Bilderberg.org

[marek]

AMERICAN UNION
+++++++++++++
Text of debate
++++++++++++++++

Click here: WorldNetDaily: Documents disclose 'shadow government'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52164

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Documents disclose
'shadow government'
Indicate U.S. far advanced in constructing
bureaucracy united with Mexico, Canada


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


Posted: September 26, 2006
1:00 p.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com
US code copyright art 7 ss 107


Government documents released by a Freedom of Information Act request
reveal the Bush administration is running a "shadow government" with
Mexico and Canada in which the U.S. is crafting a broad range of policy
in conjunction with its neighbors to the north and south, asserts WND
columnist and author Jerome R. Corsi.

The documents, a total of about 1,000 pages, are among the first to be
released to Corsi through his FOIA request to the Security and
Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, which describes itself
as an initiative "to increase security and to enhance prosperity among
the three countries through greater cooperation."

"The documents clearly reveal that SPP, working within the U.S.
Department of Commerce, is far advanced in putting together a new
regional infrastructure, creating a 'shadow' trilateral bureaucracy
with Mexico and Canada that is aggressively rewriting a wide range of U.
S. administrative law, all without congressional oversight or public
disclosure," Corsi said.


Among the initial discoveries, said Corsi, is the existence of an
internal Intranet website that never has been revealed to Congress or
the public.

"This private internal website," he claims, "undoubtedly contains a
wealth of documentation that the FOIA request has so far intentionally
excluded."

Corsi told WND the documents reveal hundreds of internal meetings,
memoranda of understanding and other referenced agreements that have
not been disclosed.

"We have here the beginnings of a whitewash," he said, "in which SPP
evidently thinks the public will be hoodwinked by a 'Myths vs. Facts'
document posted for public relations purposes on their public
website."

Among the documents is an organizational chart accompanied by a
listing of trilateral Mexican, Canadian and U.S. administrative
officers who report on multiple cabinet level "working groups."

The government watchdog Judicial Watch announced today it has received
some of the same documents, including the organizational chart, which
can be seen in this pdf file, on page seven.

"There is no specific authorization for this massive administrative-
branch integration with Mexico and Canada other than what amounts to a
press conference jointly issued by President Bush, Mexico's President
Vicente Fox, and Canada's then-Prime Minister Paul Martin on March 23,
2005, at the end of their summit in Waco, Texas," Corsi said.

Corsi added that even the "Myth vs. Facts" blurb on the SPP.gov
website admits the SPP is neither a treaty nor a law.

"The Bush administration is trying to create the infrastructure of a
new regional North American government in stealth fashion, under the
radar and out of public view," Corsi claims. "Where is Congress, asleep
at the wheel?"

The SPP organizational chart Corsi obtained shows 13 working groups
covering a wide range of public policy issues, including Manufactured
Goods; Energy, Food & Agriculture; Rules of Origin' Health; E-Commerce;
Transportation; Environment; Financial Services; Business Facilitation;
External Threats to North America; Streamlined & Secured Shared
Borders; and Prevention/Response within North America.

U.S. administrative-branch officers participating in these working
groups are drawn from the U.S. departments of State, Homeland Security,
Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, Health and
Human Services, and the office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

The released documents affirm that counterparts from official
governmental agencies in Mexico and Canada are combined with the U.S.
administrative branch to form new trilateral "working groups" that
actively rewrite U.S. administrative law to "harmonize" or "integrate"
with administrative law in Mexico and Canada.

"What we have here amounts to an administrative coup d'etat," Corsi
told WND. "Where does the Bush administration get the congressional
authorization to invite two foreign nations to the table to rewrite U.S. law?"


Marek

[Eyes of Horus]

Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine ... it is what is best for the Americas, to stop the foreign influence causing dissent in our hemisphere. Free trade and travel from Canada to Mexico is the truest of the American dream. The border issue is due to making the people put soldiers there to prevent any charges of racism or genocide sure to come, because the subhuman creature from the depths of hell uses the ACLU and KKK for these purposes. Do not presume the will of the American people is weak. We Will Defeat You.
_________________
All That Is Good Is Good
Bonis Omnia Bona

[marek]

Eyes of the falcon,

Somewhere in my idea, i do believe a lot of american still believe their government is acting for the american people and not to mix the three nothern nations together. So, what we may take as constatation is that for a part of them, there is some kind of trahison, for another part a lack of comprehension. But on basis of what we know, this is quite normal from the banksters, to make such a common market for highest return. In the same way of acting illegal immigration is bonanza too for capitalism, explaining the lack of reaction fromthe Bush administration.

Just my ideas about.


Marek

[Eyes of Horus]

Correction: it is not from Canada to Mexico, but Canada to Argentina. A necessary correction to properly demonstrate the true purpose of Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine. Chavez, you feel the fool now? Chavez, we are all one people in this GREAT NEW WORLD. The tables of the money changers has been flipped. The alignment of the planets was no coincidence in June of 2006. The Eyes Of Horus. Believe. God exists. The Bible is true. Rothschilds (and the many names they use) are without God, deciding instead to believe they can be gods on earth. Is this not blasphemy? For it is written, thou shalt not have false idols before the Lord your God. How many US Presidents have been slain because of the Rothschilds and their many names and many agents? Who did the Rothschilds destroy? The TSARS of Russia. Russians, we have no quarrel with you. In fact, this war is not just against America, but you too. Believe. Now form a phalanx. Prescott was a spy against the Rothschilds and their creation, Hitler. That misinformation was planted to deceive.
_________________
All That Is Good Is Good
Bonis Omnia Bona

[marek]

Dear Eyes of Horus,
Could you be more precise about your ideas and explain us in a detailed manner what you really think? I am a bit confused about prescott Bush who really was working with the nazis and our dear founder of Bilderberg, Prince Bernhard who was once a nazi ( before going in england to fight against nazism). What i know about Prescott is that he was wearing a bad name all the 2nd war and obliged to be present at every 'victory' meeting to disculp himself from his misdeeds.
Be clear that we 'll never be on the same wavelength as yours but your opinion count and I respect it.
Many thanks in advance

Marek

PS: did you ever heard about the oral toraH?

