Monday, April 23, 2007

[north american union] good idea or not

There is a tendency for many people to automatically see Exxon, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Club of Paris, by definition, as evil, whether or not they are.

For example, the Chairman of the Bilderbergers was asked whether they were nefarious kingmakers and was 'accused' of 'grooming' Blair and Broon.

He never denied it but stated that that simply made the Bilderbergers good talent spotters - a necessary trait in business. Ed Balls is one being thus currently groomed.

Look at it from their point of view. The CFR is a well-funded think-tank, committed, quite openly, to advising governments on policy. They buy the best talent who write for them, they hold meetings with heads of state, they advise.

Where's the problem? Every government has paid, un-elected advisers who … er … advise. What, would you prefer the government listened to the least talented from the internet?

That's the theory.

The difficulty with the theory is that they are following a globalist line and the only 'talent' allowed breathing space is globalist in nature. The globalists therefore rise.

Thus it is with the North American Union, now termed:

Security and Prosperity Partnership

Has a nice homely ring to it, don't you feel? In "Building a North American Community", John P. Manley, Pedro Aspe and William F. Weld, co-chairs of the task force, run their disclaimer that they have absolutely no connection with the U.S. government but are simply an advisory body, then get down to the SPP. Here's what the CFR pdf says about them:

"we are joined in an effort to make North America less vulnerable to terrorist attack"

and:

"all three countries face a historic challenge. Do they continue on the path of cooperation in promoting more secure and more prosperous American societies or do they pursue divergent and ultimately less secure and less prosperous courses?" [Intro p1]

Then follows the justification - greater terrorist threat, the fact that all NA countries are interested in oil, cross-border cooperation more secure and so on. Then comes the crunch:

# "To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation, by 2010, of the North American community, to enhance security, prosperity and opportunity."

# "It's boundaries will be defined by a common external tarrif and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people will be legal, orderly and safe."

# "A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy…" [p6]

# the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence centre

# expand NORAD into a multi-service defense command [p11]

# increase information and intelligence sharing

# develop a North American Resource Strategy

# create a North American economic space [p19]

# establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution

# increase labour mobility within North America [p26]

# expand temporary migrant worker programs

# establish a North American Advisory council to advise governments on policy [p31]

# create a North American Inter-Parliamentary group

As a result of this, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America [SPP] was set up with this aim:

The SPP is a White House-led initiative among the United States and the two nations it borders – Canada and Mexico – to increase security and to enhance prosperity among the three countries through greater cooperation. The SPP is based on the principle that our prosperity is dependent on our security and recognizes that our three great nations share a belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions.

They state:

Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.

Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency.

Matt, of Buckeye Thoughts, reports that the currency will be called the Amero but he admits he is light on info on its details.

Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.

Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies.

Myth: The U.S section of the SPP is headed by the Department of Commerce.

Fact: The SPP is a White House-driven initiative. In the United States, the Department of Commerce coordinates the ‘Prosperity’ component, while the Department of Homeland Security coordinates the ‘Security’ component. The Department of State ensures the two components are coordinated and are consistent with U.S. foreign policy.

So much for the official line. Now for the critiques. In a stirring defense of the Bush administration's plans to dismantle the U.S.A. by 2010, Michael Medved attacks “a shameless collection of lunatics and losers; crooks, cranks, demagogues, and opportunists” for suggesting the Bush/CFR/SPP plan as:

“a secret master plan to join the U.S., Canada and Mexico in one big super-state and then to replace the good old Yankee dollar with a worthless new currency called ‘The Amero.’” He further charges that criticism of the Trans-Texas Corridor is another “delusion” that “involves the construction of a ‘Monster Highway’ some sixteen lanes wide through Texas and the Great Plains, connecting the two nations on either side of the border for some nefarious but never-explained purpose.”

Jerome R. Corsey, at Human Events dot com, cites the object of Medved's ire:

At the top of the list, we will proudly place Phyllis Schlafly, who was one of the first to write extensively about the plan to integrate the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. Lou Dobbs has devoted several segments of his CNN television show, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” to a discussion of the North American Union. Resulting from a Freedom of Information Act request, Judicial Watch has obtained an extensive set of documents detailing the extensive trilateral working group activity going on in the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada under SPP.

These documents add to the nearly 1,000 pages of documents I received from SPP detailing the extent to which the SPP trilateral working groups are “integrating” and “harmonizing” our administrative laws and regulations with Mexico and Canada. Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus has joined with Schlafly and me in forming a coalition opposing North American integration.

