North American Union


A North American Union ?
In March of 2005, President Bush, Mexican President Vincente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin met at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, to announce the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which allegedly addresses
the threat of terrorism and to enhance the security, competitiveness and quality of life of their countries’ citizens.”
Coincidentally, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) put out a “task force report“, also last year, called “Building a North American Community”,  which provides a blueprint for the integration of the United States, Mexico and Canada under a single supranational authority …  one regional corporate power base.  Here is the report in PDF format,  from the CFR website.

The recommendations within the report include (but are not limited to): 


  • a common security perimeter by 2010
  • a unified border and expanded customs facilities
  • a single economic space
    Why is it that many are not aware of this new partnership, although it was “announced” over a year ago?  Doesn’t it seem odd that something this huge would not command a bit more media attention?  It also seems a bit odd that
    “this issue has not been addressed by the United States Congress or the Supreme Court”  (scroll down to “criticism” )
    If Congress and The Supreme Court are not involved in this historic transformation, then who is ?   The following explains why so much is happening these days without resorting to a Constitutional convention:
    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.”
    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.   entire article
    2008 Update 

    In Lancaster, Pennsylvania on 3/31/08, an audience member asks Obama about his stance is on the NAU (North American Union).  Obama replies that he sees no evidence of such a thing.  Really?
    That’s funny.  Perhaps Obama just hasn’t heard about  House bill HCR40 .  Perhaps he just didn’t know about the many US congressman who have voiced concern over this issue.  Maybe he didn’t know about CNN’s extensive coverage of it either.  Or, maybe Obama just doesn’t consider such things as “evidence”.  Perhaps what’s been going on in the Trans-Texas Corridor shouldn’t be misconstrued as “evidence”.  Maybe Congressman Paul’s bringing it up during a presidential debate is not “evidence” either.  Or perhaps Obama just didn’t like the terminology “North American Union”.   Perhaps if the questioner had used different terminology, maybe “Security & Prosperity Partnership”, then Obama would have sung like a bird.  Perhaps then an intelligent discussion would have ensued, maybe even including the fact that the issue has found it’s way into Canadian Parliament.  Perhaps the discussion would even have brought to light the fact that this is all just another push to facilitate the drafting of government policy – by big business – behind closed doors.

    The bottom line is, there’s stuff happening surrounding this issue.  But if you want answers, you’ll have to digg them up yourself.  A classic case of dodging a very important, legitimate question by a politician well trained in sophistry and rhetoric.






    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s