Betsy Woodward: Follow the Money to North American Union

World Net Daily ^ | 6/29/07

[hardback]

Follow The Money to North American Union

Having worked a little with Congress and its aides, who are the ones that really hold the power, I have a hard time believing they do not know the Security and Prosperity Partnership is tied to immigration. They do know that; they just don't want you to know they know that.

The bill I worked with was a necessary step toward a North American Union. It had an innocent-sounding title of Uniformity for Foods bill, but its language undermined the authority of the states in food safety enforcements. (States do more than 90 percent of inspections and 96 percent of enforcements, as compared to the FDA). I learned there were parties, the ticket to which was to sign onto the bill. Money flowed like no tomorrow.

Insiders and former staff people told me the fix was in on the bill. Ultimately, the consumer groups and state organizations made it an unpopular bill since it dealt with something the average person could identify with. Like the immigration bill, Uniformity for Foods was written in secret. Hearings were not originally going to be held until USA Today, the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and consumer groups upped the pressure, but then I was told the ones testifying would be carefully chosen – and they were. None of the states' organizations or consumer groups was represented.

Just like immigration, it was supported by the White House and administration, and just like immigration, I expect it to come back. The elected officials spouted the line fed them by lobbyists – it was scary at best to think the buyout of Congress was such a reality. Forget the country and the people – and follow the money.

At the time I did not know about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, but after I found out about North America's SuperCorridor Coalition and SPP, the lights came on and the connection with the legislation was evident. A North American Union can't be accomplished until the power of the states is removed, and they have been chipping away at that for years. Just ask organizations of state legislatures who have watched their authority pre-empted in federal legislation time and time again – always under some wonderful-sounding mantra.

Please understand: I am not against uniform legislation, just pre-emption of states rights and removal of states rights is a necessary precursor to a North American Union. It is indeed scary, but they do know – they just don't want you to know or you to know they know!

Betsy Woodward

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: Spanish passport

I never saw it and never asked but perhaps there is a common passport. I'll ask her.

But Spain is still Spain.

[endthematrix]

Each EU member has a passport for travel outside the EU. Member states also use a common passport design, burgundy colored with the name of the member state, national seal and the title “European Union” (or its translation).

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Thanks. You saved be a call. She's in Spain now.

You obviously have some knowledge. I've never went too far out of the way to learn about the EU.

Aren't member states still considered sovereign countries?

When I read the CFR document about our "union" I believe that it stated that we would keep our sovereignty. We would cooperate -- though I believe that the word was "collaborate."

[endthematrix]

Being the US with the greatest military on earth helps to retain the right of political sovereignty. However the "world community" can single out independent countries and impose it's will through the Security Council and invoke Chapter VII.

Any particular group of persons, counties or regions can change allegiances, join or break any treaty, abide or disregard international law. That IMO is not the issue, it's that the US global elites are doing exactly what our Founding Fathers never wanted.

[endthematrix]

Actually the only search for the word "sovereign" in the CFR Building a NA Community resulted in 3 hits and 2 for "sovereignty." One hit was a dissenting view by Thomas S. Axworthy.

The report does allude to a respect of national sovereignty, but as indicated in a section on implementing regualtion it states, "Each jurisdiction would retain the sovereign right to shape rules within its borders, but in principle, country-specific regulations should only be adopted when no international or North American approach already exists, where there are unique national circumstances or priorities, or where there is a well-founded lack of trust in the regulatory practices of the other partners."

-------------

A new bureaucratic mechanism is advocated....Trinationalism.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

You're correct. As you noted it does do some alluding "It is a partnership of sovereign states with overlapping economic and security interests. . . ."

These types of people (our very model of modern mandarins) love them nuances -- I guess them overlapping economic and security interests trump everything from heritage and tradition to our Constitution. Sin duda.

BTW, you mentioned "the US global elites."

I've long believed that that cabal is headed up by New Democrat Third Way "progressives" who (finally!) recognize that socialism can never create wealth and thus they string along "useful idiots."

Cavorting and romping with corporations at Devos and around the globe they are in fact fighting a Marxist revolution from the top down.

Once all them boats around world are floating the "progressives" are going to turn to their "partners" and ask, "Got rope for sale?"