TEAMSTERS’ HOFFA WARNS AGAINST NORTH AMERICAN UNION

            “Saying he is convinced ‘the Bush administration has a master plan to erase all borders and to have a super-government in North America,’ James P. Hoffa, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, celebrated the Senate’s 75-23 vote Tuesday night to block the Department of Transportation’s Mexican truck demonstration project.”

U.S. SENATE REJECTS NAFTA MEXICAN TRUCK INFLUX 75-23

            “In an exclusive interview with WND, Hoffa argued that the Bush administration push to allow Mexican trucks into the U.S. is symptomatic of a larger administration plan advanced by multi-national corporations to create a European Union-style regional ‘super-government’ in North America.

            “ ‘Congress has now spoken out and said Mexican trucks cannot come into the United States until they meet our standards,’ Hoffa told WND.”

U.S. HOUSE VOTES 411-3 TO BLOCK NAFTA TRUCK SCHEME

            “He noted the Senate seconded the House’s overwhelming 411-3 vote to pass the Safe Roads Act of 2007, a bill also targeted to block the Mexican truck project. …

            “ ‘President Bush has been determined to jam through this Mexican truck demonstration project because of big business pressure and pressure from President Calderon of Mexico,’ he answered directly.  ‘Big business wants cheap trucking so they can make more money. …

            “ ‘But if you want the real answer,’ Hoffa explained, ‘it’s about money, and it’s about the pressure of these big companies wanting to get this Mexican truck deal done now, because they realize that Bush is a lame duck and they figure that if they don’t get this done now, they’re not going to get this done with a Democratic president in the White House.’ …”

HOFFA DENOUNCES BUSH ANTI-SOVEREIGNTY MASTER PLAN

            “ ‘I think the Bush administration has a master plan to erase all borders and to have a super-government in North America,’ he argued.  ‘There’s talk about mega-ports down in Mexico and superhighway toll roads built with foreign money right into the heart of America.

            “ ‘I think those things are real and the Mexican truck demonstration project is just one piece in that larger puzzle,’ Hoffa continued.  ‘The Bush administration figures that once the Mexican trucks get started, the rest will be easy.

            “ ‘I think that the whole plan of this Mexican truck demonstration project is part of a larger overall plan,’ Hoffa contended.  ‘The goal to basically erase that border so Mexican trucks can run across that border, unload trucks with no security, no supervision, and have them run all the way through from some port on the Pacific Ocean down in Mexico to Kansas City, Detroit and then to Montreal.”

NAU STRATEGY REFLECTED IN BUSH TACTICS

            “ ‘I am convinced that the plan to create a North American Union is what is going on,’ Hoffa asserted.  ‘I am convinced big business wants that.  Big business hates any types of standards. …

            “ ‘Big business doesn’t want to have anything slowing down commerce coming across the borders,’ he said.  ‘And to do that, they have to erase all standards and they have to have one type of a North American government that would be over Canada, Mexico and the United States.

            “ ‘I believe there is such a plan,’ he insisted.  ‘I believe the Mexican truck demonstration project is part of it.  I have seen enough to know that this is going on right now.’ …”

BUSH’S SECRECY IS BY DESIGN

            “ ‘Bush won’t speak openly about the Security and Prosperity Partnership because he doesn’t want anybody to know anything about it,’ Hoffa emphasized.  ‘If the American people knew openly about the plan to build superhighway toll roads with foreign money or the plan to create a North American common market and regional government, we would rally to stop it.  The Bush administration hasn’t even openly consulted Congress about SPP.’ ”  Source:  Jerome Corsi, WorldNetDaily, 9/14/07

GWB’S MEXICAN SPP ALLY SAYS THAT IT BECOMES MEXICAN TERRITORY WHEN A MEXICAN CITIZEN SETS FOOT

            “ ‘Mexico does not end at its borders. … Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.’  That astonishing claim by Mexican President Felipe Calderon, in his state of the nation address at the National Palace Sunday, brought his audience wildly cheering to its feet.”

WHY DOES BUSH LET THIS GO UNREBUTTED?

