected that there was nothing improper in submitting NAFTA as an agreement rather than a treaty.

But Clinton's move was seen at the time as an effort to bypass constitutional processes, and the United Steelworkers challenged NAFTA's constitutionality in court. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001, after lower courts had thrown the case out, saying it was a political matter between the president and Congress. The Bush Administration sided with Clinton and the Supreme Court declined to get involved.

The history of NAFTA is one reason why so many conservatives are concerned that a North American Community could be transformed into a North American Union that runs roughshod over U.S. constitutional processes and guarantees.

One of the main concerns of conservatives, who have formed a "Coalition to Block the North American Union," has been the lack of congressional interest and oversight. They are backing a bill introduced by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) to put Congress on record against a North American Union.

The Secretive SPP

Another major concern is that the Bush Administration has facilitated the creation of this new North American "entity" through an initiative known as the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), based on a memorandum signed by President Bush and the leaders of Canada and Mexico in March 2005. It is described as "a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing," but its "working groups" have been operating in secret and many of the members are not even known.

Judicial Watch, a conservative public-interest law firm, had to go through the Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents naming the members of some of the mysterious working groups.

Officially, on the U.S. side, the SPP is coordinated by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez.

The Clinton Connection

Pastor's luncheon speaker, Eric Farnsworth, the Vice-President of the Council of the Americas, provided some valuable insight into this process. Saying NAFTA is "no longer enough," he described the SPP as designed to help North America meet the economic challenges posed by such countries as China and India.

Farnsworth said that the Council of the Americas , which advises the SPP, would shortly issue 300 recommendations designed to improve business conditions in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. He was unclear as to whether the U.S. Government would try to implement these initiatives on its own, through the administrative or regulatory process, or whether they would be submitted to Congress for approval.

The Council's honorary chairman is David Rockefeller and its board members come from such major corporations as Merck, PepsiCo, McDonald's, Ford, Citibank, IBM, Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, GE (which owns NBC News and MSNBC) and Time Warner (which owns CNN and Time Inc.).

One of the key board members is Thomas F. McLarty III, President of Kissinger McLarty Associates, who served as Clinton's White House counselor and chief of staff during the time that NAFTA was signed and passed by Congress. McLarty, who also functioned as Special Envoy to the Americas under Clinton, is an adviser to the Carlyle Group, focusing on "buyout investment opportunities in Mexico."

Farnsworth mentioned the possible creation of a "super-national Supreme Court" governing business and trade issues in North America, but was ambiguous about whether it would ever come to pass.

A self-described Democrat who served as policy director in the Clinton White House Office of the Special Envoy for the Americas from 1995-98, he also said that he was optimistic that Bush would strike a deal with the new Democratic-controlled Congress on immigration. He said Bush was "at odds with his own party" on immigration and that legislation to create a so-called "guest worker" program could pass now that Republicans have lost control of Congress.

The Panama Canal Giveaway

For his part, Pastor, a friendly and engaging fellow who talks about his ideas at length with critics, has a history that goes far beyond deep personal involvement in the Democratic Party.

Pastor is associated by conservatives with President Jimmy Carter's treaty, opposed by then-presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, which transferred control of the Panama Canal away from the U.S. to the Panamanian government. Pastor was National Security Advisor for Latin America under Carter. His nomination as U.S. Ambassador to Panama was withdrawn in 1995 after conservative Senator Jesse Helms, then-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, threatened to block a vote on his nomination. Helms accused Pastor of aiding radical forces and undermining U.S. interests in the region.

The founding director of the Latin American and Caribbean Program of the [Jimmy] Carter Center, Pastor became Vice President of International Affairs and Professor of International Relations at American University on September 1, 2002, when he created his Center for North American Studies. Pastor also served as vice chair of a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on the Future of North America, which issued a report in May 2005. Lately, Pastor's Center for North American Studies has received funding from the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean to address "regulatory convergence" issues.

A sour note about the prospect of further integration with Mexico was provided at the conference by Alberto Szekely, a career ambassador and advisor to the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said that the rule of law simply does not exist in Mexico and that corruption permeates governmental institutions. He said reforms under the presidency of Vicente Fox went nowhere and that Mexico is one of the most corrupt countries in the world today.

Ironically, however, he said that the development of a North American legal system might in some way assist in cleaning up the Mexican legal system.

Pastor, an optimist about the prospect of developing the North American Community, told me that he didn't think the situation in Mexico was as bleak as Szekely made it out to be. He continues to be a proponent of "continental thinking."

© 2007 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff concentrated in journalism and communications at the University of Toledo, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Cliff has written or co-authored nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign policy issues.

Cliff has appeared on Hannity & Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor, Crossfire and has been published in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events and Insight.

Web Site: www.AIM.org

E-Mail: cliff.kincaid@aim.org

SPP= Security and Prosperity Partnership.....

Did you say "America"? How bout AmeriKa, with a "k"? We live in a communist state that just hasn't gotten around to tellin the citizens that we're under a commie flag yet.

Just look at "commiefornia" if ya want some immediate proof of tyranny in gummament. There are "others", don't get me wrong. It ain't just CA.

Anyhow, I digress. Read it and weep!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54796

Bump

IS NORTH AMERICAN UNION ABOUT POLITICAL IDEOLOGY?


By Tom DeWeese
March 25, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

If you believe there should be no borders marking a specific entity called the United States of America, then a North American Union will not concern you. If you believe nationalism, meaning love and pride of country, is a bad thing, then a North American Union will not concern you. If you believe government control of the market, of health care, and of energy policy is a positive force, then a North American Union will not concern you. If you believe anyone should be allowed to enter our nation, even illegally, obtain work, taxpayer-paid social programs, and owe no allegiance to the U.S., then a North American Union will not concern you.

On the other hand, if you believe the United States is the most unique nation on Earth with a government designed to protect your natural liberties, an economic system unlike any other -designed to create economic independence, and a judicial system unknown to any other nation, then a North American Union is a threat to all you hold dear.

Those currently working on such a plan do not share your ideals; they do not support your political positions. They do not understand nor care about your concerns. It's their political ideology and they see nothing wrong with what they are doing. They consider your opposition to their plans to "harmonize" the U.S. with Mexico and Canada old fashioned and out of date.

The question is where do you stand?

The other side intends to marginalize your love of country and support of limited government. In fact, the other side doesn't want to debate the issue at all. It just wants to force its way on you, without discussion, without a vote, and without your involvement. And that is why they are trying to operate in secret.

Those of us who oppose this Union on ideological grounds intend to force that debate and let the American people decide how they wish to be governed. And that is why the other side is attacking us so viciously.

