Some news about the North American Union

Look, read, listen, learn and question :

North America blurs borders

The News Journal. Wilmington, Delaware.


By CHRIS SLAVENS

Posted Sunday, November 4, 2007

COMMUNITY VIEW

We hear a lot about immigration. Counties and municipalities are taking matters into their own hands, attempting to do their part to withstand the avalanche of criminals from our southern border. These criminals respond by burning our precious flag and label us racists for demanding respect for the law.

What we don't hear much about is how the immigration issue is a minor part of a much bigger issue: the coming North American Union.

In 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations published the "Building a North American Community," a report that describes a future North American Union and ideas for how to get there.

By 2010 North America will be a single community with one "common perimeter" and no internal borders. There is also talk of redistribution of wealth -- meaning, no doubt, that rich Americans should be taxed to aid Mexico in eliminating its perennial corruption and squalid living conditions.

To date, the leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico have followed the CFR's blueprint in establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Our government portrays the partnership as being in the best interests of Americans. Who wouldn't want security and prosperity? However, the connection between security and open borders doesn't seem to exist. The majority of Americans are already prosperous by global standards.

I should point out that the final product of the partnership will not be another NAFTA. There will be free trade, not to mention free movement of people and potential terrorists between the three nations of North America. But the major problem is that the concept undermines the United States more so than any attack or war in our history. The last time that inhabitants of this land were dealt such a blow to their freedom, they founded a new nation.

The government's attempt to sneak into a North American Union, one small step at a time, violates the nation's core principles. The SPP is subject to neither authorization nor oversight of Congress. It is controlled by the executive branch, and enforced through regulations, rather than laws created through the proper legislative process. Basically, the United States is beginning to give up its sovereignty without the average citizen or elected representatives having a say. It's the worst foreign policy decision since Woodrow Wilson's laughable League of Nations.

In light of this conspiracy, the federal government's refusal to enforce immigration laws doesn't seem so strange. It's the first step in opening the borders. As if the situation wasn't bad enough, we can look forward to even greater erosion of our culture and traditions.

Habla espanol? If not, you'd better learn.

A number of legislators have worked hard to oppose the SPP and the North American Union it will lead to, including presidential candidates Reps. Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul. They receive little mainstream media attention, as cameras are focused on the two major socialist, Democratic candidates.

America needs to pay attention to men like these, who strive to preserve our nation's existence. If not, you may well wake up in a union some day soon, and it won't be the one the Yankees fought for.

Chris Slavens, of Laurel, is a member of The News Journal Community Advisory Board.




From USADaily :

