QUIETLY, QUIETLY BUILDING THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION

Just when you thought it might be safe to go on to topics other than regional integration and trade practices driven by the love of money and the lust for power, you get blindsided again.

While ordinary Americans were reflecting on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, globalists of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico were making their way quietly, quietly, to Banff, Alberta for the North American Forum held at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel Sept. 12–14. The meeting was closed-doors. According to some reports buses with attendees were arriving at night. There was no print media coverage in the U.S. and very little in Canada; I was able to download an article from the Toronto-based Star. Those who do not get their news from the Internet remain in the dark about one of the biggest unfolding events of the present decade: the globalist social engineering of a North American Union.

WorldNetDaily was able to obtain materials marked Internal Document, Not For Public Release. The whistleblower, Mel Hurtig, noted Canadian author, publisher, and leader of the National Party of Canada, told WorldNetDaily that the “secret meeting was designed to undermine the democratic process…. It was clear that the intention was to keep this important meeting about integrating the three countries out of the public eye.”

Representing the U.S. in Banff was Former U.S. Secretary of State George Schulz. Representing Mexico was Former Mexican Finance Minister Pedro Aspe. Representing Canada was Former Premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed. The first session featured opening comments by each. The sessions that followed had names like, “A Vision for North America: Issues and Options,” “Toward a North American Energy Strategy,” “Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration,” and “Border Infrastructure and Continental Prosperity.”

The event was co-hosted by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the business wing of Canada’s superelite, and the Canada West Foundation, a “think tank” that has been promoting regional integration.

Prominent on the panel of the “Vision for North America” session was none other than Robert Pastor, who might go down in history as the Father of the North American Union. Paster is the author of Toward A North American Community (2001) published by the globalist Institute for International Economics. He chairs the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force on North America and served as lead author of the CFR’s Building a North American Community (May 2005). Among other things, this document proposes a North American “security perimeter” around all three nations by 2010. It was this that inspired CNN commentator Lou Dobbs to wonder, last summer, if our elites “had gone mad.”

Providing the keynote address at the Banff confab was our very own Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense. Rummy’s speech was entitled, “Opportunities for Security Cooperation in North America: Military-to-Military Cooperation.”

When the powerful begin reading papers on “cooperation” between the military hierarchies of three nations, are there really grounds for doubt that we are looking at compromises of U.S. sovereignty and possibly security on an unprecedented scale? Currently there is a North American Cooperative Security Act, sponsored also in 2005 and languishing in committee, but doubtless far from dead. The plan here is to integrate Mexican and Canadian security forces into the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The terms security and prosperity were bandied about freely. This, of course, ties the North American Forum—actually the second (the first, at Sonoma, Calif. in October 2005 was also held in maximum secrecy)—to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), now housed in the NAFTA office of the U.S. Department of Commerce where it has received the full backing of our Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez.

The watchword, however, was deep integration, which Pastor, the CFR, and outfits like the Canada West Foundation have been promoting. The many working groups created under the SPP umbrella are currently “harmonizing” regulations by all three governments on food, drugs, the environment, electronic commerce, rules of origin, textiles and apparel labeling, movements of capital and labor, and foreign policy. The various working groups have signed “memoranda of understanding” or “frameworks of common principles”—or are working on such—in all these areas.

If there’s anything you can take to the bank, this “harmonizing” process is not about, e.g., increasing food and drug safety for the people; it is about making life easier (and profits fatter) for the superelite CEOs in leviathan-sized food and pharmaceutical corporations—wired to leviathan-sized governments through public-private partnerships. What is likely is that food safety will go down, and consumers’ choices of, say, dietary supplements over expensive, poorly tested and therefore possibly hazardous pharmaceuticals will begin to be restricted. Major globalists, we ought to note, are well connected to the multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry. Rummy owns over $5 million in stock in Gilead Sciences, the company that developed Tamiflu® and sold it to Roche, the pharmaceuticals giant. George Schulz owns more than $7 million in Gilead Sciences stock and unlike Rummy, actually sits on the company’s board. At one time, the concept conflict of interest would have applied. Today, those in the transnational globalist class do as they please, unencumbered by considerations of ethics, law, or Constitution.

When confronted, shills for the power elite (including on the SPP website, which for the past several weeks has sported a disinformational “Myths and Facts” section) insist that its goals are benign. They just want to increase the prosperity of the three nations so as to better compete with the booming economies of China and India, as well as the European Union, while also ensuring the safety of our peoples in an age of terrorism. The sovereignty and independence of Canada, Mexico and the U.S., they insist, will be respected.