Incredibly, some of the most vicious attacks have come from so-called spokesman on the right – apparently threatened by other conservatives who questtion Bush Administration polices. For example, In December of 2006, news commentator Michael Medved fumed and spewed in a couple of blogs and on his radio show about the "nuts" and "crazies" who question the true purpose of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

The Charge:

"This paranoid and groundless frenzy has been fomented and promoted by a shameless collection of lunatics and losers; crooks, cranks, demagogues and opportunists, who claim the existence of a top secret master plan to join the U.S. , Canada and Mexico in one big super-state and to replace the good old Yankee dollar with a worthless new currency called 'The Amero'." Michael Medved, December 28, 2006.

The Truth:

Mexican economist and researcher Miguel Pickard wrote in an article, published by foreign press, detailing the "deep integration" planned for North America. He said there will be no single treaty and nothing will be submitted to legislatures of the three countries. Instead, he says, the plan for a "merged future" will be implemented through "the signing of regulations not subject to citizen review." He went on to report of several secret meetings held in all three nations, after which representatives signed "close to 300 regulations" installing a "Unified American Border Action Plan."

Pickard went on to express his view that President Bush is "vigorously pushing" the idea of a "North American community." Pickard concluded by saying the schedule calls for beginning with a customs union, then a common market, then a monetary and economic union, and finally the adoption of a single currency.

Democrat Congressman Barney Frank said in a letter concerning the Security and Prosperity Partnership, "It was done for the United States by the President, with no Congressional involvement. Indeed it is not even a treaty because it has not been ratified by the Senate."

CNN Anchorman Lou Dobbs said during a report on the SPP, "Have our political elites gone mad?"

The Charge:

"Another delusion usually associated with these fears involves the construction of a 'Monster Highway' some sixteen lanes wide through Texas and the Great Plains, connecting two nations on either side for the borders for some nefarious but never-explained purpose." Michael Medved, December 28, 2006

The Truth:

In April, 2006, TxDOT released a 4,000 page Environmental Impact Statement that described a corridor that will be 1200 feet wide (the size of four football fields). It will parallel Interstate 35, and be five lanes north and five lanes south (3 lanes for cars, 2 lanes for trucks). In the middle will be pipelines and rail lines. It will also have a 200 ft wide utility corridor. The corridor will start in Laredo, TX, run past Austin to the Texas-Oklahoma border. Plans ultimately call for building some 4,000 miles of highway with – rrail lines and utility lines combined into super-corridors throughout Texas over the next 50 years.

"The Oklahoma-to-Mexico stretch would be just the first link in a 4,000 mile, $184 billion network. The corridor would be up to a quarter mile across, consisting of as many as six lanes for cars and four for trucks, plus railroad tracks, oil and gas pipelines, water and other utility lines, and broadband cables." Associated Press, July 21, 2006.

Central to the construction of the Trans Texas Corridor is the massive taking of 584,000 acres of private rich farm land, ranches and homes. Supreme Court approved Eminent Domain will be used to acquire the land.

The Trans Texas Corridor is the first leg of what is called the NAFTA Super Highway scheduled to go through heartland America all the way to Canada.

The main reason for opposition (for some nefarious but never-explained purpose) is the lack of inspection of the truck's cargo as they carry containers loaded in China and off loaded in Mexican ports and driven straight through to an Inland port in Kansas City (KC SmartPort), relying only on electronic screening for drive-through inspections. Moreover, Mexico will control its own customs facility in Kansas City and therefore able to inspect their own trucks on U.S. territory.

"This spring (2006), (KC) city officials signed off on a 50-year lease for the Mexican facility, with an option for 50 more years...The council earlier this year earmarked $2.5 million in loans and $600,000 in direct aid to SmartPort, which would build and own the inland customs facility and sublet it to the Mexican government through agreements with U.S. Customs and Border Protection...The Mexican government would have no significant investment and would occupy the customs facility operation rent free...SmartPort set up the deal to avoid imposing any expenses on Mexico above its ordinary border costs...SmartPort meanwhile is seeking a $1.5 million grant from the U.S. Economic Development Administration to purchase high-tech gamma-ray screening devices for drive-through inspections of truck cargo...Confusion and secrecy have been hallmarks of the ambitious project. At the outset, Gutierrez (President, KC SmartPort) and others have said the customs facility would be sovereign Mexican soil similar to a foreign embassy." Posted by the Kansas City Star, 7-18-06

Another objection to the highway system is the fact that foreign companies will operate the highways and collect tolls.

"On a single day in June (2006), an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.6 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99-year lease on Virginia's Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road from Austin to Seguin for 50 years." Associated Press, 7-15-06

"One principle player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don't be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-correct interests." Texas Congressman Ron Paul

The Charge:

"The record couldn't be more clear on the 'North American Union' - there's no one anywhere near the Bush administration, the Congress of the United States, Cabinet departments or even major think tanks who believes it's a good idea to merge Canada, Mexico and the U.S." Michael Medved, December28, 2006

The Truth:

"Away from the spotlight, from Sept.12 to 14 (2006), in Banff Springs (Canada), Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day and Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor met with U.S. and Mexican government officials and business leaders to discuss North American integration at the second North American Forum...The focus of the event...included topics such as 'A North American Energy Strategy,' 'Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration,' and Opportunities for Security Cooperation' – all topics where the pubblic interest is at odds with that of big business elites...The public has been kept in the dark while the business elite have played a lead role in designing the blueprint for this more integrated North America." Reported by the Toronto Star, 9-20-06

Attending the Banff meeting were Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Trade Rep. Carla Hills, and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Dr. Thomas Shannon.

Arizona State University is teaching that U.S., Mexico and Canada need to be integrated into a unified superstate, where U.S. citizens of the future will be known as "North Americanists."

The program openly calls for the integration of economic issues across the continent, and in many places goes further – such as the call for a common North Americcan currency and an implied joint military.

"Reformist Mexican President Vincente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grand that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper." Robert L. Bartley, editor, The Wall Street Journal, editorial, July, 2, 2001.

The Charge:

"Concerning the feds, the entire horror story about 'North American Union' is based upon the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership,' an utterly innocuous, open, above-board, well-advertised and widely publicized initiative to promote inter-governmental cooperation to fight terrorism, the threat of Avian flu, improve and tighten border security, and promote mutual prosperity." Michael Medved, December 28, 2006

The Truth:

"The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments." Texas Congressman Ron Paul

Also attending the Banff meeting, according to Canadian CBC News, was Mel Hurtig, noted Canadian author. According to Hurtig, "We're talking about such an important thing, we're talking about the integration of Canada into the United States. For them to hold this meeting in secret and to make every effort to avoid anybody learning it, right away you've got to be hugely concerned."