Presidential candidates have ties to groups advocating a North American Union

Hugo Mann

Published 11/01/2007 - 4:12 p.m. EDT

Several presidential candidates have ties to groups that appear to advocate replacing the U.S. government with a North American Union and furthering the long term goal of a World Government. . WorldNetDaily reports that “Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson are all members or have toes to the Council on Foreign Relations the Bilderberg Group or the The Trilateral Commission. WND also reports that Mike Huckabee is not a member of the CFR but that he spoke to the group in September and has since become a top-tier candidate in the media’s eyes. To our knowledge, Republicans Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter have no ties to Globalist groups and have voiced opposition to a North American union. Last month former Mexican President Vincente Fox said that he supported massive immigration into the U.S. for the long term goal of a North American Union. Fox also said that he and President Bush were working on a regional currency but got derailed. As previously reported the Council on Foreign Relations has a proposed plan that in short proposes to replace all three branches of the U.S. government as follows: ----------- North American Advisory Council Consisting of 15 members, five from each nation, that will hold biannual summits designed to set the agendas for the three presidents and be a voice for the North American Union. (It should be noted that the U.S. Congress is supposed to set the agenda for the president.) Merging Parliamentary groups replace the U.S. Congress by merging the parliamentary systems of each nation and creating a North American parliament. A North American Court the proposed North American Court will replace the U.S. Supreme Court as the highest court in the land. Continental Perimeter Eliminating the national boundaries between Mexico, Canada, and the United States by creating a North American Customs and Immigration force along with an integrated North American Department of Homeland Security (North American Police Force) Common External Tariff (CEF) The proposed North American tariff will redistribute wealth to Mexico and strengthen the North American government. Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America SPP was created in 1995 by the executive branch of government. While it claims that national sovereignty is not at risk with a North American Union the SPP stretches its credibility with the claim and doesn’t seem to have a legal justification to its existence. The U.S. Constitution has provisions for allowing new states into the Union. The proposed North American Union appears illegal and unconstitutional. According to WorldNetDaily and other sources Ronald Reagan was the only candidate in modern history to get elected that did not have ties to and was not a CFR member. His last minute convention choice for VP, George Bush, was a member. Is a 'North American Union' in the future? Mexico, U.S. deny plan for any EU-like merger Mike Madden Republic Washington Bureau Oct. 24, 2007 12:00 AM WASHINGTON - Someday soon, you'll be keeping ameros in your wallet, not dollars. The goods they buy will zip freely from Mexico to Canada on an enormous new road. And the United States will merge with its neighbors into a massive North American Union that reigns sovereign over more than 440 million people. At least that is the vision being raised by a small but vocal group of bloggers, activists and border-security hard-liners. As the U.S. has increased efforts to cooperate with Canada and Mexico on security and trade, and as the Bush administration has pushed immigration reforms that are extremely unpopular with many conservatives, opponents have become more convinced that North America is heading toward a merger. Although all three governments strongly deny any such plan, a series of private meetings by top leaders and a sweeping effort to rewrite regulations in all three countries aimed at smoothing cross-border relations have emerged as a lightning rod for speculation, criticism and fear. The goal of the initiative, known as the Security and Prosperity Partnership, is to ensure that the countries work together to keep weapons and terrorists from entering North America while making it easier for movement and commerce among all three nations. Business groups and advocates of free trade have pushed for even more cooperation. The meetings started in 2005 and grew out of long-standing, less-formal cooperation among the three nations. But critics say the partnership is just the first step in a much broader attempt to build a "North American Union" modeled after the political and economic integration that the European Union built. Those who fear a merger see signs everywhere. They cite the dollar's recent decline in value, increasing illegal immigration and attempts to expand free-trade areas in the Western Hemisphere. They also point to efforts to increase trade along Interstate 35, which runs straight up the middle of the United States from Mexico to Canada. In Internet postings about the partnership, I-35 has morphed into a "NAFTA Superhighway." An agreement in the works to allow Mexican trucks to drive into the U.S. is seen as another tip-off, as is the growing U.S. foreign-trade imbalance, even though China exports more to the U.S. than Mexico and is gaining on Canada. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox recently told CNN's Larry King that "long term, very long term," the goal of free-trade agreements could be a Western Hemisphere united by one currency. "There's too much evidence. You've got too many things happening," said Jerome Corsi, a conservative activist and author of The Late Great U.S.A., a book that delves into some of the most alarming interpretations of the U.S.-Canadian-Mexican meetings. Still, to officials involved in the meetings, the idea that the partnership will move to infringe on individual countries' sovereignty is misguided. "I can tell you that that is categorically wrong, it is misleading, it is false, and that type of information, it just creates tension when it shouldn't because it's not true," Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said in an interview. "We want to do things that are common sense through regulations that will make our three countries more efficient and more productive. But this has nothing to do with sovereignty." In August, during a meeting with the Canadian prime minister and Mexican president, President Bush called the idea "comical" and a "political scare tactic," accusing his opponents of "(laying) out a conspiracy and then (forcing) people to try to prove it doesn't exist." Working together Although theories about a North American merger may sound far-fetched, they are rooted in negotiations and working groups that all three countries say are important. In its brief existence, the Security and Prosperity Partnership has produced the kind of dry government documents that might be expected from meetings and working groups that try to treat each nation as equal when it comes to both symbolism and substance. The U.S., Canadian and Mexican flags dot each release. The partnership has pursued increasing cooperation among public-health labs in each nation and drafting plans for cross-border emergency assistance in a disaster. It also wants to write similar regulations for industries ranging from medical devices to textile manufacturing so companies operating in all three countries can follow the same standards. Members also are pursuing policies that ease entry and exit into each country. "What we tried to do was simply meet, talk about our common problems and see what we can do in practical terms in order to improve the lives of our people," Mexican President Felipe Calderón said at the past meeting. "Whether it's to standardize the (regulatory) parameters for chocolates or medicines, I think these are common-sense things." Business organizations that seek increased cooperation among the countries have praised the partnership's work, as have some economists who favor free trade. "One of the realities of our country is that we live in a global economy," said Maria Luisa O'Connell, president of the Phoenix-based Border Trade Alliance, a group that pushes for more integration and cooperation among the three nations. "From a security perspective, from an economic perspective, we cannot afford not to work together with Canada and Mexico." The meetings, which are closed, are held every year. This year's was in Montebello, Canada. Bush has invited Calderón and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to his Texas ranch for next year's meeting. Reminiscent of EU Some of the claims made by critics about plans for a merger appear to be mostly hypothetical. For instance: • No treaty has been signed or proposed to formalize the partnership, and none of the governments involved has called for integration like the European Union, which issues common currency and passports. • Although the U.S. dollar is now roughly as valuable as the Canadian dollar after decades of trading at higher prices, both are still worth much more than the Mexican peso. All three nations say they have no plans to set up any new currency or do away with their own money. • Critics fault plans to build a "superhighway" from the U.S.