            “Were the United States a serious nation, Calderon’s claim that Mexico extends into the United States would have produced an instant demand from the U.S. ambassador for clarification.  Failing to receive it, he would have packed his bags, and the United States would be on the verge of severing diplomatic relations.

            “In an earlier time, U.S. troops would be rolling to the border.  For this is not the first time an arrogant Mexican ruler has made a claim to extra-territorial rights inside the United States and, indeed, to U.S. territory.  Mexico’s presidents have gotten into a habit of suborning treason against the United States.”

ATZLAN IN WORD BECOMES ATZLAN IN DEED

            “In 1995, President Ernesto Zedillo told a Dallas audience of U.S. citizens of Mexican descent, ‘You are Mexicans, Mexicans who live north of the border’ – i.e., you owe loyalty to Mexico, not Uncle Sam.

            “In 1997, Zedillo brought a Chicago gathering of La Raza to its feet by exclaiming, ‘I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders.’

            “In 1998, Mexico changed its constitution to restore citizenship to Mexican-Americans who have taken an oath of allegiance to the United States and renounced loyalty to any other country.

            “Purpose:  loosen their ties of loyalty to the United States, re-knit their ties of loyalty to Mexico, and persuade Mexican-Americans to vote Mexico’s interests in the USA.  Put Mexico first, even if you have taken an oath of allegiance to the United States.

            “In June 2004, President Vicente Fox took the Zedillo road to the Mexican-American community in Chicago.  There, he, too, declared:  ‘We are Mexicans that live in our territories, and we are Mexicans that live in other territories.  In reality, there are 120 million that live together and are working together to construct a nation.’

            “President Fox was saying that the construction of his nation is taking place – inside our nation.  Is that not sedition?”

IT’S NOT EVEN “DUAL LOYALTY”

            “In 2005, the head of the Institute of Mexicans Abroad, Carlos Gutierrez, asserted, ‘The Mexican nation goes beyond the borders that contain Mexico.’  What these [Mexican] politicians are saying is that Mexico extends into the United States, and the first loyalty of all men and women of Mexican ancestry is, no matter where they live, to Mexico.

            “Mexico’s rulers believe in a nation of history, blood and soil that pre-existed, and supersedes, any pledge of allegiance any Mexican may make to another country, especially to the United States. …

            “At the Quebec summit, Bush mocked the idea of a merger of a North American Union as a fantasy of conspiracy theorists.  ‘It’s quite comical actually, to realize the difference between reality and what some people on TV are talking about.’ …

            “Is Bush oblivious to what his friend Vicente Fox laid down in Madrid in 2002 as the long-term strategy of Mexico?  ‘Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States … an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes as important as … the freedom of movement of capital, goods, services and persons.  The new framework we wish to construct is inspired in the example of the European Union.’ ”

45 MILLION HISPANICS ARE NOW IN U.S.

“Today, already, there are 45 million Hispanics in the United States, perhaps half from Mexico, and 37 million immigrants.

            “Now, Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies projects – using official Census Bureau figures of 1.25 million legal and illegal immigrants entering and staying in the United States every year – a U.S. population of 468 million by 2060.

            “We will add as many people – 167 million – in the next half-century as the entire population of the United States when JFK was elected.

            “Some 105 million of these folks will be immigrants and their children.  That 105 million is equal to the entire population of Mexico, whence most of these folks will be coming.

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin #813, September 15, 2007

BUSH, IN HIS OWN WORDS, IS COMMITTED TO “HEMISPHERIC INTEGRATION” 

            “The cheering gallery for SPP is hysterically chanting that its goal is not a North American ‘union’ modeled on the European Union (and that anyone who thinks otherwise must be peddling conspiracy fears).  But the SPPers candidly admit they want North American ‘integration,’ which may be a distinction without a difference.

            “President Bush started down this trail back on April 22, 2001 when he signed the Declaration of Quebec City in which he made a ‘commitment to hemispheric integration.’  After a Communist dictator took over Venezuela, ‘hemispheric’ was quietly scaled down to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of just North America.” 