"According to the U.S. government website dedicated to the project (www.spp.gov), the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a 'dialogue' launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005. What is a dialogue? We don’t know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in this 'dialogue' that many see as a plan for a North American Union. According to the SPP website, [B]this 'dialogue' will create new supra-national organizations to 'coordinate' border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA-and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade..." Texas Congressman Ron Paul, 8-30-06

If you expect to find a Bush Administration declaration that the United States of America will be replaced by a North American Union, forget it. If you think such a drastic change in our nation won't happen without a national debate and voter referendum – think aagain.

A close examination of just a few facts shows that a legal and institutional framework is indeed being put in place that could easily be switched into a full-fledged regional government.

Step by step, America is moving from NAFTA - to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America – and indications are the SPP will lead toward thhe creation of a North American Community as a logical precursor to a North American Union.

© 2007 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center and Editor of The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia.
(540) 342-8911

E-Mail: apcmail@americanpolicy.org

Website: www.americanpolicy.org

YOU TUBE VIDEO:
STOP the North American Union

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-euwgvoh5SE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxzs46Nxohk&mode=related&search=

Jerome Corsi speaks on the show "Conservative Caucus"

WND Exclusive THE NEW WORLD DISORDER

Bush OKs 'integration' with European Union

Congress never asked about new obligation

Posted: May 8, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55584


President Bush

President Bush signed an agreement creating a "permanent body" that commits the U.S. to "deeper transatlantic economic integration," without ratification by the Senate as a treaty or passage by Congress as a law.

The "Transatlantic Economic Integration" between the U.S. and the European Union was signed April 30 at the White House by Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – the current president of the European Council – and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso.

The document acknowledges "the transatlantic economy remains at the forefront of globalization," arguing that the U.S. and the European Union "seek to strengthen transatlantic economic integration."

The agreement established a new Transatlantic Economic Council to be chaired on the U.S. side by a cabinet-level officer in the White House and on the EU side by a member of the European Commission.

The current U.S. head of the new Transatlantic Economic Council is Allan Hubbard, assistant to the president for Economic Policy and director of the National Economic Council.

The current EU head of the council is Günther Verheugen, vice-President of the European Commission in charge of enterprise and industry.

The Transatlantic Economic Council was tasked with creating regulatory convergence between the U.S. and the EU on some 40 different public policy areas, including intellectual property rights, developing security standards for international trade, getting U.S. GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices) recognized in Europe, developing innovation and technology in health industries, implementing RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) technologies, developing a science-based plan on bio-based products and establishing a "regular dialogue" to address obstacles to investment.

At a joint press conference, Bush thanked the other two leaders for signing the "trans-Atlantic economic integration plan," commenting that, "It is a recognition that the closer that the United States and the EU become, the better off our people will be."

Barroso said the Transatlantic Economic Council is meant to be "a permanent body, with senior people on both sides of the Atlantic."

As WND has reported, Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez repeatedly has pushed for North American integration, much as the April 30 agreement proposes closer U.S.-EU integration.

Mexico's ambassador to the U.N., Enrique Berruga, has called for a North American Union to be created in the next eight years.

But the Bush administration's push for North American integration is facing increasing opposition within Congress.

WND reported Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has introduced House Concurrent Resolution 40, which opposes the administration's Security and Prosperity Partnership, blocks a NAFTA Superhighway System and expresses opposition to the U.S. entry into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

WND also has reported a movement led by Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum has led to an increasing number of state legislatures proposing resolutions opposing a North American Union.

This would explain why the Bundeswehr is training to engage Americans.

Good job! I never made that connection. thanks for pointing it out.

I did the first time they mentioned it...only reason that "gunny" is in trouble is that he got caught at it...the guy with the camera phone is probably praying that they don't find out it was him...or hes had a "training accident" already

My German ancestors came to America to get away from imperialistic wars. If the BRD/EU brings it here I'll be mighty p.o.ed and they'll see how much. I have spoken alot about Katrina and how it was a test run for martial law and minority control. I saw, with my own eyes, a mounted platoon of Bundeswehr engineers riding around Jefferson Parish after the storm. Skull and Bones = SS. I guess the Nasis are looking for revenge. Now obviously, all Germans aren't Nazis, but they were here and now they are training to kill heavily pigmented Americans.

CP-
I agree with you aboout Katrina. Watch the documentary "Refuge of Last resort" to get a real sense of what the bias media NEVER reported about that storm and ensuing chaos afterwards.

But, it was other "events" that were "practice runs" for the Gestapo/Nazi tactics. WACO.....was the most blatant and obvious! And MORE R COMING!!

I hate to say it but, yer just gonna have to be (as you put it) P O'd, bro!!!

Cordially,
A.P2

Better Pissed off than pissed on:-)

Oh man, my dad always says that, lol
So true though

Though it seems that Uncle Sam is trying to "rain" over us
Get it? homophone, lol
im going to cry myself to sleep now. i think im funny i think im funny i think im funny.

I think the JBTs are going to be in for a big suprise the next time they try to pull a "Waco" especially here in Texas.

ILLEGALS/NAU: A HOT SUMMER COMING

By: Devvy
June 11, 2007

© 2007 - NewsWithViews.com

"The true barriers of our liberty in this country are our State governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man is that of which our Revolution and present government found us possessed." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811. ME 13:19

Americans who are following the rapid and calculated destruction of these sovereign united states of America are fully aware of what the North American Union means along with it's enforcement maze deceptively titled the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. For those who are unfamiliar with this major push to integrate America with Mexico and Canada, the links below will provide you with the details. I would also like to draw to your attention a press release dated February 23, 2007 which appears on the U.S. Department of Commerce web site:

For Immediate Release
February 23, 2007/Contact Office of Public Affairs
(202) 482-4883

"Statement by Ministers Responsibility for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

"Ottawa - The Leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States launched the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) to increase security, prosperity, and improve the quality of life for the citizens of each sovereign nation. Last March in Cancun, Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the SPP and identified five priorities: 1) Strengthening Competitiveness through creation of a private sector-led North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), and enhancing regulatory cooperation; 2) Emergency Management; 3) Avian and Pandemic Influenza; 4) Energy Security; and 5) Smart, Secure Borders.

"We, the Canadian and United States Ministers responsible for Foreign Affairs, Security and Prosperity, are pleased to welcome our counterparts from the new Government of Mexico. We met today to review progress since the Leaders' meeting in Cancun and are pleased to report that progress has been achieved in a number of areas.

"In order to ensure tangible results on the Cancun priorities:

"We requested that the trilateral regulatory cooperation framework meant to enhance competitiveness, while maintaining high standards of health and safety be finalized by the next Leaders' Summit.

We directed the members of the Coordinating Body to finalize the North American Plan on Avian and Pandemic Influenza by June 2007.

We established a senior level coordinating body to prioritize and oversee emergency management activities in the following areas: 1) emergency response, 2) critical infrastructure protection; 3) border resumption in the event of an emergency; and 4) border incident management.