[marek]

Dear Eyes of Horus,

If you see in Bush's family a hero's family, it is up to you. You visibly don t like any criticismagaint them. If Prescott ( who became a senator after the war- this is true) was a spy for the OSS, he should have been officially washed.This was not the case. Happily, i have nothing in common with the banker's families, Rotschild included .

But one thing skolnick was telling ( he is now dead) is that, Bush famiy, the Queen of England were sharing a bank account at the private bank of the queen. For instance, father Bush Georges was owning a share in Carlyle's fund ( five millions of euro s are needed to have a share-that's the minimum)....and Prescott was a banker and not a wwii hero...

You have your opinion and i have the mine.Be in peace if you are honest.

Marek

[marek]

Art7 ss107 us code copyright

Your comments are welcome
marek



Atlantica and the Secret Agenda for Continental Integration
As posted at Atlantic Socialist

Related article: “The North American Union (NAU) is coming: ‘Borderless’ Economic Regions Well on Their Way“

The Atlantica concept is an enigma for most people in the Atlantic Provinces. It is an agenda that has brought elites in the region to a consensus that Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec needs to economically, socially and politically integrate with Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Upstate New York to form a single coherent entity. The chief proponents of this concept are Brian Lee Crowley, President of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), and Jim Quigley, President of the Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce (APCC) and Vice-President of the Bank of Montreal. They have been promoting the “Atlantica” concept to Business and political leaders in the region. Most have not been made aware of the designs they are drawing, and would abhor their Neo-conservative prescriptions for the future of Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Crowley and AIMS have been the chief architect of the Atlantica concept. AIMS is a well funded big business think tank, with Atlantica Canada’s wealthiest families represented on it’s Board of Directors, that is based out of Halifax.

In a speech to an APCC meeting in Montague PEI on May 29th of 2004, Crowley laid out his vision of “Atlantica” which contained three central ideas. The first of which is to turn the Atlantic Provinces and New England into a “transport intensive economy”. To accomplish this would mean doing two things. Firstly, building a highway from St. Stephen, NB through New England to Cornwall ON, and Montreal. Secondly, upgrading the Halifax port to accommodate Post-Panamax sized cargo ships. Crowley doesn’t take into account the fact that the world is running out Oil. Also the trade routes he wants to create by-pass Newfoundland and the Francophone regions of New Brunswick.

The second and most alarming central idea to “Atlantica” is Continental Integration. This follows from a report called “Building a North American Community” written by the “Task Force for the Future of North America” which is an ad hoc coalition of the Canadian Council of Chief Executes, the US Council on Foreign Relations and their Mexican counterparts the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internationals. The document makes 41 sweeping recommendations that read like a Christmas list for the Neo-Conservative hawks that are now in power south of the border. The recommendations centre around, first, creating an integrated North American Military and Law Enforcement Security apparatus that would transcend national boundaries and building a common North American security perimeter. Secondly, they call for an expansion of the NAFTA agreement to include Non-Tariff barriers to Trade (i.e. Public Services and cultural protections) and the harmonisation of Government regulations between Canada, the US and Mexico.

Many of the recommendations of the report are already being implemented such as the “Smart Regs” initiative of the Martin Government which took the first steps towards regulatory harmonisation. The recommendations, if implemented, would decimate Canadian sovereignty. Canada would no longer be able set it’s own regulation around food safety, health, the environment and slew of other jurisdictions. By far the most frightening recommendations are around defence and boarder security which would expand NORAD into a “Multi-service Defence Command” or one central military command for all of North America.

The other recommendations around energy, the creation of new tri-national institutions and immigration are just as draconian and would be met with disgust by the average Canadian. The Continental Integration agenda being lobbied for by the nation’s business elites would be the end of Canada as a sovereign nation and the consolidation of US power over North America.

The third central idea of the “Atlantica” concept is “Regional Coherence Building”. This means integrating energy infrastructure and creating new cross border institutions that would replace previous structures and deepen the geo-political relationship between Atlantic Canada and the New England States. Much of the impetus for this has come from the Federal government which directed the Policy Research Initiative (PRI) to study “Cross Border Economic regions” through the North American linkages research project. PRI has set up five regional roundtables dream up cross border economic regions from coast to coast.

What is carefully omitted from this Vision of Atlantica are the implications it carries for the standard of living of working people. The phrase “non-tariff barriers to trade” is glossy terminology for removing any public institution, act of legislation or government regulation that inhibits the ability of business to make profit. The APCC is hosting a conference in Saint John from June 8-10th called “Reaching Atlantica: Business Without Boundaries“. This kind of language leads one to wonder how far they will take this and if anything is sacred? Proponents of Atlantica, such as Crowley, Jim Quigley and Dennis Savoie are already talking about scrapping minimum wage legislation, privatising health care, restricting access to employment insurance, decertifying unions and closing rural communities. The Conference’s largest sponsors are the Bank of Montreal and Irving Oil.

What is more unsettling is that the Atlantica Concept does not offer any ideas for the basic resource industries that have been the traditional economic activity of Atlantic Canada for centuries. Not a word of mention for farming, forestry and the fishery, all industries which have experienced major closures and economic setbacks in recent years causing untold hardship for working people. Also, Atlantica offers no solutions to the major challenges that are confronting our collective future in Atlantic Canada including the out-migration of young people and the acute aging of the population, the challenges posed by climate change, and the precipitous decline in the standard of living for the majority of Atlantic Canadians.

In the same pattern as the negotiations for NAFTA, the WTO and the FTAA, civil society groups are not at the table nor are they invited to the Atlantica negotiations. On the official promotional website for the “Reaching Atlantica: Business Without Boundaries” conference those invited are: “small business owners, CEO’s, managers and executives, as well as Government representatives from the four Atlantic Provinces and the US Northeast”. What is more astounding is how discrete the planning for this conference has been. There has been no mention in the print or broadcast media. The secretive nature should set off warning bells in civil society. If they don’t want you at the table then they are likely planning something that you won’t like.

The Atlantica concept needs to be exposed for what it really is, an attack on our social programs and rights for working people and the environment, a big business free for all and the annexation of Atlantic Canada by the United States.

http://gothinkblog.com/?p=403

[marek]

And yet some food for though...