CSIS REPORT DUE ON SEPTEMBER 30

            “The lobbyists for integration are bringing heavy-artillery reinforcements to their cause:  a pro-integration report written by a prestigious think tank, the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS).  The report is now being translated into Spanish and French so it can be presented to all three governments on September 30. …” 

“ECONOMIC INTEGRATION” AND “LABOR MOBILITY” ARE CODE WORDS FOR NAU

            “A 25-page advance peek at the report has been released under the caption ‘North American Future 2025 Project.’  The core of the plan for America’s future is North American ‘economic integration’ and ‘labor mobility,’ key words that are repeated again and again in this report.” 

TRANSNATIONAL MIGRATION OF GOODS, CAPITAL, AND LABOR

            “The threat to good American jobs is obvious from the redundancy of demands to import cheap labor without limits:  ‘international migration of labor,’ ‘international movement not only of goods and capital, but also of people,’ ‘mobile labor supply,’ ‘North American labor mobility,’ ‘flows of labor migration,’ and ‘free flow of people across national borders.’ ” 

SEEKING A “CHEAP LABOR” NORTH AMERICAN WORK FORCE

            “The CSIS report explains that ‘border infrastructure means the ‘efficient flow of labor across North American borders’ so we can ‘pool the human capital necessary to source a competitive North American workforce.’  It’s unlikely that U.S. workers want to ‘pool’ their jobs with Mexico where the median minimum wage is $5 a day.” 

INTEGRATION OF GOVERNMENTS IS A KEY GOAL

            “Slyly revealing the plan to integrate governments as well as economies, the report states:  ‘to remain competitive in the global economy, policymakers must devise forward-looking, collaborative policies that integrate governments.’

            “In an attack on the unique American patent system and fountainhead of our innovation superiority, the report calls for ‘harmonizing legislation’ with other countries in the area of intellectual property rights.  The report also calls on us to ‘harmonize’ our regulations of all kinds by adopting ‘unified North American regulatory standards.’ …”

 WALL STREET JOURNAL, PRE-MURDOCH, LEADS THE CHEERS

            “The favorite business authority Peter F. Drucker wrote in his 1993 book Post-Capitalist Society that the European Union ‘triggered the attempt to create a North American economic community, built around the United States but integrating both Canada and Mexico into a common market.’

            “He gleefully added, ‘So far this attempt is purely economic in its goal, but it can hardly remain so in the long run….  The economic integration of the three countries into one region is proceeding so fast that it will make little difference whether the marriage is sanctified legally or not.’

            “The Open Borders/economic integration crowd includes people who are very influential in the business and media establishments.  When Mexican President Vicente Fox called for a North American Union modeled on the European Union, the late Robert Bartley, longtime editorial editor of the Wall Street Journal, said, ‘He [Fox] can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision … this newspaper.’ ”  Source:  Phyllis Schlafly, The Phyllis Schlafly Report, August 2007, pp. 1, 2

USING STEALTH AND DECEPTION SPP INCREMENTALLY PUSHES NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATION 

At the Hudson Institute panel conference held on August 13 in Washington concerning “The Montebello Summit and the Future of North America”, Dr. John Fonte offered these remarks:

            “My vision of the future of North America is rather different from the one you have heard.  I see a 21^st century North [America] consisting of three independent democratic nation states, the United States, Canada, and Mexico.  There would be reasonable cooperation and security and trade, but as sovereign democratic states, they would rule themselves.  For example, American border security would be determined by Americans.  Canadian trade, economic, and energy policies would be determined by Canadians.  And if some of those – America didn’t like some of those policies, well, that is called democracy.” 

NAU PROPONENTS WOULD SUBSTITUTE NORTH AMERICAN IDENTITY FOR NATIONAL HISTORY

            “Mexican education and cultural policy would be determined by Mexicans.  Thus, Mexican schools, for example, would continue to promote Mexican identity to Mexican students, not, as recommended by the Council on Foreign Relations, to, quote, give students a greater sense of North American identity.  I would expect that most ordinary citizens in the United States, Canada and Mexico, would prefer their educational institutions focused on their own national identity and history. …” 

THERE IS NO CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR SPP – THE BASTARD CHILD OF NAFTA

            “On the first point, democracy deficit, the SPP has some very far-reaching goals:  the harmonization of regulation, standards, border immigration policies.  The legal and constitutional authority for SPP is supposedly in the fine print in NAFTA.  But, as has been pointed out, there is no congressional authorization for SPP.  There have been no funds appropriated by Congress directly for SPC – SPP.  There is little oversight or congregational hearings, no real public involvement.  It is not a treaty, no real transparency, except for the material released reluctantly after freedom-of-information requests.” 