But if the superelites of the three nations have the populations’ best interests in mind, then why the secrecy? Why have the agendas (and memberships) of the various working groups of the SPP been kept out of sight, not even available on the SPP website? Why does the latter’s “Myths and Facts” describe the SPP as only a “dialogue” between the leadership of the three nations when it is clearly much more than that? Why has it been necessary to invoke the Freedom of Information Act to penetrate the wall of secrecy?

Geri Wood, SPP Secretary, told Jerome R. Corsi that the working groups did not want to be “distracted by answering calls from the public.”

There is now a North American Competitiveness Council whose advisory board involves representatives from corporations including Wal-Mart, Chevron, General Motors, Lockheed Martin, and others. The NACC met in Washington in mid-August, but we have almost no information because again what was said was kept out of public view and this time we have (so far) no whistleblowers.

There is also a North American Energy Security Initiative, a North American Steel Trade Committee, an Automotive Partnership Council of North America, and a North American Aviation Trilateral, among other transnational bureaucracies formed under the SPP umbrella. Work is underway towards North American Emergency Management and towards Smart, Secure Borders (now there’s a phrase apt to make Orwell spin in his grave!).

There is also the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), or NAFTA Superhighway, construction on which is scheduled to begin in 2007 by public-private partnerships (a foreign corporation, Spain’s Cintra, has already signed a contract). This system, which will parallel I-35 running north from Mexico all the way to Canada, with a branch extending I-69 also going to Canada through Port Huron, Mich. TTC-35 will consist of six lanes for passenger cars, four for trucks, a rails system, lines for telecommunications, oil and natural gas pipelines, etc. Its size across has been estimated at four football fields; construction will result in the taking of over 500,000 acres of land from farmers and ranchers in Texas alone through eminent domain. This puts last year’s roundly (and rightly) condemned Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, Conn. in a new light!

There are, finally, the expected incursions into education which have been going on roughly during what we may come to call the SPP era. Students everywhere, at all levels from elementary school to colleges and universities, are being encouraged to think globally—to think of themselves as “world citizens,” which means supporting regionalism and downplaying loyalty to their own nations. Last year a group of students from ten universities spread across the U.S., Canada and Mexico met for a simulated “model Parliament,” the organizers declaring: “A North American Parliament is born.” The universities included Harvard and Robert Pastor’s home base American University, as well as Simon Fraser University and Universite de Montreal representing Canada and Monterrey University and Ecole nationale d’administration publique representing Mexico. The event, sponsored by the Canada-based North American Forum on Integration (NAFI), yet another think tank promoting deep integration, was held in the Mexican Senate last May. Pastor is on the NAFI board of directors.

The superelite has indeed been busy of late! Also meeting in September, this time in Miami (Sept. 15) was the Miami Herald Americas Conference. Attendees of this confab included more business and governmental elites from Latin and South America. They focused on “free trade agreements, open democracies and security.” One attendee in particular is worth noting: Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, our El Presidente’s brother, who gave the keynote address. Gov. Bush hailed our El Presidente as the “chief Latin Americanist” in Washington. He further let the cat out of the bag by urging Congress to pass “fast track” trade promotion legislation this fall that would authorize President Bush to reopen negotiations on the stalled Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the superelite’s long-term goal for the Western hemisphere.

The superelite had originally hoped to implement their FTAA by 2005, but didn’t count on the level of grass roots opposition either here or by influential South American leaders such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Chavez’s economics are wrong and I don’t think he correctly identifies his enemy—it isn’t President Bush personally or even “American hegemony,” but rather the emerging New International Economic Order which is transnational and globalist. As a populist, however, his instincts are sound. He understands that an FTAA would benefit the superelite—many of them based in America—at the expense of his people. To elites like Florida’s Gov. Bush, this is just capitalism: “I believe in entrepreneurial capitalism from the top of my head to the tip of my toes.” When superelite domination of national economies is equated with free market “capitalism” and no one with visibility questions it, should we wonder when the Hugo Chavezes of the world move “leftward”?

It may be useful to examine a brilliant article by Christopher S. Bentley’s entitled “Immigration & Integration,” from the July 24 issue of The New American. Bentley outlined in very clear fashion how “free trade” rhetoric is taking us into regional government and will proceed from there to world government. “Free trade” is a core tool of the emerging New World Order, currently building transnational corporatist “capitalism” that (given the collectivist ethos being ruthlessly promoted in schools at all levels) they expect will evolve naturally and easily into global socialism with the superelite wielding absolute power.

First, the superelite creates a free trade area. This lowers barriers to the trade of goods and services among member nations, while quietly instituting a raft of political and bureaucratic controls. This was done in Europe in the late 1940s. In North America, think NAFTA / CAFTA.