North American Union Already
Starting to Replace USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

us code copyright art 7 ss 107

In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.

SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Economía Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernación Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.

Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:

In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.

This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight.

Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed.

And again, the June 2005 SPP report stresses:

The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure.

Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as “our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles …” or “we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding …,” or “we have signed a declaration of intent …” etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.

What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.

Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.

Canada has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department. Mexico has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created and extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de América del Norte (ASPAN). On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as “a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America.”

The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of Mexico, Canada, and the United States is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled “Building a North American Community.”

The Task Force’s central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. (page xvii)

The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within:

Its (the North American Community’s) boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. (page 3)

What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the “Amero,” the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union. The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions:

While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.

The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24)

Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.


by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted on Human Events Online on May 30, 2006

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?&id=15233

All of Mr. Corsi's articles at the Human Events Online website can be accessed at:
http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?keywords=&author_name=Jerome+R.+Corsi&topic_id=0&date=&x=30&y=8

———————

Chuck Baldwin interviewed Mr. Corsi on the subject of the North American Union. This interview can be accessed at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/Interview_Corsi.html. No written transcript is available.


Marek Tysis

[marek]

us code copyright art7 ss 107
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Toward a North American Union

Volume 6, Issue 5

By: Patrick Wood
Editor, The August Review
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good evening, everybody. Tonight, an astonishing proposal to expand our borders to incorporate Mexico and Canada and simultaneously further diminish U.S. sovereignty. Have our political elites gone mad?
Lou Dobbs on Lou Dobbs Tonight, June 9, 2005

Introduction

The global elite, through the direct operations of President George Bush and his Administration, are creating a North American Union that will combine Canada, Mexico and the U.S. into a superstate called the North American Union (NAU). The NAU is roughly patterned after the European Union (EU). There is no political or economic mandate for creating the NAU, and unofficial polls of a cross-section of Americans indicate that they are overwhelmingly against this end-run around national sovereignty.

To answer Lou Dobbs, "No, the political elites have not gone mad", they just want you to think that they have.

The reality over appearance is easily cleared up with a proper historical perspective of the last 35 years of political and economic manipulation by the same elite who now bring us the NAU.

This paper will explore this history in order to give the reader a complete picture of the NAU, how it is made possible, who are the instigators of it, and where it is headed.

It is important to first understand that the impending birth of the NAU is a gestation of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, not the Congress. This is the topic of the first discussion below.

The next topic will examine the global elite's strategy of subverting the power to negotiate trade treaties and international law with foreign countries from the Congress to the President. Without this power, NAFTA and the NAU would never have been possible.

After this, we will show that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the immediate genetic and necessary ancestor of the NAU.

Lastly, throughout this report the NAU perpetrators and their tactics will be brought into the limelight so as to affix blame where it properly belongs. The reader will be struck with the fact that the same people are at the center of each of these subjects.

The Best Government that Money Can Buy

Modern day globalization was launched with the creation of the Trilateral Commission in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Its membership consisted of just over 300 powerful elitists from north America, Europe and Japan. The clearly stated goal of the Trilateral Commission was to foster a "New International Economic Order" that would supplant the historical economic order.

In spite of its non-political rhetoric, The Trilateral Commission nonetheless established a headlock on the Executive Branch of the U.S. government with the election of James Earl Carter in 1976. Hand-picked as a presidential candidate by Brzezinski, Carter was personally tutored in globalist philosophy and foreign policy by Brzezinski himself. Subsequently, when Carter was sworn in as President, he appointed no less than one-third of the U.S. members of the Commission to his Cabinet and other high-level posts in his Administration. Such was the genesis of the Trilateral Commission's domination of the Executive Branch that continues to the present day.

With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Trilateral Commission member George H.W. Bush was introduced to the White House as vice-president. Through Bush's influence, Reagan continued to select key appointments from the ranks of the Trilateral Commission.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush began his four-year term as President. He was followed by fellow Trilateral Commission member William Jefferson Clinton, who served for 8 years as President and appointed fourteen fellow Trilateral members to his Administration.

The election of George W. Bush in 2000 should be no surprise. Although Bush was not a member of the Trilateral Commission, his vice-president Dick Cheney is. In addition, Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, is also a member of the Commission in her own right.

The hegemony of the Trilateral Commission over the Executive Branch of the U.S. government is unmistakable. Critics argue that this scenario is merely circumstantial, that the most qualified political "talent" quite naturally tends to belong to groups like the Trilateral Commission in the first place. Under examination, such explanations are quite hollow.

Why would the Trilateral Commission seek to dominate the Executive Branch? Quite simply - Power! That is, power to get things done directly which would have been impossible to accomplish through the only moderately successful lobbying efforts of the past; power to use the government as a bully platform to modify political behavior throughout the world.

Of course, the obvious corollary to this hegemony is that the influence and impact of the citizenry is virtually eliminated.

Modern Day "World Order" Strategy

After its founding in 1973, Trilateral Commission members wasted no time in launching their globalist strategy. But, what was that strategy?

Richard Gardner was an original member of the Trilateral Commission, and one of the prominent architects of the New International Economic Order. In 1974, his article "The Hard Road to World Order" appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine, published by the Council on Foreign Relations. With obvious disdain for anyone holding nationalistic political views, Gardner proclaimed,

"In short, the 'house of world order' would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."1 [emphasis added]

In Gardner's view, using treaties and trade agreements (such as General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs or GATT) would bind and supercede constitutional law piece by piece, which is exactly what has happened. In addition, Gardner highly esteemed the role of the United Nations as a third-party legal body that could be used to erode the national sovereignty of individual nations.

Gardner concluded that "the case-by-case approach can produce some remarkable concessions of 'sovereignty' that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis"2

Thus, the end result of such a process is that the U.S. would eventually capitulate its sovereignty to the newly proposed world order. It is not specifically mentioned who would control this new order, but it is quite obvious that the only 'players' around are Gardner and his Trilateral cronies.