We welcomed the progress achieved to date on the Smart, Secure Border agenda, and called upon officials to develop additional recommendations for Leaders in this area.

We took note of the progress achieved by Energy Ministers in implementing priorities identified by Leaders in the areas of innovation, energy efficiency and technology development, and energy market facilitation, and look forward to further progress in advance of the Leaders' meeting.

"For the next Report to Leaders, we have tasked SPP working groups and coordinators with revitalizing and streamlining their work plans to ensure that initiatives are more focused and results-oriented. We discussed the importance of transparency and communication with stakeholders and the public, and directed officials to expand their efforts in this regard. We also asked officials to pursue greater coordination amongst various working groups and initiatives in recognition that many issues cut across security and prosperity.

"We thank the representatives of Canada, Mexico and the United States of the NACC for their dedication and commitment, and for their report on enhancing competitiveness. We note their recommendations in the areas of border crossing facilitation, standards and regulatory cooperation, and energy integration. Our respective governments will review the report and consider carefully its recommendations in preparation for the next Leaders' meeting. We will continue to work with the NACC and other stakeholders as we strive to make North America the safest and best place to live, invest and prosper.

"Building on our strong partnership, we recognize the importance of focusing on initiatives that will further competitiveness and quality of life in North America, and will continue to work together to successfully meet the security and prosperity challenges of the 21st century. We will pursue this work to deliver tangible results and a focused agenda to the Leaders at their next meeting in August 2007, in Canada."

As informed Americans know, this NAU has been underway for decades. The Texas Trans Corridor and other infrastructures are all part and parcel of this treachery. These are the questions Americans - and that includes members of our state legislatures - should ask themselves:

What "Smart, Secure Border agenda"? What's that and how come the American people know nothing about it?

"North American plan?" Why is these united States of America constantly referred to as simply North America?

"Stakeholders"? And, who would that be? Those who have and are selling out this republic, i.e., Texas Gov. Rick Perry is at the top of the list along with Bush, his handlers and the major mega corporations which I listed in my last column and yes, to an e-mailer, this includes Monsanto.

"Energy integration"? Aren't we already paying through the nose for heating, A/C and gasoline? Just what is this integration supposed to involve and how much are we going to end up exporting to "more needed areas" while we get skinned for it.

If you missed this one, you'll want to sit down because if you think you're having a difficult time now paying high health care premiums, auto insurance to cover millions of illegal aliens loose on our roads, gas at the pump, massive and ever growing property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, taxes, taxes and food on the table:

U.S. taxpayers to pay for Mexican repairs Federal documents reveal 'physical infrastructure' fix-up plan

"June 6, 2007: U.S. taxpayers soon could be paying for, among other things, improvements to Mexico's infrastructure, according to documents revealed by Judicial Watch....The deliverables include 'cross-border' cooperation in the areas of car insurance, Social Security totalization for Mexico, banking, and the Federal Reserve's 'Directo a Mexico' remittance program," Judicial Watch said.....As WND also has reported, the "totalization" program that earlier was revealed by the TREA Senior Citizens League shows the plan would allow any Mexican worker who has as little as 18 months of employment history in the United States to end up qualifying for Social Security retirement benefits, a cost that quickly could reach into the billions."

As I said in my last column: If this goes through along with the phony immigration reform bill (massive amnesty), the middle class will be living in poverty within five years. It doesn't matter that this proposed looting of the people's treasury is such a gross violation of law, the machine in Washington, DC., no longer cares. Now do you understand why Americans are enraged beyond measure?

What's the deal with focusing just on a "North American Plan on Avian and Pandemic Influenza"? Why do they want this plan in place this month? It would appear the timing is coincidentally perfect for the battle going on right now for this massive amnesty bill while Americans are choking to death as deadly chemical cocktails rain down on us from the skies. Could it be the importing of another 100 million poor, sick and illiterate from Mexico and South America who will sneak in with the rest bringing more diseases unchecked? We know illegal aliens from around the world have smuggled themselves into our country bringing in and resurrecting diseases that were long ago either entirely eliminated in this country or practically non existent.

Item 3: "border resumption in the event of an emergency" - what's that supposed to mean? The definition of resumption is: the act of taking again or recovering something given up or lost. Think about that one.

When former U.S Attorney General William French Smith found out Oliver North, under the direction of Ronald Reagan, had worked on setting up a shadow government and plans for martial law, he came unglued. We cannot expect anything from the corrupt U.S. AG Alberto Gonzales. He's of Mexican descent, admitted his grandparents were likely illegals and he's been honored by the seditious, militant, America hating La Raza.

At the federal level

Congressman Virgil Goode [R-VA], introduced H.C.R. 487 last October 2006. I know everyone has been manning the phones on this phony immigration reform bill. I've been making my calls, not only to Hutchinson and Cornyn here in Texas, but to a dozen others just in case someone in Arizona, California or New York isn't doing their part. Every call counts. An excellent column came out last week that you can use when you call because this gentleman hit the nail on the head: 'How to Send Illegals Home.' I encourage you to read it here. The counterfeit U.S. Senate has spent years and countless man hours on this abomination they're calling a reform bill when all they have to do is what Mr. Clampett so articulately laid out in his commentary. Find your counterfeit U.S. Senator here.

This is what we have to do: keep the heat on these scoundrels so hot, they'll get the message. We also have to burn up the phone lines by calling your federal Congressman and tell him/her we demand passage of H.C.R. 487. Tell these public servants to stop fooling around with nonsense all day long and long vacations every two months. Tell them to do their job and that means securing the sovereignty of this republic and stop the push to integrate our republic with other countries and their laws. Our Bill of Rights is sacred and we will not give up our God given rights, period. We will NOT become part of a European Union style piece of a world government.

State Houses

About 1/3rd of the states have already stepped up to the plate because their legislators realize the danger lurking and shall we call it by its real name - treason? Uh, oh, that's a pretty inflammatory word. Treason as defined in the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." These united States of America, to my knowledge, have never given their permission to be dissolved and absorbed into one gigantic region of a world government, flushing our laws and our unique and individuals natural rights. Is the NAU/SPP giving aid and comfort to our enemies? Is the NAU and SPP a form of war against our sovereignty? Technically this plan may not meet the exact standards for treason, but in the minds of millions of Americans, it constitutes a form of treason against all we hold dear and the continuation of these sovereign states and our Union.

Some of these state legislatures introduced resolutions that were killed by either mid-led members or scoundrels who will profit, i.e., Utah. "House Joint Resolution 7 - introduced by Representative Sandstrom and Senator Fife (Passed in the House by a vote of 47-24 and was killed in the Senate for the remainder of the Congressional year)." This is totally unacceptable. The people of Utah need to get on the phone to their legislators. Many list their home phone numbers, so even though their out of session, find your rep here and get on the phone. This is how it's done. Check the list below at 'Stop the NAU' and see the status of your state. Make those calls and if you can't get through to the DC office, call one of the district offices; the staffers are taking tallies there, too.