SECRET DECISIONS SECRETLY ARRIVED AT

            “Actually, just as an aside, I was rather astounded by the last panel when the question was, should we know who was actually attending these meetings, and the person on the panel said, well, that really wouldn’t serve any purpose if you essentially know who is coming or not.  This tells us something about the mindset at work. …” 

SPP PRIORITIZES COMMERCE OVER NATIONAL SECURITY

            “It’s clear that the SPP document, as it states, the immediate number-one priority is, quote, ‘to facilitate the movement of people across borders of North America.’  Now, unlike Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, SPP does not put – does indeed put commerce over security.  Remember Smith put security over commerce in The Wealth of Nations. …” 

IT WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO ABOLISH PASSPORTS

            “[Jim] Edwards says the SPP reports prioritize speed over security.  I think that is right.  We’ll give you an example here.  The North American Competitiveness Council report of February 2007 [has] the following recommendation:  Develop and adopt a low-cost, easily attainable ID and citizenship-verification document as an alternative to a passport.  And that is almost an invitation to fraud given what we know about fraudulent documents in the immigration business in the last 10 years.” 

SPP WOULD ELIMINATE U.S. BORDERS

            “[SPP] priorities are vaguely written and ambiguous, but implicit is the suggestion there should be one border for all of North America.  Indeed, there is a discussion by the traveler screening system working group of one card….  Well, this is an absolutely crucial issue.  Are we talking about one border for North America, or when you cross the Mexican-Guatemalan border, are you in the United States, in which case our security is dependent on Mexican-border security. …” 

BUSH ADMINISTRATION SEEKS “A TRANSNATIONAL LABOR FORCE”

            “One of the problems is this process has been dominated by corporate special interests and not by the national security interests, by border security interests of the United States.  And I believe that overall that proposals in SPP would actually weaken border security.

            “Let’s look at immigration, labor mobility.  [The] SPP document states temporary work entry – quote, ‘The three countries have forwarded a trilateral document setting out each country’s domestic procedures to modify NAFTA’s temporary appendix of professionals, providing a mechanism for more North American professionals to be given temporary entry.’  Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez said, quote, ‘Work must continue to formalize a transnational labor force that could work in any North American country.’ …”

CONGRESS – NOT THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE – SHOULD SET IMMIGRATION POLICY

            “This is absolutely not a technical issue.  It’s decided in our [C]onstitutional system not by the [S]ecretary of [C]ommerce in consultation with the Chamber of Commerce and foreign governments – by the Congress of the United States of America.  And as we have witnessed recently, in the United States Senate, a bipartisan majority, 37 Republicans, 15 Democrats or so have very different ideas from the Bush administration and from business about what immigration and security policy should and should not consist of. …

            “What we have often in SPP, in North American discussion is an end run around an immigration debate.  Now, there is intellectual framework, and Mr. [Robert] Pastor will be talking about this I’m sure for a North American vision.

            “I want to look briefly at the Council on Foreign Relations’ report.  No, it’s not technically part of SPP, but it’s certainly part of the intellectual framework, part of the vision.  And a lot of the same people are involved.  There [are] two permanent things here that I want to talk about.  One is a trade – the trade tribunal and the other is the promotion of North American identity. …

            “Is that what we really, really want?  In a way, having the world divided into different trading blocks is a negative on free trade to an extent. …” 

CONTROL OF U.S. TRADE BY CONGRESS COULD BE SET ASIDE BY TREATIES U.S. DID NOT RATIFY

            “[T]he Council on Foreign Relations … recommended establishing a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution because the current ad-hoc panels are not capable of building institutional memories or [establishing] precedents.  As demonstrated, quote, ‘by the WTO appeals process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage, faster, more consistent, more predictable resolution disputes.’  Well, that is exactly the problem.  The structure of the World Trade Organization is different from the GATT, the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs.