It should again be noted that the formation of the Trilateral Commission by Rockefeller and Brzezinski was a response to the general frustration that globalism was going nowhere with the status quo prior to 1973. The "frontal assault " had failed, and a new approach was needed. It is a typical mindset of the global elite to view any roadblock as an opportunity to stage an "end-run" to get around it. Gardner confirms this frustration:

"Certainly the gap has never loomed larger between the objectives and the capacities of the international organizations that were supposed to get mankind on the road to world order. We are witnessing an outbreak of shortsighted nationalism that seems oblivious to the economic, political and moral implications of interdependence. Yet never has there been such widespread recognition by the world's intellectual leadership of the necessity for cooperation and planning on a truly global basis, beyond country, beyond region, especially beyond social system."3

The "world's intellectual leadership" apparently refers to academics such as Gardner and Brzezinski. Outside of the Trilateral Commission and the CFR, the vast majority of academic thought at the time was opposed to such notions as mentioned above.

Laying the Groundwork: Fast Track Authority

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."

So, the first "Fast Track" legislation was passed by Congress in 1974, just one year after the founding of the Trilateral Commission. It was the same year that Nelson Rockefeller was confirmed as Vice President under President Gerald Ford, neither of whom were elected by the U.S. public. As Vice-President, Rockefeller was seated as the president of the U.S. Senate.

According to Public Citizen, the bottom line of Fast Track is that...

"...the White House signs and enters into trade deals before Congress ever votes on them. Fast Track also sets the parameters for congressional debate on any trade measure the President submits, requiring a vote within a certain time with no amendments and only 20 hours of debate."4

When an agreement is about to be given to Congress, high-powered lobbyists and political hammer-heads are called in to manipulate congressional hold-outs into voting for the legislation. (*See CAFTA Lobbying Efforts) With only 20 hours of debate allowed, there is little opportunity for public involvement.

Congress clearly understood the risk of giving up this power to the President, as evidenced by the fact that they put an automatic expiration date on it. Since the expiration of the original Fast Track, there been a very contentious trail of Fast Track renewal efforts. In 1996, President Clinton utterly failed to re-secure Fast Track after a bitter debate in Congress. After another contentious struggle in 2001/2002, President Bush was able to renew Fast Track for himself in the Trade Act of 2002, just in time to negotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and insure its passage in 2005.

It is startling to realize that since 1974, Fast Track has not been used in the majority of trade agreements. Under the Clinton presidency, for instance, some 300 separate trade agreements were negotiated and passed normally by Congress, but only two of them were submitted under Fast Track: NAFTA and the GATT Uruguay Round. In fact, from 1974 to 1992, there were only three instances of Fast Track in action: GATT Tokyo Round, U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Thus, NAFTA was only the fourth invocation of Fast Track.

Why the selectivity? Does it suggest a very narrow agenda? Most certainly. These trade and legal bamboozles didn't stand a ghost of a chance to be passed without it, and the global elite knew it. Fast Track was created as a very specific legislative tool to accomplish a very specific executive task -- namely, to "fast track" the creation of the "New International Economic Order" envisioned by the Trilateral Commission in 1973!

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.

North American Free Trade Agreement

NAFTA was negotiated under the executive leadership of Republican President George H.W. Bush. Carla Hills is widely credited as being the primary architect and negotiator of NAFTA. Both Bush and Hills were members of the Trilateral Commission!


NAFTA "Initialing" Ceremony: From left to right (standing)
President Salinas, President Bush, Prime Minister Mulroney
(Seated) Jaime Serra Puche, Carla Hills, Michael Wilson.
With Bush's first presidential term drawing to a close and Bush desiring political credit for NAFTA, an "initialing" ceremony of NAFTA was staged (so Bush could take credit for NAFTA) in October, 1992. Although very official looking, most Americans did not understand the difference between initialing and signing; at the time, Fast Track was not implemented and Bush did not have the authority to actually sign such a trade agreement.

Bush subsequently lost a publicly contentious presidential race to democrat William Jefferson Clinton, but they were hardly polar opposites on the issue of Free Trade and NAFTA: The reason? Clinton was also a seasoned member of the Trilateral Commission.

Immediately after inauguration, Clinton became the champion of NAFTA and orchestrated its passage with a massive Executive Branch effort.

Some Unexpected Resistance to NAFTA

Prior to the the 1992 election, there was a fly in the elite's ointment -- namely, presidential candidate and billionaire Ross Perot, founder and chairman of Electronic Data Systems (EDS). Perot was politically independent, vehemently anti-NAFTA and chose to make it a major campaign issue in 1991. In the end, the global elite would have to spend huge sums of money to overcome the negative publicity that Perot gave to NAFTA.

At the time, some political analysts believed that Perot, being a billionaire, was somehow put up to this task by the same elitists who were pushing NAFTA. Presumably, it would accumulate all the anti-globalists in one tidy group, thus allowing the elitists to determine who their true enemies really were. It's moot today whether he was sincere or not, but it did have that outcome, and Perot became a lightning rod for the whole issue of free trade.

Perot hit the nail squarely on the head in one of his nationally televised campaign speeches:

"If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, hire young -- let's assume you've been in business for a long time and you've got a mature workforce - pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health care - that's the most expensive single element in making a car - have no environmental controls, no pollution controls, and no retirement, and you didn't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south..."5 [emphasis added]

Perot's message struck a nerve with millions of Americans, but it was unfortunately cut short when he entered into public campaign debates with fellow candidate Al Gore. Simply put, Gore ate Perot's lunch, not so much on the issues themselves, but on having superior debating skills. As organized as Perot was, he was no match for a politically and globally seasoned politician like Al Gore.

The Spin Machine gears up

To counter the public relations damage done by Perot, all the stops were pulled out as the NAFTA vote drew near. As proxy for the global elite, the President unleashed the biggest and most expensive spin machine the country had ever seen.


NAFTA/NAU Emblem Former Chrysler chairman Lee Iococca was enlisted for a multi-million dollar nationwide ad campaign that praised the benefits of NAFTA. The mantra, carried consistently throughout the many spin events: "Exports. Better Jobs. Better Wages", all of which have turned out to be empty promises

Bill Clinton invited three former presidents to the White House to stand with him in praise and affirmation NAFTA. This was the first time in U.S. history that four presidents had ever appeared together. Of the four, three were members of the Trilateral Commission: Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Gerald Ford was not a Commissioner, but was nevertheless a confirmed globalist insider. After Ford's accession to the presidency in 1974, he promptly nominated Nelson Rockefeller (David Rockefeller's oldest brother) to fill the Vice Presidency that Ford had just vacated.