We need to bombard those state legislatures who are ignoring this monster with a demand they support Goode's bill and step up to the plate. As I said, many of the state legislatures are now out of session for the year. Here in Texas, our legislature went out of session May 31st and will not go back January 2009. We are an every other odd number year legislature. We will get no support from our corrupt, crook governor, Rick Perry, who has sold out America. Perry's participation and spear heading of the Texas Trans Corridor should get him impeached and I'm dead serious. California booted out former Governor Gray Davis on a recall. It was a humiliating experience for him. I grinned from ear to ear. The people recognized Davis had to go and through a lot of hard work, Davis made history in getting the boot.

Texas has impeached a governor before; see here and it can be done again; rules governing impeachment here. Presidential candidate, Texas Congressman Ron Paul and a whole lot of Texans believe Gov. Rick Perry should be criminally investigated for possible violation of the Logan Act for his participation in the secret meetings known as Bilderberger. The mainstream media, including cable, broadcast their conspiracy theories about these Bilderberger meetings: they're just a bunch of leaders getting together to discuss world events. The NAU is just a modern day rumor! Example: Conspiracy facilitator, Phillipe Dine, Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau said in his May 13, 2007, piece titled North American Union? Rumor sweeps the right:

"WASHINGTON — Forget the conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, the black helicopters, 9/11 or any others. This is the big one — as big, in fact, as the entire continent. We're talking about the secret plan to build a superhighway, a giant 10- to 12-lane production, from the Yucatan to the Yukon, with an immigration and trade center in Missouri. This "SuperCorridor" is to allow the really big part of the plan to take place: the merging of the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico. Say good-bye to the dollar, and maybe even the English language. 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 ultra-establishment Council on Foreign Relations and in the workings of the U.S. Commerce Department. As do many modern rumors, the fears of a North American Union begin with a few grains of truth and leap to an unsubstantiated conclusion."

Read the entire column and then cancel your subscription. Such irresponsible journalism should not be rewarded.

Persistent and immediate activism is needed

Even if your state is out of session, you can still write a short letter to your state legislator. I won't ask you to waste your time with your governor. All 50 state governors as I have written before are members of the Council of State Governments and have bought into Agenda 21. All of them. Our state legislatures remain our best hope on the issue of the NAU/SPP. We must make them see the light.

They can come back into special session, but it will not happen unless their offices receive tens of thousands of letters and/or phone calls. Forget e-mail. I am enclosing this column (no printer friendly yet, so cut and paste to word processor and print) to my state rep and senator with the demand that they work with their other colleagues - even though they adjourned sine die over a week ago. My letter demands my state rep and senator get the process rolling to begin an investigation into Rick Perry's participation at the Bilderberger meeting and violation of the Logan act. Also stay on radio talk show hosts. We must keep this issue on the front burner, as well as stopping the amnesty bill in the Senate.

Summertime is for fun, right? My last vacation was in 1991; John and I actually took a whole week to go on vacation. Why? Because every day counts and I've known this since my eyes were opened in 1991. Millions are making huge sacrifices, but we must keep massive heat on these elected public servants who work for us. Stop the amnesty bill in the senate and stop the NAU/SPP. Together we can and we will defeat those who seek to put asunder all that was given to us with the blood of real patriots. It's going to get very ugly, make no mistake about that. Here in Texas, some very brave Texans have openly stood up in public meetings and said they will invoke the Second Amendment. Please watch a short video and listen to Americans as they tell the truth: the NAU/SPP will destroy agriculture in Texas, eminent domain will put thousands off their land. A big storm is brewing in Texas. Watch video here.

Become part of history instead of being a victim of it:

1. Development of a North American legal system
2, Internationalizing U.S. Roads
3, Go to Stop the NAU for list of states and how to get involved
4, Dr. Jerome Corsi: NAU
5, Gov. Perry Summoned to Bilderberg While Insider Trading Charges Mount in Related Texas Buyout
6, Rick Perry - Logan Act - short video
7, Prepare to be “transitioned” into your new “habitat”
8, Corridor Watch - latest updates
9, San Antonio Poll Party
10, San Antonio Poll Party/Rick Perry
11, US And EU Agree 'Single Market'
12, White House: U.S., EU Launch a Framework for Advancing Economic Integration
13, Bilderberg 2007 Final Report
14, Lou Dobbs: Amnesty Plan Part Of NAU

© 2007 - NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Devvy belongs to no organization.

She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Her web site (www.devvy.com) contains a tremendous amount of information, solutions and a vast Reading Room.

Devvy's website: www.devvy.com

Before you send Devvy e-mail, please take the time to check the FAQ section on her web site. It is filled with answers to frequently asked questions and links to reliable research sources.

E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink.net

The NAU is the demise of our country,and congress is is doing nothing to stop ,however many things to help it.The 'amnesty bill' has provisions in there that will speed up the process,disguised as trade agreements.There is infrastructure already built ,in my AO(SW-TN)PORTIONS OF THE nafta SUPER HIGHWAY are already built.My crongressman's office told me, when I called about the NAU and the NAFTA superhighway,that FED EX and several other global corparations "want the Nafta super highway,and there going to get it".You see my congressman has no concern for our sovereignty,nor do most of the rest.Althought there still are a few left,such as ron paul,who can not be corrupted.

Let me see if I can find a word for someone fitting your description:

T-R-A-I-T-O-R

traitor >noun a person who betrays their country, a cause, etc.
-DERIVATIVES traitorous >adjective.
-ORIGIN Old French traitour, from Latin tradere 'hand over'.

B-E-T-R-A-Y-E-R

betray >verb 1 act treacherously towards (a person, country, etc.) by revealing information to or otherwise aiding an enemy. 2 be disloyal to. 3 unintentionally reveal; be evidence of.
-DERIVATIVES betrayal >noun betrayer >noun.
-ORIGIN from Old French trair, from Latin tradere 'hand over'.

Betrayer - (n) one who reveals confidential information in return for money, a person who says one thing and does another.

S-C-O-U-N-D-R-E-L

scoundrel >noun a dishonest or unscrupulous person.

I found three!

ConSigCor, Your box is full, trying to send you a PM

Thanks for the two other words besides traitor,I often wondered what other words I could use to describe my congressman(woman).