He continues:

As Christopher Booker and Richard North, co-authors of the 2003 book, “The Great Deception: A Secret History of the European Union,” write that Jean Monnet “knew that only by operating in the shadows, behind a cloak of obscurity could he one day realize his dream.” Architects of North American integration, such as Robert Pastor of American University, breathe new life into stealth politics when suggesting openly that a new 9/11 crisis may be just the event needed to advance his agenda for creating the “North American Community” he openly professes.

Judicial Watch has this:

The council’s recommendations to the North American “partnership” include advice on how to handle an international disease outbreak: “It is also essential that throughout a pandemic all borders and major roads remain open…” With respect to border enforcement, the council recommends that, “A reasonable grace period should be established at border crossings, during which time people lacking documents are educated about their options and allowed to pass.”

Eagle Forum has this:

This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.

It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet "vigilantes" on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona.

Matt adds:

As you can imagine, I'm completely against the idea. It would destroy the USA. We have enough of our own problems, we don't need to be adding Canada and Mexico's on top of them. Also, with illegal aliens in some small cities, the government of California has begun to drop these cities out of their control and hand them over to illegal aliens.

As a Brit, I don't feel qualified to write about the North American situation but I do about the CFR. It would need several posts to cover them and their close relations with the major organs of power in Europe and the U.S.A. but suffice to say:

"The Trilateral Commission doesn't run the world, the Council on Foreign Relations does that!"

- Winston Lord, Chief Adviser to Secretary of State, the U. S. State Department on China and President, CFR.

H/T: Matt

13 comments:

  1. James, that was a fantastic roundup. Thank you for doing this post!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I just hope people read it. My "SPPNA" readers don't often comment and the Brits might not think it concerns them. Actually, it does. Very much.

    Trouble is, I ran a long Immigration thread also today, which seems to be detracting from this and yet this is more important.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Won't happen.

    If it did, you'd see what a real insurgency looked like. Yes there would be one state when it was over, but not the one they wanted.

    I don't even think Hillary would go this far, but just in case... Go Fred!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Won't happen! Think again. It is happening and the preparations are going forward. Yes, it can happen - and I don't know what has happened to us - we Americans - with our self-determination.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Go Fred, go Fred, go Fred go!!!! He's got my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One comment on the CFR - bad stuff that. Condi was a member. When these folks get into public office, either appointed or elected, they go into an "inactive" status so that their names don't usually show up as members. These folks are the true new world order/internationalists and they "know" we are idiots. Life may well prove them wrong.

    With groups such as the CFR, the ACLU, the UN, we don't need anymore enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To me, a telling point is that they are ignoring Americans as the identifier for we Yanks/citizens of the United States of America and rather weakening our identity so that everyone in the western hemisphere is now an american. Check the State Department website. Americas is the term they use.

    So, while undermining our sovereignty, they are undercutting our unique identity. I can assure the Mexicans aren't Americans. The boys from Brazil are not Americans. I don't know quite what will knock us to our senses on this SPP thing - first check point is Kansas City - will be a Mexican controlled point. No kidding.

    And think it won't happen? What do you think the Kelo v New London private property case was all about? Taking land to cut a big swath through the United States of America - cutting out Longshoremen and the Teamsters to some degree.

    And the joke about making us "safer" from terrorists - with the back door wide open. Give me a break.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm vehemently agreeing with Lord Nazh on this one.

    Never in a million years. We were apprehensive enough about the EU, and that didn't even involve us.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BTW, thanks for the post, James... it was fascinating and well thought out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I read all these comments with interest and in this, I am the pupil and you the teachers. I'd hoped it would open up more info and it ahs - I'll follow up on some of that.

    I don't know if it will or will not go ahead but a 2010 date is scheduled. It might be that it's done surreptitiously - they never said they would make a new state - only the old 'working together'.

    It might hoodwink the public but you'd know better than me on that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Consider: Republicans (mostly) are very much anti-immigration, but free trade

    Democrats (again mostly) are for porous borders, but restricted trade.

    Unless a 3rd entity comes into play, the NAU doesn't stand much of a chance given the level of partisanship in this country. Anyone wanna make a wager that in 2012 we still elect the President of the United States and not the NAU :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I remember when Monnet started the ball rolling in Europe. Today, his dream is a reality. Has France lost its sovereignty? Spain? Italy? Germany? et al? The answer is no. Is the Euro prevailing and is business spending less to make more money? The answer is yes. So, what is the problem here? Fifty years from today when the Amero reigns, people will wonder why it took so long.
    Get a grip, folks. We live on one planet. We are all related to each other. We are all humans with the same economic needs and dreams. Ask yourself this, when there is one North America, will Texas still play Oklahoma with the same pride and ferocity? You bet.
    Later.
    H

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.