The academic community was enlisted when, according to Harper's Magazine publisher John MacArthur,

...there was a pro-NAFTA petition, organized and written my MIT's Rudiger Dornbusch, addressed to President Clinton and signed by all twelve living Nobel laureates in economics, and exercise in academic logrolling that was expertly converted by Bill Daley and the A-Team into PR gold on the front page of The New York Times on September 14. 'Dear Mr. President,' wrote the 283 signatories..."6


Lastly, prominent Trilateral Commission members themselves took to the press to promote NAFTA. For instance, on May 13, 1993, Commissioners Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance wrote a joint op-ed that stated:

"[NAFTA] would be the most constructive measure the United States would have undertaken in our hemisphere in this century."7

Two months later, Kissinger went further,

"It will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere." [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system."8 [emphasis added]

It is hardly fanciful to think that Kissinger's hype sounds quite similar to the Trilateral Commission's original goal of creating a New International Economic Order.


President Clinton signing NAFTA On January 1, 1994, NAFTA became law: Under Fast Track procedures, the house had passed it by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor) and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38.

That Giant Sucking Sound Going South

To understand the potential impact of the North American Union, one must understand the impact of NAFTA.

NAFTA promised greater exports, better jobs and better wages. Since 1994, just the opposite has occurred. The U.S. trade deficit soared and now approaches $1 trillion dollars per year; the U.S. has lost some 1.5 million jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen significantly.

Patrick Buchanan offered a simple example of NAFTA's deleterious effect on the U.S. economy:

"When NAFTA passed in 1993, we imported some 225,000 cars and trucks from Mexico, but exported about 500,000 vehicles to the world. In 2005, our exports to the world were still a shade under 500,000 vehicles, but our auto and truck imports from Mexico had tripled to 700,000 vehicles.

"As McMillion writes, Mexico now exports more cars and trucks to the United States than the United States exports to the whole world. A fine end, is it not, to the United States as "Auto Capital of the World"?

"What happened? Post-NAFTA, the Big Three just picked up a huge slice of our auto industry and moved it, and the jobs, to Mexico."9

Of course, this only represents the auto industry, but the same effect has been seen in many other industries as well. Buchanan correctly noted that NAFTA was never just a trade deal: Rather, it was an "enabling act - to enable U.S. corporations to dump their American workers and move their factories to Mexico." Indeed, this is the very spirit of all outsourcing of U.S. jobs and manufacturing facilities to overseas locations.

Respected economist Alan Tonelson, author of The Race to the Bottom, notes the smoke and mirrors that cloud what has really happened with exports:

"Most U.S. exports to Mexico before, during and since the (1994) peso crisis have been producer goods - in particular, parts and components sent by U.S. multinationals to their Mexican factories for assembly or for further processing. The vast majority of these, moreover, are reexported, and most get shipped right back to the United States for final sale. In fact, by most estimates, the United States buys 80 to 90 percent of all of Mexico's exports."10


Tonelson concludes that "the vast majority of American workers has experienced declining living standards, not just a handful of losers."

Mexican economist and scholar Miguel Pickard sums up Mexico's supposed benefits from NAFTA:

"Much praise has been heard for the few 'winners' that NAFTA has created, but little mention is made of the fact that the Mexican people are the deal's big 'losers.' Mexicans now face greater unemployment, poverty, and inequality than before the agreement began in 1994."11


In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to the citizenry of the United States or Mexico. Still, this is the backdrop against which the North American Union is being acted out. The globalization players and their promises have remained pretty much the same, both just as disingenuous as ever.

Prelude to the North American Union

Soon after NAFTA was passed in 1994, Dr. Robert A. Pastor began to push for a "deep integration" which NAFTA could not provide by itself. His dream was summed up in his book, Toward a North American Union, published in 2001. Unfortunately for Pastor, the book was released just a few days prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and thus received little attention from any sector.

However, Pastor had the right connections. He was invited to appear before the plenary session (held in Ontario, Canada) of the Trilateral Commission on November 1-2, 2002, to deliver a paper drawing directly on his book. His paper, "A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral Commission", made several recommendations:

a.. "... the three governments should establish a North American Commission (NAC) to define an agenda for Summit meetings by the three leaders and to monitor the implementation of the decisions and plans.
b.. A second institution should emerge from combining two bilateral legislative groups into a North American Parliamentary Group.
c.. "The third institution should be a Permanent Court on Trade and Investment
d.. "The three leaders should establish a North American Development Fund, whose priority would be to connect the U.S.-Mexican border region to central and southern Mexico.
e.. The North American Commission should develop an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure.
f.. "...negotiate a Customs Union and a Common External Tariff
g.. "Our three governments should sponsor Centers for North American Studies in each of our countries to help the people of all three understand the problems and the potential of North America and begin to think of themselves as North Americans"12 [emphasis added]
Pastor's choice of the words "Modest Proposal" are almost comical considering that he intends to reorganize the entire North American continent.

Nevertheless, the Trilateral Commission bought Pastor's proposals hook, line and sinker. Subsequently, it was Pastor who emerged as the U.S. vice-chairman of the CFR task force that was announced on October 15, 2004:

"The Council has launched an independent task force on the future of North America to examine regional integration since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement ten years ago... The task force will review five spheres of policy in which greater cooperation may be needed. They are: deepening economic integration; reducing the development gap; harmonizing regulatory policy; enhancing security; and devising better institutions to manage conflicts that inevitably arise from integration and exploit opportunities for collaboration."13

Independent task force, indeed! A total of twenty-three members were chosen from the three countries. Each country was represented by a member of the Trilateral Commission: Carla A. Hills (U.S.), Luis Robio (Mexico) and Wendy K. Dobson (Canada). Robert Pastor served as the U.S. vice-chairman.