NORTH AMERICAN UNION AND GLOBAL INTEGRATION


By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
October 1, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

At an April 12, 1883 talk at the Twilight Club in New York City, former NEW YORK TIMES editorial page editor John Swinton revealed: "We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumpingjacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

Almost 40 years later, New York City Mayor John Hylan delivered a speech in Chicago on March 26, 1922. He was quoted by THE NEW YORK TIMES (March 27) as revealing: "The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, State and nation. . . . At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses. . . . One of my first acts as mayor was to pitch out, bag and baggage, from the educational system of our city the Rockefeller agents and the Gary plan of education to fit the children for the mill and factory."

More recently, Douglas Valentine, author of THE PHOENIX PROGRAM (CIA torture and assassination program in Vietnam), explained on Radio Liberty on October 18, 2006: "Democracy has been hijacked from us. It's been hijacked by these very powerful industrialists for whom the CIA really works. They don't work for you. They don't work for me. They don't work for the middle class. They don't work for the lower class. They work for a very elite group of Americans who control the wealth in this country. And their job is, through whatever means possible... to preserve the priviliges of this ruling one or two or three percent of the industrialists in this country. And, frankly, they do a very, very, very good job of it."

One of the members of the power elite who controls the world today is David Rockefeller, and at the September 14, 1994 Annual U.N. Ambassador's Dinner sponsored by the Business Council for the U.N., host Rudolph Giuliani introduced Rockefeller as a "citizen of the world" and "one of the formidable figures of the 20th century." Rockefeller then stated: "This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built will not be open too long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all our hopes and methods to erect an enduring structure of global cooperation."

To what "structure" Rockefeller was referring was made clearer in his MEMOIRS (2002), where he admitted being part of a "secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States . . . conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will." Specifically regarding the Americas, Rockefeller was a founding member of the Council of the Americas in 1965. And at a May 6th, 1996 meeting of that organization, Thomas McLarty (counselor to President Clinton) referrred to Rockefeller as his "valued mentor." This was after Rockefeller referred to McLarty as "a reliable collaborator in the effort to advance the process of hemispheric economic integration."

According to the North American Forum on Integration (NAFINA), on November 17, 1979 when Ronald Reagan officially declared his presidential candidacy, he proposed a "North American Agreement" in which "the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely." Then as his presidency began in January 1981, he proposed a North American common market. By the last year of his presidency, Reagan was clearly "thinking globally" as on January 11, 1988, at the City Club of Cleveland, he remarked: "Even more than in the past, this new world economy is a one-world economy. . . . In this new world economy, national boundaries are increasingly becoming obsolete. . . . These new economic realities dictate a world economy."

Reagan was succeeded as president by George H.W. Bush, who on April 30, 1992 issued Executive Order 12803 privatizing America's infrastructure, which would allow foreign companies to lease American toll roads, bridges, etc. However, Bush would have had difficulty getting enough Democrats to vote for NAFTA (and GATT). Therefore, the power elite chose Democrat Bill Clinton as the next president in order to push through those trade agreements, and there are now NAFTA tribunals which can actually overturn U.S. laws.

Flowing from NAFTA has been the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) emphasizing the "economic integration" of the three North American nations. And promoting this integration has been NAFINA, including Robert Pastor as one of its directors. Pastor has been the chief architect of the North American Union movement, and NAFINA's objectives include "raising awareness among future North American leaders regarding regional integration issues" and "developing their sense of a North American identity."

At NAFINA's May 20-25, 2007 Triumvirate ("the only North American model parliament") meeting, among the themes debated was the creation of a Customs Union for the 3 nations. And if you go to a NAFINA website, you can see the planned North American trade corridors (pacific, central western, central eastern and atlantic).

September 19-21, 2007 in Denver, there was a Great Plains International Conference on international trade corridors, at which Mexican mayor Evaristo Lenin Perez advocated moving quickly toward a European-style merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. If you look at the SPP website, in the background you will see a map of North America, and the state in which I reside (North Carolina) now has embedded a hologram of this same map on its drivers' licenses. The hologram was developed by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, whose spokesman, Jason King, told NewsWithViews.com columnist Jim Kouri that its "goal is to create a continental security device" that can be used by motor vehicle agencies throughout North America. Not long ago, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget also required American businesses to update their "North American Industry Classification Code" to replace the Standard Industry Classification code. This new industry-coding requirement was developed jointly by the U.S., Canada and Mexico.


Jobs flow back and forth among the countries, as companies such as Maytag, Nokia, and Black & Decker set up factories in small towns such as Reynosa just across the Mexican border. For example, 675 Black & Decker jobs in Fayetteville, N.C., south of where I live, just went to Reynosa. In the opposite direction, Mexican laborers are flooding the U.S. By 2015, one in five people born in Mexico will be living in the U.S. as Mexican citizens. Many of these are illegal aliens, and the pressure to crack down on U.S. employers hiring them will probably result in a national I.D. issued to all foreign workers. Some organization then probably will bring a lawsuit about such inequality because an I.D. isn't required of other workers. That, in turn, will result in pressure for a national I.D. for everyone. This is how the power elite manipulates events in order to accomplish its objectives (e.g., everyone gets an I.D. number that can be tracked).

Once the U.S., Canada and Mexico have been "economically integrated," this will form the basis for a North American Union (with its own currency, the Amero). This "region" will be linked with other regions (e.g., the European Union and its Euro) around the world to form the power elite's World Socialist Government. Relevant to this process, in July 2007 the African Union summit in Accra proposed a process for federating all African nations. And currently, negotiations are underway for Economic Partnership Agreements between Eastern and Southern African nations and the European Union.

This process has euphemistically come to be known as "globalization," and is designed to undermine the middle class with the objective of creating a modern feudal society (see "Our Feudal Future"). Janet Yellen (president of San Francisco's Federal Reserve Bank) in a November 6, 2006 speech titled "Economic Inequality in the United States" even acknowledged that "globalization and skill-based technological change may have been working in combination to particularly depress the wage gains of those in the middle of the U.S. wage distribution."

Relevant to this, over 3 million Americans have lost manufacturing jobs since George W. Bush became President. In addition, corporations are using H1B visas to train foreigners here, then send them home to train others so more American jobs can be outsourced. According to Phyllis Schlafly's "New Awakening About Free Trade" report (April 18, 2007): "CISCO Systems, the leading maker of communications equipment, will have 20% of its talent in India within 5 years, and global consulting giant Accenture will have more employees in India than in the U.S. by the end of this year. IBM reduced its American workforce by 31,000 while increasing its Indian staff by 52,000. CitiGroup, which already has 22,000 employees in India, plans to eliminate 26,000 jobs in the U.S. and increase its Asian workforce by another 10,000 where the pay is lower." In a WALL STREET JOURNAL article, "Job Prospects: Pain from Free Trade Spurs Second Thoughts" (March 28, 2007) by David Wessel and Bob Davis, even free trade proponent Professor Alan Blinder now acknowledges that 30-40 million American jobs could be at risk from free trade, mostly from outsourcing.