Second, it creates a customs union, which adds a common external trade policy and expands the bureaucracy to implement it. Think of that common “security perimeter” planned for North America.

Third, it creates a common market, which ends restrictions on migration and allows labor and capital to move freely across increasingly meaningless national borders of member states. “This,” Bentley wrote, “is exactly what is behind the Bush Administration’s fanatical zeal to implement its guest worker / amnesty program.” Indeed, the Bush regime’s immigration policy—or lack of—makes perfect sense if we simply accede that Bush is committed philosophically to a borderless, globalized world.

Fourth, it develops the foregoing into an economic union—which requires a fully harmonized regulatory structure, a common currency, a common tax policy and a common fiscal policy. Robert Pastor and others have advocated replacing the dollar and the peso with a common North American currency that would be called the amero.

The fifth and final phase, political union, follows almost naturally, given that since Keynes the idea of an economy—national or global—not regulated to the teeth by bureaucrats hasn’t been on anyone’s radar. Political union develops out of the system of public-private partnerships, yielding a symbiosis between international bankers, other corporations, and the governmental-bureaucratic establishment.

The EU is practically to this point, its Parliament able to implement significant elements of the EU Constitution despite member nations like France and the Netherlands getting cold feet last year.

These phases are, in the last analysis, not separable but part of a single guided process. The SPP working groups and attendees of meetings like this North American Forum are taking us in the same direction as Europe at breakneck speed. NAFTA’s Chapter 11 tribunals actually begin laying in place the final phase of the process by reviewing U.S. court decisions. If you have an internationalized legal process, then as enforcement mechanisms fall into placce you are on your way to political union under a regional, hegemonic authority.

Thus what has taken the superelite took over 50 years to accomplish in Europe could be done in North America in about half the time. Not helping matters is the American sheeple’s indifference to what doesn’t affect them directly and immediately.

We will still have a geographical entity known as the U.S. Much of our political infrastructure will doubtless remain essentially intact. The sheeple will doubtless continue to have their sports contests every Saturday and the latest Survivor on prime time. The globalists, after all, want the masses to stay entertained, and they probably don’t care how the sheeple entertain themselves so long as the economy keeps humming. But they will have complete control over everything of real importance, being able to overrule whatever court decisions or Congressional legislation they decide contravenes official globalist policy. Our Constitution will be history. To be sure, we barely have a Constitution now. But at least our national elites must pay lip service to Constitutional government.

When transnational committees of unelected bureaucrats begin overruling our laws and precedents—or if elected officials bow to globalism on their own (as Calif. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has done with NAFTA regulations on occasion)—we will know that Constitutional government is dead in America. The superelite will then be free to do as they please, which will probably be to begin integrating North America and Europe into a larger union. Other groups around the world are working towards integrating other regions including the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa, and elsewhere.

"Trade is good, it raises our standard of living. You disagree?"

Unilateral trade is not. In the end, it transforms us into a service economy only. That has national security implications.

There's also the issue of funding China's military. That could have definite impacts on our standard of living. It's been my experience that those who support every trade agreement out there - even if it is only "free" on our end like most of them - tend not to look past immediate future.

Unilateral trade is not.

Unilateral trade? Is that like one hand clapping?

In the end, it transforms us into a service economy only.

You think we don't manufacture anything? You have a short memory.

There's also the issue of funding China's military.

Trade doesn't fund our military? If you'd like to import less from China and more from Mexico, I'd be willing to consider that.

"Unilateral trade? Is that like one hand clapping? "

Unilateral in that we open our markets, but our "partners" do not.

"You think we don't manufacture anything? You have a short memory. "

The trend in our economy is towards a service economy. That is dangerous from a security standpoint, but I see you don't care about that.

"Trade doesn't fund our military? If you'd like to import less from China and more from Mexico, I'd be willing to consider that."

What does funding OUR military have to do with funding CHINA's? I'd prefer that we have more balanced trade.

Unilateral in that we open our markets, but our "partners" do not.

Yeah, we only exported $900 billion last year. Hardly anything.

The trend in our economy is towards a service economy.

Obviously. We're producing less and less every year.

That is dangerous from a security standpoint, but I see you don't care about that.

Why would I care about a figment of your imagination?

What does funding OUR military have to do with funding CHINA's?

Trade raises both sides standard of living. That allows us to better fund our military. Don't you want to fund our military?

I'd prefer that we have more balanced trade.

Yeah, raise prices for Americans, that'll help us.

"Yeah, we only exported $900 billion last year. Hardly anything."

Our imports were $1.5 trillion, I believe.

"Obviously. We're producing less and less every year."