This CFR task force was unique in that it focused on economic and political policies for all three countries, not just the U.S. The Task Force stated purpose was to

"... identify inadequacies in the current arrangements and suggest opportunities for deeper cooperation on areas of common interest. Unlike other Council-sponsored task forces, which focus primarily on U.S. policy, this initiative includes participants from Canada and Mexico, as well as the United States, and will make policy recommendations for all three countries."14 [Emphasis added]

Richard Haass, chairman of the CFR and long-time member of the Trilateral Commission, pointedly made the link between NAFTA and integration of Mexico, Canada and the U.S.:

"Ten years after NAFTA, it is obvious that the security and economic futures of Canada, Mexico, and the United States are intimately bound. But there is precious little thinking available as to where the three countries need to be in another ten years and how to get there. I am excited about the potential of this task force to help fill this void,"15

Haass' statement "there is precious little thinking available" underscores a repeatedly used elitist technique. That is, first decide what you want to do, and secondly, assign a flock of academics to justify your intended actions. (This is the crux of academic funding by NGO's such as Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie-Mellon, etc.) After the justification process is complete, the same elites that suggested it in the first place allow themselves to be drawn in as if they had no other logical choice but to play along with the "sound thinking" of the experts.

The task force met three times, once in each country. When the process was completed, it issued its results in May, 2005, in a paper titled "Building a North American Community" and subtitled "Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America." Even the sub-title suggests that the "future of North America" is a fait accompli decided behind closed doors.

Some of the recommendations of the task force are:

a.. "Adopt a common external tariff."
b.. "Adopt a North American Approach to Regulation"
c.. "Establish a common security perimeter by 2010."
d.. "Establish a North American investment fund for infrastructure and human capital."
e.. "Establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution."
f.. "An annual North American Summit meeting" that would bring the heads-of-state together for the sake of public display of confidence.
g.. "Establish minister-led working groups that will be required to report back within 90 days, and to meet regularly."
h.. Create a "North American Advisory Council"
i.. Create a "North American Inter-Parliamentary Group."16
Sound familiar? It should: Many of the recommendations are verbatim from Pastor's "modest" presentation to the Trilateral Commission mentioned above, or from his earlier book, Toward a North American Union.



2006 SPP Summit in Cancun Shortly after the task force report was issued, the heads of all three countries did indeed meet together for a summit in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The specific result of the summit was the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPPNA). The joint press release stated

"We, the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, have met in Texas to announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

"We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals. They will outline concrete steps that our governments can take to meet these goals, and set dates that will ensure the continuous achievement of results.

"Within 90 days, ministers will present their initial report after which, the working parties will submit six-monthly reports. Because the Partnership will be an ongoing process of cooperation, new items will be added to the work agenda by mutual agreement as circumstances warrant."17


Once again, we see Pastor's North American Union ideology being continued, but this time as an outcome of a summit meeting of three heads-of-states. The question must be raised, "Who is really in charge of this process?"

Indeed, the three premiers returned to their respective countries and started their "working parties" to "consult with stakeholders." In the U.S., the "specific, measurable, and achievable goals" were only seen indirectly by the creation of a government website billed as "Security and Prosperity Partnetship of North America." (www.spp.gov) The stakeholders are not mentioned my name, but it is clear that they are not the public of either of the three countries; most likely, they are the corporate interests represented by the members of the Trilateral Commission!

The second annual summit meeting took place on March 30-31, 2006, in Cancun, Mexico between Bush, Fox and Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper. The Security and Prosperity Partnership agenda was summed up in a statement from Mexican president Vicente Fox:

"We touched upon fundamental items in that meeting. First of all, we carried out an evaluation meeting. Then we got information about the development of programs. And then we gave the necessary instructions for the works that should be carried out in the next period of work... We are not renegotiating what has been successful or open the Free Trade Agreement. It's going beyond the agreement, both for prosperity and security."18 [emphasis added]

Regulations instead of Treaties

It may not have occurred to the reader that the two SPP summits resulted in no signed agreements. This is not accidental nor a failure of the summit process. The so-called "deeper integration" of the three countries is being accomplished through a series of regulations and executive decrees that avoid citizen watchdogs and legislative oversight.19

In the U.S., the 2005 Cancun summit spawned some 20 different working groups that would deal with issues from immigration to security to harmonization of regulations, all under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (www.spp.gov). The SPP in the U.S. is officially placed under the Department of Commerce, headed by Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, but other Executive Branch agencies also have SPP components that report to Commerce.

After two years of massive effort, the names of the SPP working group members have not been released. The result of their work have also not been released. There is no congressional legislation or oversight of the SPP process.

The director of SPP, Geri Word, was contacted to ask why a cloud of secrecy is hanging over SPP. According to investigative journalist Jerome Corsi, Word replied

"We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public." 20

This paternalistic attitude is a typical elitist mentality Their work (whatever they have dreamed up on their own) is too important to be distracted by the likes of pesky citizens or their elected legislators.

This elite change of tactics must not be understated: Regulations and Executive Orders have replaced Congressional legislation and public debate. There is no pretense of either. This is another Gardner-style "end-run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece."

Apparently, the Trilateral-dominated Bush administration believes that it has accumulated sufficient power to ram the NAU down the throat of the American People, whether they protest or not.

Robert A. Pastor: A Trilateral Commission Operative

As mentioned earlier, Pastor is hailed as the father of the North American Union, having written more papers about it, delivered more testimonies before Congress, and headed up task forces to study it, than any other single U.S. academic figure. He would seem a tireless architect and advocate of the NAU.

Although he might seem to be a fresh, new name to in the globalization business, Pastor has a long history with Trilateral Commission members and the global elite.

He is the same Robert Pastor who was the executive director of the 1974 CFR task force ( funded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations) called the Commission on US-Latin American Relations - aka the Linowitz Commission. The Linowitz Commission, chaired by an original Trilateral Commissioner Sol Linowitz, was singularly credited with the giveaway of the Panama Canal in 1976 under the Carter presidency. ALL of the Linowitz Commission members were members of the Trilateral Commission save one, Albert Fishlow; other members were W. Michael Blumenthal, Samuel Huntington, Peter G. Peterson, Elliot Richardson and David Rockefeller.