A lot of lower-skilled American jobs have already gone to Communist China, which has used its great increase in wealth to expand tremendously its military capabilities to use eventually as a blackmail weapon against the U.S. Even before this threat occurs, though, China is currently positioned to blackmail economically the U.S. It has $1.33 trillion of foreign reserves, and if it decided to liquidate those and switch to the Euro as its reserve currency, the dollar could crash, sending the U.S. into economic recession. Perhaps this possibility is why, according to a September 17, 2007 Associated Press article "Greenspan: Euro Gains As Reserve Choice," former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said that "It is possible that the Euro could replace the dollar as the reserve currency of choice. . . . The European Central Bank has become a serious factor in the global economy."

This is all part of the power elite's plan for a feudal World Socialist Government in which we become their serfs. However, as a December 31, 1999, WALL STREET JOURNAL editorial stated: "The God who looked out upon the earth and pronounced it good designed us to glorify Him as free men and not as serfs."

© 2007 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved

[Order Dennis Cuddy's new book "Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth?"]

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.

THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION AND THE LARGER PLAN

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
December 17, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

In order to bring about a North American Union (NAU), the public first has to be conditioned to think of themselves as North Americans. In that regard, Thomas Donohue (president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) on June 16, 2006 remarked that "for CEOs, North America is already a single market, and business decisions are no longer made with a Mexico strategy---or a Canada strategy---but, rather, with a North American strategy....I think it's pretty clear now that it no longer makes sense to talk about U.S. competitiveness and Mexican competitiveness---or, for that matter, about the competitiveness of Canada. We are all in this together---we, as North Americans."

Also relevant to this process is the publication of NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATION MONITOR since 2002 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Very soon, CSIS also will publish (and has agreed to send me) their final document on their "North American Future 2025 Project." The Project has "an emphasis on regional integration," and the year 2025 A.D. was selected "on the basis of the data presently available on overall global projections." Seven closed-door roundtable sessions have been looking at the methodology of global and North American projections, as well as labor mobility, energy, the environment, security, competitiveness, and border infrastructure and logistics.

Zbigniew Brzezinski has been a CSIS counselor, and at Mikhail Gorbachev's first State of the World Forum in 1995, Brzezinski revealed: "We cannot leap into world government through one quick step....The precondition for eventual and genuine globalization is progressive regionalization because by that we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units." This is why the CSIS Project has "an emphasis on regional integration." (Brzezinski also described the regions that would be formed, that Israel and the Palestinians would be part of a Middle Eastern region, how Communist China would be brought into an Asian region, and that Iran would be part of a Central Asian region which would have important oil and gas pipelines constructed.)

At this point, it is worth remembering that in Stalin's January 1913 address in Vienna, he advocated national loyalties becoming subservient to regions. And 3 years later, Lenin in 1916 proclaimed: "The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into smaller states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them."

You may recall that in Brzezinski's BETWEEN TWO AGES (1970), he praised Marxism, and he claimed that "the nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty." One aspect of American sovereignty that is being yielded is ownership of American companies by Americans. In the first 9 months of 2007, 69 companies in New England alone have been sold to foreign buyers. Nationally, the French company Alcatel bought Lucent Technologies in the U.S. last year, and in September 2007 announced it will be cutting thousands of jobs.

Relevant to this, Alan Tonelson (research fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council) said foreign companies are "acquiring control over the most dynamic pieces of the American economy, and they're acquiring control over America's future." Also relevant to this was the assessment by Donald Klepper-Smith (chief economist at DataCore Partners) regarding decisions made overseas and how they would effect American workers. He opined: "It raises some red flags and some real questions about our independence."

Part of the conditioning process to cause Americans to accept a NAU is the role of past and present government officials explaining the alleged economic benefits of such a union. For example, Harry Roegner in a letter titled "An economic union would be beneficial" in THE GREENVILLE (South Carolina) SUN (October 15, 2007) pointed out the large oil reserves of both Canada and Mexico that would be useful to the U.S., as well as Mexico's excess manpower who, as immigrants, would help support U.S. and Canadian economic growth. Roegner was an adviser on foreign trade issues to the U.S. Department of Commerce from 1984 to 1994, and in his letter said: "A North American economic union would provide the free flow of capital and labor across national borders needed to address many of the (aforementioned) imbalances."

Often regional economic integration into some type of union is argued on the basis of free trade. However, John Fonte (who had an office next to mine at the U.S. Department of Education) of the Hudson Institute has explained that the concept of regional economic arrangements or trading blocs actually is contrary to free trade to an extent. For example, in a NAU, there would be trading arrangements among the 3 nations which would limit the ability of the U.S. to trade freely with nations outside the NAU trading bloc.

But hasn't President Bush recently said all this talk about a NAU is nonsense? On August 21, 2007 at the concluding press conference for the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) in Montebello, Quebec, Fox News reporter Bret Baier asked if the SPP is a prelude to a NAU similar to the European Union (EU), and if there are plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all 3 countries. President Bush replied: "If you've been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist."

The truth, of course, is that the U.S., Canada and Mexico are being connected by 4 Trade Corridors. On November 20, 2007, Lt. Governor John Harvard of Manitoba delivered a "Speech From The Throne," in which he revealed: "Manitoba has been working with the Canadian government and state governments in the U.S. to protect and enhance our access to key trade markets. In response to U.S. border and security measures, Manitoba will begin offering an enhanced driver's license as an affordable and secure form of identification for travelers. The new license will be available in the Fall of 2008. Manitoba is also taking a major role in the development of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor, connecting our northern Port of Churchill with trade markets throughout the central United States and Mexico. To advance the concept, an alliance has been built with business leaders and state and city governments spanning the entire length of the Corridor. When fully developed, the trade route will incorporate an 'in-land port' in Winnipeg with pre-clearance for international shipping."

The SPP is also an important part of the power elite's plan for a techno-feudal fascist world government because it is a "partnership." For years, the American people and their leaders have been conditioned to accept educational and other partnerships as solutions to their problems. For example, city governments strapped for funds are approached by corporations or their related private foundations with plans and funds to improve education, which the city leaders are only too glad to accept. This conditions the people eventually to accept government/corporate rule. This is a form of Socialism known as fascism, and it will be the type of world government the power elite plans ultimately to bring about and control. In this government, the power elite will control politicians who will become government leaders who will promulgate laws, rules and regulations favorable to certain transnational corporations (controlled by the power elite) and unfavorable to any possible competition to those select corporations.