It's WHAT we're not producing that's important.

"Why would I care about a figment of your imagination?"

National security isn't a "figment of [my] imagination".
That's the problem with globalists. They don't give a damn about the future of this nation or security rules if it earns them a few more dollars this year.

"Trade raises both sides standard of living. That allows us to better fund our military. Don't you want to fund our military?"

I don't want to fund CHINA's military. Do pay attention.

"Yeah, raise prices for Americans, that'll help us."

Raise wages for Americans. That'll help us.

It's WHAT we're not producing that's important.

What, exactly, aren't we producing?

National security isn't a "figment of [my] imagination".

No. The figment is that we don't produce anything anymore. Last year we produced 80% more than Japan, 129% more than China. We produced more than both, combined.

If our level of production means we're doomed, China's level of production means they're really screwed.

I don't want to fund CHINA's military.

Great, more trade with Mexico, less with China. Climb on board.

Raise wages for Americans.

How is raising prices for gym shoes going to raise wages for Americans?

"What, exactly, aren't we producing?"

Electronics and heavy equipment. Not like we used to. Quite a few defense companies are being sold to foreign interests as well. I'd guess you don't have a problem with that one either.

"Great, more trade with Mexico, less with China. Climb on board."

Nope. Sorry.

"How is raising prices for gym shoes going to raise wages for Americans?"

US manufactured shoes, of course.

You obviously are a "free trade before country" kind of guy, so I'll just so good evening and leave it at that.

Electronics and heavy equipment. Not like we used to.

Don't suppose you have any facts to back this up?

Quite a few defense companies are being sold to foreign interests as well.

Which companies?

Nope. Sorry.

Why not?

US manufactured shoes, of course.

How much will these shoe jobs pay? How much more will these shoes cost?

You obviously are a "free trade before country" kind of guy

Actually, I'm a "facts before feelings" kind of guy.

so I'll just so good evening and leave it at that.

Yeah, run away, noob.

"Don't suppose you have any facts to back this up?"

...

"Which companies?"

Just what do you think I do for a living, buddy boy? The list is long and didn't begin with Doncasters.

"Actually, I'm a "facts before feelings" kind of guy."

Only if those facts back up your assumptions, of course.

"Yeah, run away, noob."

It's quite late here, son. Some of us do have to work in the morning.

That's clearly not what you were doing.

"Clearly" is not a word you should use. In any case, "FROBL"=acceptable and "Stormfront type"=unacceptable. I wonder how long it will take for you to realize you've made my point, if ever?

Just what do you think I do for a living, buddy boy?

Whine about trade with nasty foreigners?

Only if those facts back up your assumptions, of course.

Facts that back up my assumptions versus feelings that back up yours, of course.

It's quite late here, son.

Hope you got enough rest, dad.

Some of us do have to work in the morning.

All that emoting must wear you down.

" I wonder how long it will take for you to realize you've made my point, if ever?"

Actually, I believe you made the point for the poster who mentioned that the long knives would be pulled out....

You show up and start throwing around "Nazi". Were you called an OBL member before that? No.

"Whine about trade with nasty foreigners? "

Let's see... trade agreements with China have funded the military of a nation that calls us the Main Enemy. NAFTA has increased illegal immigration. Yep. Really great for the country... /sarc

"All that emoting must wear you down."

All that effort to sell out your country must be tiring.

NAFTA has increased illegal immigration.

As I was trying to explain to the Stormfront-type earlier, "after this therefore because of this" isn't much of an argument. Will withdrawing from NAFTA decrease illegal immigration? Of course not. (In fact, those hypothetically-higher American wages that result would attract more illegal immigrants; rhetorical consistency not being a required attribute on your side of the argument).

Which leads to the next, and ultimately far more important question: if illegal immigration is a problem (and we all agree it is), then why is your side focused on trade and trade agreements? It would appear that anyone standing on a street-corner holding a sign that reads, "Fair Trade, not Free Trade" isn't commenting on illegal immigration at all.

"Will withdrawing from NAFTA decrease illegal immigration?"

Expanding it with CAFTA won't help - and in fact will increase the SECURITY problem on the border.

"then why is your side focused on trade and trade agreements?"

We're focused on more than one subject here.

"It would appear that anyone standing on a street-corner holding a sign that reads, "Fair Trade, not Free Trade" isn't commenting on illegal immigration at all."

One can have more than one political issue. I'm also against gun control laws, for instance.

I'm also against gun control laws, for instance.

So am I. Let me illustrate a point, however. Illegal gangs (maybe even Mexican ones) are smuggling guns across the border. Should we restrict the rights of law-abiding gunowners in response?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.