One of Carter's first actions as President in 1977 was to appoint Zbigniew Brzezinski to the post of National Security Advisor. In turn, one of Brzezinski's first acts was to appoint his protege, Dr. Robert A. Pastor, as director of the Office of Latin American and Caribbean Affairs. Pastor then became the Trilateral Commission's point-man to lobby for the Canal giveaway.

To actually negotiate the Carter-Torrijos Treaty, Carter sent none other than Sol Linowitz to Panama as temporary ambassador. The 6-month temporary appointment avoided the requirement for Senate confirmation. Thus, the very same people who created the policy became responsible for executing it.

The Trilateral Commission's role in the Carter Administration is confirmed by Pastor himself in his 1992 paper The Carter Administration and Latin America: A Test of Principle:

"In converting its predisposition into a policy, the new administration had the benefit of the research done by two private commissions. Carter, Vance, and Brzezinski were members of the Trilateral Commission, which provided a conceptual framework for collaboration among the industrialized countries in approaching the full gamut of international issues. With regard to setting an agenda and an approach to Latin America, the most important source of influence on the Carter administration was the Commission on U.S.-Latin American Relations, chaired by Sol M. Linowitz."21

As to the final Linowitz Commission reports on Latin America, most of which were authored by Pastor himself, he states:

"The reports helped the administration define a new relationship with Latin America, and 27 of the 28 specific recommendations in the second report became U.S. policy."22

Pastor's deep involvement with Trilateral Commission members and policies is irrefutable, and it continues into the present.

In 1996, when Trilateral Commissioner Bill Clinton nominated Pastor as Ambassador to Panama, his confirmation was forcefully knocked down by Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), who held a deep grudge against Pastor for his central role in the giveaway of the Panama Canal in 1976.

The setback obviously did not phase Pastor in the slightest.

Where from here?

The stated target for full implementation of the North American Union is 2010.

"The Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that 'our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.' Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America." 23

Don't underestimate the global elite's ability to meet their own deadlines!

Conclusion

This paper does not pretend to give thorough or even complete coverage to such important and wide-ranging topics as discussed above. We have shown that the restructuring of the United States has been accomplished by a very small group of powerful global elitists as represented by members of the Trilateral Commission.

The Trilateral Commission plainly stated that it intended to create a New International Economic Order. We have followed their members from 1973 to the present, only to find that they are at the dead center of every critical policy and action that seeks to restructure the U.S.

Some critics will undoubedly argue that involvement by members of the Trilateral Commission is merely incidental. However, the odds for their involvement at random is too large to be even remotely understandable; it would be like winning the lottery jackpot five times in a row, with the same numbers!

The credo of The August Review is "Follow the money, follow the power." In this view, the United States has literally been hijacked by less than 300 greedy and self-serving global elitists who have little more than contempt for the citizens of the countries they would seek to dominate. According to Trilateralist Richard Gardner's viewpoint, this incremental takeover (rather than a frontal approach) has been wildly successful.

To again answer Lou Dobbs question, "Have our political elites gone mad?" -- No Lou, they are not "mad", nor are they ignorant. To look into the face of these global elites is to look into the face of unmitigated greed, avarice and treachery.

Footnotes:

1.. Gardner, Richard, The Hard Road to World Order, (Foreign Affairs, 1974) p. 558
2.. ibid, p. 563
3.. ibid. p. 556
4.. Fast Track Talking Points, Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen
5.. Exerpts From Presidential Debates, Ross Perot, 1992
6.. MacArthur, The Selling of Free Trade, (Univ. of Cal. Press, 2001) p. 228
7.. Washington Post, op-ed, Kissinger & Vance, May 13, 1993
8.. Los Angeles Times, op-ed, Kissinger, July 18, 1993
9.. The Fruits of NAFTA, Patrick Buchanan, The Conservative Voice, March 10, 2006
10.. Tonelson, The Race to the Bottom (Westview Press, 2002) p. 89
11.. Trinational Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA Plus", Miquel Pickard, IRC Americas website
12.. A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral Commission, Presentation by Dr. Robert A. Pastor, 2002
13.. Council Joing Leading Canadians and Mexicans to Launch Intependent Task Force on the Future of America, Press Release, CFR Website
14.. ibid.
15.. ibid.
16.. Building a North American Community, Council on Foreign Relations, 2005
17.. North American Leaders Unveil Security and Prosperity Partnership, International Information Programs, U.S. Govt. Website
18.. Concluding Press Conference at Cancun Summit, Vicente Fox, March 31, 2006
19.. Traditional Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA Plus", Miguel Pickard, p. 1, IRC Website
20.. Bush sneaking North American super-state without oversight?, Jerome Corsi,WorldNetDaily, June 12, 2006.
21.. The Carter Administration and Latin America: A Test of Principle, Robert A. Pastor, The Carter Center, July 1992, p. 9
22.. ibid. p. 10
23.. Building a North American Community, Council on Foreign Relations, 2005, p. 2
Further Reading

Meet Robert Pastor: Father of the North American Union, Human Events, Jerome R. Corsi, July 25, 2006
Robert A. Pastor Resume, American University, 2005
North America's Super Corridor Coalition, Inc. Website