-Mexican border to the U.S.-Canadian border. But the highway already exists: I-35. There are no known plans for another highway. Even so, critics see the meetings as dangerous. Many focus more on Mexico than Canada, though the partnership's meetings have been trilateral. "Our borders have been opened and amnesty (for undocumented immigrants) has been granted through executive fiat by the Bush administration already," said William Gheen, executive director of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, a group that advocates tougher border security and immigration enforcement. Corsi's book details how the European Union formed out of similar meetings among French, German and other officials. He says denials that anything sinister is afoot help prove his point because EU officials also originally said they didn't intend to set up the kind of multinational bureaucracy that now exists. Republican primary voters have occasionally pressed GOP candidates to disavow the Security and Prosperity Partnership. None of the leading contenders for the party's nomination have explicitly done so. Congress takes note Some of the objections by conservative activists are shared by critics on the left, though not the dire warnings of a North American Union. "What actually will happen (through the partnership) is that Mexico will continue doing worse economically, and, in fact, the immigration push will grow," said Manuel Perez Rocha, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. The progressive Washington think tank is pushing for the partnership to include more labor protections and economic development in Mexico. Critics on both sides fault the governments for closing meetings to the public.For supporters, the problem with the cooperation is that they're not moving fast enough, not that they'll erode sovereignty. The meetings have attracted some attention from Congress. Conservative Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., introduced a non-binding resolution opposing a North American Union in January, and 39 co-sponsors, including Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., have signed on. Even lawmakers who don't share Goode's concerns say Congress should be more involved in efforts to increase cooperation with neighboring countries. "This is a White House-driven initiative that has not been worked on by the Congress at all," said Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who sits on a cross-border working group with Mexican legislators. "This is not an official agreement, and there's a lot of myths that are floating around." And lastly from www.truthabouttrade.org : North America, EU officials discuss WTO differences Consideration of sustainable agriculture issues under the scope of world trade talks brought sharp disagreement last week at the 33rd North American and European Union Agricultural Conference in the Czech Republic. On one side of the aisle, EU officials suggested that environmental and animal welfare requirements be standardized worldwide. Noel Devisch, president of the Belgian Boerenbond (farmers union), said EU restrictions in those two areas raise the cost of production for European farmers compared to countries where requirements aren’t as strict. “Food is too important to leave to free trade,” Devisch said. “We should have fair trade, instead of free trade, that takes into account the conditions in each country.” Representatives from the U.S. and Canada strongly disagreed, saying the WTO is designed to address economic factors such as trade-distorting farm subsidies and market access barriers. “The idea of adding constraints to the WTO, I don’t think that is the path to take,” said Laurent Pellerin, president of Canada’s Union des Producteurs Agricoles. AFBF position Sustainability issues should be addressed under the WTO’s “Green Box” spending, which is not considered trade distorting, noted American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) President Bob Stallman. “The WTO is about maintaining trade, moving goods across borders,” he said. “We would adamantly oppose moving environmental issues into trade discussions.” But, Michael Hornborg of Finland, vice president of the EU’s Committee of Professional Agriculture Organizations (COPA), insisted international rules on sustainability should – and would – be dealt with under the WTO. “If we just have free trade, there’s no way to have sustainable development,” he said. “There is no way for EU farmers to compete on a fair basis if we have to provide all these additional benefits while our competitors do not.” Deal far off The issue of sustainability wasn’t the only area of disagreement among the nearly 200 farm officials gathered in Prague for the conference. The trade meeting is held every other year, alternating between North American and European host cities. Canada will host the next summit in 2009. In fact, one of the few areas of consensus was that a WTO draft proposed by Crawford Falconer, chairman of the agricultural negotiations, is unacceptable. “The Falconer report is unworkable,” said COPA President Jean-Michael Lemetayer of France. The ideas proposed in the report, he said, would result in a 25 percent cut in EU farm income. He cited several problems with the Falconer text, including that it doesn’t address geographical concerns, doesn’t reflect new biofuels markets and ignores food safety and food security. Trade agreements He said the EU prefers to negotiate on a multi-lateral basis like the WTO as opposed to one-on-one bilateral agreements, but wouldn’t accept a deal that it doesn’t like. “We believe it is better to have no agreement than a bad agreement,” Lemetayer said. Roman Gomez Vaillard with Mexico’s Responsible Comision Productos Hortofruticolas said Mexican farmers also prefer multi-lateral negotiations, but would continue to work on bilateral deals to improve market access in the absence of a WTO deal. Clear guidelines are also needed to assure that WTO Green Box payments are truly not trade distorting, he said. Canadian Federation of Agri­culture President Bob Friesen said the North American Free Trade Agree­­ment (NAFTA), which has increased trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, is a good model for a WTO pact. He said the U.S. needs to lower subsidies it pays to its farmers, while the EU must slash its import tariffs. “I’m getting the sense that a lot of countries don’t have the appetite to sign a Doha agreement,” Friesen said. He shared Vaillard’s concerns about countries shifting too many payments into the Green Box, suggesting a cap be established for Green Box spending. Concrete language Friesen and Stallman each expressed concern that language in current WTO proposals allows too much leeway in designating “sensitive” products as a means to restrict competition from imports. “We’re a long way from getting an acceptable WTO agreement,” Stallman said. “What we give up in domestic support, we must gain in market access.” He said the U.S. will continue to work toward a WTO compromise, but in the meantime bilateral trade deals will continue to be an important tool. “The problem we have with the WTO is many of the countries are not interested in trade. They’re interested in other priorities,” he said. Well folks, or sheeple seems our countries are going the way of the do do bird, and we collectively are acting like them !!