            “It’s more transnational and less international.  Cornell University professor Jeremy Rabkin, a lot of you know, writes that the appellate of the World Trade Organization should be taken seriously as a threat to sovereignty … the appellate body, could build a body of case law from the international treaties the United States did not sign, as standards for setting trade disputes.” 

BE WARNED BY EU’S USURPATION OF NATION-STATE DECISION MAKING

            “It’s already building a constituency of transnational actors, not just global [corporations] but [inaudible] – activist NGOs that could in large measure, through courts, bypass the legislative decision-making process of the democratic nation states.  Indeed, this is exactly what happened in the European nation states.  Look at the writing of Alec Sweet Stone, A British expert, generally favorable to the EU, but he describes the history of what happened in Europe over a 20-year period.  The European Court of Justice established a body of independent case law, became the arbiter not just of trade but of social policy, and gradually, step by step, achieved dominance over democratically elected European parliaments.  That is the history of the last 40 years in Europe.” 

CFR PUSHES NORTH AMERICAN vs. NATIONAL IDENTITY

            “The Council of Foreign Relations report, ‘Building American – North American Community’ also recommends building North American identity.  It says, quote, ‘encourage – we should encourage in imaginative ways to build North American connections, have research institutes, engage in new concepts such as the North American community, developing curricula that would permit citizens of our three countries to look at each other in the past in different ways.

            “Now, for those of us who have spent years examining history curricula, the subtext of this is clear enough.  This is historical revisionism.  Let’s rewrite the history of American history not as a story of the American people but as a story of North America.  The Council on Foreign Relations also recommends, quote, ‘developing training programs for elementary and secondary teachers who would give some students a greater sense of North American identity.’

            “Again, these are code words that are clear enough:  translation, promoting new North American identity that will challenge the allegedly outmoded conceptions of American, Canadian, or Mexican identity.” 

CFR WOULD PUSH SPANISH, NOT ENGLISH

            “Another CFR recommendation:  greater effort should be made to recruit Mexican language teachers to teach Spanish in the United States and Canada.  Well, on the contrary, most Americans would like to see greater efforts at assisting immigrants learn English.  The CFR recommendation is in direct conflict with U.S. national interests and our traditional policy of Americanizing newcomers into the mainstream of American civic life by promoting the [use] of the English language.  This is a direct challenge to the goal of assimilation.” 

SPP PUSHES NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATION BY STEALTH

            “Well, there is a lack of popular support.  The leaders of the SPP project admit such, that their vision of North America doesn’t quite have the popular support now.  Notes from the Banff meeting (of the North American Forum) state the following:  quote, ‘Most people are not compelled – they don’t find the North American integration vision compelling, so there is a need to demonstrate the concept’s success.’  Another SPP document [declares], while a vision of an integrated North America is appealing, working on the infrastructure might yield more benefit and bring more people on board:  evolution by stealth, evolution by stealth indeed.” 

ENACTING SPP’S ELITIST AGENDA AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE

            “One could ask why government funds are used for propaganda purposes to promote North American integration, which is simply one vision of North America.  [There] are others, and this is a particular partisan vision – it’s a particular, let’s say, elite vision.  There is no wonder that many members of Congress and the general public are suspicious of the project.”  Source: Transcript of conference, 8/13/07

SPP BEGAN WITH NAFTA 

            “The study, Negotiating North America:  The Security and Prosperity Partnership, by Hudson [Institute] Senior Fellow Christopher Sands and University of Alberta Professor Greg Anderson traces the SPP back to its origins in NAFTA and the US-Canada and US-Mexico Smart Border Accords that were adopted after September 11, 2001. …”

EXCLUSION OF CONGRESS IS AN INTRINSIC FLAW

“The exclusion of the US Congress from an active role in the SPP is legally defensible, but politically poisonous for the SPP.  Congress must be brought into the SPP process, although it may now be too late to do so, forcing the leaders to launch a new process.” 