http://www.augustreview.com/index.php?module=pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=4&pid=14

~~~++++++++++++++

[marek]

us code copyright art 7 ss 107
+++++++++++++++++++++
Origins of North American Union traced


Background information on the treasonous North American Union

http://www.ejection2006.com/NAU/north_american_union.htm



North American Union

Treason

Conceptually, the idea behind the North American Union is the same as for the European Union. Strategically, the idea is to create large regional, unelected, unseen governance structures that can be managed by the social engineers of the United Nations creating a totalitarian One World Government by stealth.
To understand how this treason has occurred right under our noses, one must go back to the Stockholm 1972 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. This conference was headed up by Maurice Strong, a socialist from Canada.

A U.S.-Mexico Binational Commission was established in 1981. Presumably, they are the ones who crafted the La Paz Agreement that was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1983. It implemented the principles defined in the 1972 Declaration.

The Agreement called for the establishment of a precisely defined border region ostensibly for the purpose of working cooperatively with Mexico to clean up the environment in the region. It called for the establishment of six working groups to cooperate in the areas of (1) water, (2) air, (3) hazardous and solid waste, (4) pollution prevention, (5) contingency planning and emergency response, and (6) cooperative enforcement and compliance.


It's important to understand that Number 6 is the harmonization of laws between the U.S. and Mexico. This was pre-planning for the disintegration of the border and the establishment of the North American Union.

Several other clauses in the La Paz Agreement were written to allow both funding and expansion of the areas of responsibility without the oversight of Congress.

In effect, this agreement internationalized significant areas in the United States putting them under a different legal structure with the right under an international agreement to expand into the territorial United States.

The authorizing Articles in the Agreement are below:



Article 8

Each Party designates a national coordinator whose principal functions will be to coordinate and monitor implementation of this Agreement, make recommendations to the Parties, and organize the annual meetings referred to in Article 10, and the meetings of the experts referred to in Article 11. Additional responsibilities of the national coordinators may be agreed to in an annex to this Agreement. In the case of the United States of America the national coordinator shall be the Environmental Protection Agency, and in the case of Mexico it shall be the Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologia, through the Subsecretaria de Ecologia.

The highlighted clause is the loophole that allowed the EPA coordinator to expand the areas of responsibility. There are now 10 working groups listed by the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership' website. The SPP website declared their launch date was 2005, but that's not true. That's just the date that the 3 traitor amigos - Bush, Fox and Martin issued the joint statement on the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership' which is just a deceptive name for the North American Union. The SPP is the American side of the U.S.-Mexico Binational Commission as evidenced by remarks by Condasleeza Rice in a meeting with Foreign Secretary Derbez of Mexico.

SECRETARY RICE: Good afternoon. I am delighted to welcome Foreign Secretary Derbez of Mexico. We have just completed a meeting of the Binational Commission between the United States and Mexico, a Commission that has been in place for 22 years now. The Minister and I have not been here for 22 years of the Commission. Indeed, it is my first as Secretary but, Luis Ernesto, you've had several as the Secretary -- Foreign Secretary for Mexico. We were joined also by Mike Chertoff, Homeland Security Secretary here in the United States and by Minister Abascol and Minister Medina Mora from Mexico.


This Binational Commission looks at a range of issues. There are indeed ten working groups of this Commission that examine the full range of relations and issues between the United States and Mexico. It is, of course, a relationship that is deep and broad, based on common values, but also a relationship in which there is a lot of contact between our people in which there are day-to-day issues of trade and prosperity and migration to be dealt with. And so this Commission provides an opportunity for the secretaries to get together and to review the progress that we're making on systemic answers and resolutions of problems that exist in our relationship. But we're always able to do so on the basis of friendship, on the basis of colleagueship, with respect for each other and a deep desire to have our people live in peace and prosperity and to share these borders in a way that makes us both more secure and more prosperous

Condasleeza confirmed the treason against the Constitution of the United States and the American people at the 36th Annual Conference of the Council of the Americas:

Next month, when the 34 democratic members of the Organization of American States gather in Santo Domingo, there will be only one empty seat at the table, a seat that will one day be filled by the free people of a democratic Cuba. In this young century, a democratic consensus unites our hemisphere and together, we have enshrined it in a groundbreaking document: The Inter-American Democratic Charter, which declares that the people of our hemisphere have a right to democracy and that their governments have a responsibility to protect and promote that right. The Charter also states that democracy is essential for social, political and economic development of the people of the Americas. This is a revolutionary new consensus for our hemisphere and it will be all the more important as we confront the serious challenges that remain in our path.


In effect, these traitors - bought and paid for by David Rockefeller are attempting to dissolve the United States through a trade agreement and a 'Charter' that overrides the U.S. Constitution under international law. See publications at the Council of the Americas website.


Article 9

Taking into account the subjects to be examined jointly, the national coordinators may invite, as appropriate, representatives of federal, state and municipal governments to participate in the meetings provided for in this Agreement. By mutual agreement they may also invite representatives of international governmental or non-governmental organizations who may be able to contribute some element of expertise on problems to be solved. The national coordinators will determine by mutual agreement the form and manner of participation of non-governmental entities.

Article 9 provided that non-government organizations like the Council of the Americas could be invited to participate in meetings. The Council of the Americas was founded by David Rockefeller in 1965.



ARTICLE 14

Unless otherwise agreed, each Party shall bear the cost of its participation in the implementation of this Agreement, including the expenses of personnel who participate in any activity undertaken on the basis of it. For the training of personnel, the transfer of equipment and the construction of installations related to the implementation of this Agreement, the Parties may agree on a special modality of financing, taking into account the objectives defined in this Agreement.

Article 14 is the provision that allowed David Rockefeller to use his money and the money of his wealthy 'partners' to buy the agenda and the traitors who would implement his plan without Congressional oversight of what they were doing.
And if you want to know why we have 'sanctuary' cities in the United States, follow the money. The La Paz Agreement, Article 9 allowed the 'working groups' to invite anybody into the treason club. A good example of how the treason is implemented sub rosa is the Trans-Texas corridor. Note that the agreements between entities for this agreement were "Memos of Understanding". Can you believe that? Treason by Memo.



News Release
January 18, 2006

Texas Department of Transportation and North America's Supercorridor Coalition Join Forces
Bill Clinton legalized the fascist privatization of government (reinventing government) by changing the definition of federalism and the rules for federal grants.

Public-Private Partnerships use a method of 'consensus' building to gain agreement for their agenda, but gaining the 'consensus' is just a con game. The outcomes are predetermined and the groups are manipulated towards that outcome.

This is the nature of the con game and the treason that is breaking up the United States as a nation.

More information can be obtained at the following website:
Eagle Forum - North American Union

Also look for articles by the following authors:

Jerome Corsi. Many of them are on World Net Daily (WND)
Henry Lamb - Some on WND some elsewhere
Daneen Peterson

+++++++++++++++
Marek Tysis

[Vitchilo]

The texans are not happy with the North American Union and they may invoke the 2th amendment to stop the fascists. Video

Do you support them? I do.