So why did President Bush ridicule Bret Baier's question, especially since there are already 47 Mexican Consulates across the U.S.? Lou Dobbs in his CNN commentary "Beware the Lame Duck" (October 17, 2007) wrote: "Although many conservatives refuse to accept the reality, George W. Bush is a one-world neo-liberal who drove budget and trade deficits to record heights....President Bush has pressed hard for the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the first step toward a North American Union that will threaten our sovereignty. The administration has permitted American businesses to hire illegal aliens, encouraged the invasion of 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and has given Mexico and corporate America dominion over our borders and our immigration policy....The assault on our national sovereignty continues....The president is urging the Senate to act favorably on our accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea....The treaty will submit the United States to international tribunals largely adverse to our interests, and dispute resolution mechanisms are stacked against the United States....The treaty would undermine our national sovereignty and act as a back door for global environmental activists to direct U.S. policy." Fortunately, in Congress, House Concurrent Resolution 40 states: "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada."

If I could have followed up Bret Baier's question with one of my own, here's what I would have asked: "So, President Bush, will the massive 10-lane toll road TransTexas Corridor funded by Cintra of Spain and to be built by Zachry Construction of Texas come to a screeching halt at Oklahoma's border?" What are all the vehicles supposed to do---merge all of a sudden into a small road? I don't think so ! And by the way, Cintra is legally represented in Texas by leading Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, which also just happens to have an office in Dubai (remember Dubai Ports was about to take over operation of a number of America's largest ports) ! Perhaps before President Bush was too critical of people warning about a NAU, he should have read what Mexico's President Vicente Fox said May 16, 2002 at Club 21 in Madrid: "Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union" (or as Gorbachev refers to the EU, the "European Soviet").

I would also have asked President Bush at the press conference why on September 6, 2007 at 9pm did he open all U.S. highways to Mexican trucks? Earlier in the day, U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio said President Bush was "_ _ _ _ bent" on getting Mexican trucks in the U.S. by stealth. Currently, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration website lists 10 Mexican carriers that are approved to transport goods throughout the U.S., and nearly 40 more Mexican carriers will soon join them on the list.

Will all Mexican truck drivers be stopped at the border to see if they can read road signs in English, if they have criminal backgrounds, and how long they already have been driving that day (U.S. law prohibits more than 10 consecutive hours)? I doubt it, since no more than 2% of Mexican trucks entering the U.S. today are inspected ! Many of these trucks will be a danger to Americans' safety, and could be used for smuggling drugs, illegal aliens, and terrorists into the U.S.

Many countries deliberately release their criminal elements into the U.S., often coming across the Mexican border. And if the criminals are caught, our federal government releases them into American society if their own countries refuse to take them back. Our government knows how to solve this problem (e.g., stop issuing visas to people from those countries), but has refused to take such action most of the time. Ask yourself why our government would release murderers, rapists, arsonists, and other criminals into our society to commit violent crimes against us. Think about it !

Returning to Bret Baier's question to President Bush about the SPP being a prelude to a NAU similar to the EU, what would we get if we became like the EU, which has certain characteristics of fascism? Mrs. Kitty Werthmann (a survivor of Hitler's reign and Soviet rule afterward) recently returned to Europe and interviewed many senior citizens. They informed her they were told conversion to the Euro would bring prosperity via free trade, lower prices for goods, etc. In reality, though, their money was devalued greatly, and they're now living on welfare and food stamps. Unemployment in Europe is high while guest workers are brought in, and the people are angry.

In terms of what is planned for Americans relevant to the EU and the Euro, Vicente Fox on CNN's "Larry King Live" show October 8, 2007 explained that what he and President Bush agreed to "is a trade union for all the Americas," and he suggested that eventually there would be a regional currency. He made similar comments on the "Daily Show" the same day. Earlier in 2007, Bolivian President Evo Morales proposed a single currency for all South American nations.

Concerning North American nations, in June 1991, Dallas Federal Reserve publication no. 9115, "Free Trade and the Peso" by Darryl McLeod and John Welch, analyzed the potential for a single North American currency. In 1999, former Canadian parliament member Herbert Grubel published "The Case for the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Union," giving 2010 as the possible date for introducing the "amero" as the new North American currency. And in the Atlanta Federal Reserve's ECONOMIC REVIEW (4th quarter, 2000), Michael Chriszt (director of the Reserve's Latin America Research Group) wrote "Perspectives on a Potential North American Monetary Union" in which one reads that "the idea of a single currency for NAFTA is on the table." In July 2000, Vicente Fox had already proposed a North American common market with a continental monetary policy.

More recently, David Dodge, Governor of the Bank of Canada, in May 2007 said that a common currency with the U.S. is definitely possible. What will happen is the power elite will cause the dollar to be devalued to the point where Americans reluctantly will accept the amero. As Bob Chapman in his December 2006 newsletter, INTERNATIONAL FORECASTER, said: "(The amero) will be presented to the American public as the administration's solution for dollar recovery."

On June 14, 2007 BankIntroductions.com told their clients that in the next 10-20 years, as the global economy moves toward regional trading blocs, the amero or "North American Monetary Unit" (NAMU) will be introduced. The power elite's plan is to form regional unions with their own currencies and then link them into a world government with one global currency. Relevant to this, Reuters reporter Emmanuel Jarry on October 23, 2007 wrote "Sarkozy (French President) Calls for Mediterranean Union Launch in 2008." And the African Union's African Central Bank plans to mint the "Gold Mandela" as a single African currency by 2010 (the date the NAU is supposed to form).

If you look at the top of the website for the Single Global Currency Association (SGCA), there is a quote by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, saying: "A global economy requires a global currency." The SGCA "is dedicated to the goal of implementing a single global currency by 2025...managed by a single international central bank." I have already indicated that on the cover of THE ECONOMIST (June 9, 1988) is a picture of "The Phoenix," a global currency suggested for implementation in 2018.

Whatever the date of the global currency's introduction, it will be advertised as facilitating world trade, which the power elite will control. This will be like in the days of Solomon when he fortified Gezer, Hazor and Megiddo (the Har, or Mount, of Megiddo would be called Armageddon). Through this fortification, he controlled the Via Maris and world trade, thereby controlling the world of his day. The power elite today plans to do likewise, but in a Biblical sense their plan will lead to the Battle of Armageddon.

© 2007 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved

Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.

Here's an update, it really sucks!

Under the guise of improving trade, the Bush Administration has been selling out this country towards a New World Order where there will be no independent nations, no borders, and a necessary police state to keep the people in line for the benefit of huge, international corporations. This is no joke and folks better start waking up. If you have ever wondered why congress is dragging it's feet on building the fence on the southern border......well here is the reason!!!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58788

There is only a "J" curve when currency depreciates if the country with the worthless money actually makes things other folks want to buy! We don't; so it won't! Breton Woods is dead.

Stopping this needs to become the Patriot movement's Primary goal.

I don't know what the context of this is, but its definatley worth looking at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJBZSzIh5Fo&feature=related

Here is pure evil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDQAgPjv94M&feature=related