DEMAND THAT SECRECY BE ENDED IS REASONABLE

            “Special interests demands for greater SPP transparency are reasonable, and should be met.  The North American Competitiveness Council established at the Cancun summit was a good step, but the SPP must be opened up to NGOs and citizen groups as well.”  Source:  Christopher Sands, Hudson Institute Press Release, 8/17/07 

RED CHINA WILL CONTROL MONITORING OF NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY 

            “Radio sensing stations to track traffic and cargo up and down the I-35 NAFTA Superhighway corridor are being installed by Communist China, operating through a port operator subsidiary of Hutchison Whampoa, in conjunction with Lockheed Martin and the North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc.

            “The idea is that RFID chips placed in containers where manufactured goods are shipped from China will be able to be tracked to the Mexican ports on the Pacific where the containers are unloaded onto Mexican trucks and trains for transportation on the I-35 NAFTA Superhighway to destinations within the United States.

            “NASCO, a trade association based in Dallas, Texas, has teamed with Lockheed Martin to use RFID tracking technology Lockheed Martin developed for the U.S. Department of Defense’s projects in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at U.S. military stations throughout the world.” 

TROJAN HORSE REPLACES THE MONROE DOCTRINE

            “China has a central position in applying the RFID technology on I-35, given [Hutchison] Port Holdings’ 49 percent ownership of Savi Networks, the Lockheed Martin subsidiary that will get the job of placing the sensors all up and down the NAFTA Superhighway.

            “Nathan Hansen, a Minnesota attorney, has archived on his blog a series of NASCO documents obtained under a Minnesota Data Practices Act.

            “Among these documents released by Hansen is a Letter of Intent between NASCO and Savi Networks which details how NASCO and Lockheed Martin intend to implement NAFTRACS.

            “The letter calls for Savi Networks to establish RFID sensors along the I-35 NAFTA trade corridor, with tracking designed to begin at Manzanillo and Lázaro Cárdenas, and include ‘inland points of data capture’ positioned at Laredo, San Antonio, Dallas, Kansas City, the Ambassador Bridge, and Winnipeg.

            “Data captured by the RFID sensors would be sent to a data collection center that NASCO has named ‘The Center of Excellence.’

            “The Center of Excellence data collection center will be integrated into Lockheed Martin’s militarized Global Transport Network Command and Control Center that is installed and operating at the Lockheed Martin Center for Innovation or ‘Lighthouse’ facility in Suffolk, Virginia. …

            “A contract signed with NASCO authorizes Savi Networks to place a system of RFID sensors along the entire length of I-35 to track RFID equipped containers which travel the I-35 NAFTA Superhighway, including those Chinese containers that enter the continent through the Mexican ports of Manzanillo and Lázaro Cárdenas. …”

HUTCHISON WHAMPOA EXPANDS RED CHINA’S INFLUENCE

            “Hutchison Ports Holding operates the ports at Manzanillo and Lázaro Cárdenas, as well as both ends of the Panama Canal.”  Source:  Jerome Corsi, www.WorldNetDaily.com, 8/18/07

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin #813, August 31, 2007

RON PAUL FORTHRIGHTLY CRITIQUES BUSH PUSH FOR NAU 

HUMAN EVENTS:  “You mentioned the so-called ‘North American Union.’  What comprises that, who’s behind it and why do you even think it’s even real?

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL:  “I think it’s very, very clear.  The government has their own website – the Security and Prosperity Partnership that came out of NAFTA.  There have been agreements signed.  Congress is totally ignorant of the whole thing, although there are funds to study the production of the NAFTA Superhighway.  They’re talking about the ‘Amero’ as a currency.  It’s exactly what happened in the early stages of the European Union. 

HE:  “You believe there is some movement afoot within our government to join us with Canada and Mexico to join us into one country?”

PAUL:  “Ultimately.” 

HE:  “Who’s behind that?”

PAUL:  “Those people who are really in charge of our government.” 

HE:  “Is the President behind this?”

PAUL:  “He is certainly in support of it.  That’s why he doesn’t support us on immigration.  Because he really doesn’t care about the borders, he cares about this union.  Some people theorize that the United Nations is a move towards one world government.  Well, we don’t have one world government, but we ought to be concerned about it.  Whether it’s the UN, the WTO, the IMF or the World Bank, more and more power gravitates to these organizations.  Just as NAFTA does.”  Source:  Human Events, 8/13/07, p. 18

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL BACKS TCC’S Coalition to Block the North American Union 

            “I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute a statement to this important event, and I applaud [T]he Conservative Caucus and my friend Howard Phillips for their hard work in the cause of freedom and US sovereignty.

            “As we all know, the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America (SPP) was signed by the leaders of the US, Canada, and Mexico in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005.  The agreement set the United States on a course to surrender even more of its sovereignty and security in a scheme that will ultimately erase the borders between the US, Canada, and Mexico.

            “What is most troubling about the SPP is that because it is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement Congressional oversight has been virtually non-existent.  Congress has had no role in what many see as a plan for a North American union.  Nor, to its discredit, has it demanded one.”

NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY IS A REALITY

            “The chief project thus far of the SPP is the so-called ‘NAFTA Superhighway’ which would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City.  Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and the northeast.  Millions would be displaced by this massive undertaking, which would require eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale.  Though the costs of this undertaking will be socialized, the profits will no doubt be privatized, as a Spanish construction company, it is said, plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road.”

SUPRA-NATIONAL OVERSIGHT INSTITUTIONS ARE OPENLY PLANNED

            “The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union.  According to the US-government run SPP website, this Partnership will create new supra-national organizations to ‘coordinate’ border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States.  It sounds like a recipe for trans-national socialism and the further destruction of the US economy.  Terrorists surely dream of a borderless North America, where they can move from country to country unmolested.”

VIRGIL GOODE’S HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 40 MERITS SUPPORT

“Congress has thus far ignored its responsibility to exercise Constitutional authority in this matter, as it unfortunately has shirked its responsibilities in so many other matters.  Fortunately, Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) has introduced a resolution, H. Con. Res. 40, to remedy this problem.  This resolution, of which I am an original co-sponsor, urges the United States not to engage in the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway System, disapproves of SPP plans to implement regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada, calls on the President to oppose any such proposals that threaten U.S. sovereignty.  We must demand that American sovereignty be protected!”  Source:  Statement of Congressman Ron Paul, M.D. (R-Tex.), for presentation at August 20, 2007 TCC-hosted Coalition to Block the North American Union press conference in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

PRESIDENT BUSH:  TEAR DOWN THE WALL OF SECRECY 

            In my August 20 remarks as Chairman of the Coalition to Block the North American Union, I had this to say at a well covered news conference at the Marriott Ottawa hotel:  “Recently, the supposed fiftieth anniversary of the European Union (EU) was celebrated.  But 50 years ago there was no European Union.  The EU was launched with the formation of the European Iron and Coal Community.  Culminating step-by-step in the Maastricht Treaty, approved in 1993, the European Union came into being.

“That Union has now, with capitals in Strasbourg, Luxembourg, and Brussels, achieved significant dominance – judicially and legislatively – over what was once the authority of the national governments now part of the European Union.

“In 1993, I led a delegation of some two dozen Americans to visit eight of the countries which were considering approval of the Maastricht Treaty.   During our visit to Luxembourg, that country’s Foreign Minister addressed us, unaware of our skepticism concerning the Maastricht agreement.  He confided to us that, if the people of his country had any idea of what was planned for them, they would rise up in protest.  But the plans of the governing elites were kept secret from the people and, incrementally, those New World Order elites achieved their goal of a European Union.

“In similar fashion, behind closed doors, step-by-step, the leaders of Mexico, Canada, and the United States are setting the stage for, first, a North American Community and, ultimately, a North American Union (NAU), in which new transnational bodies would gain authority over our economy, our judiciary, and our lawmaking institutions.” 

ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND A NORTH AMERICAN BOUNDARY PERIMETER

“Advocates of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) acknowledge that economic integration is their objective, and that they favor the eventual establishment of a border around the perimeters of Canada and Mexico, with no border control separating the United States and Mexico, or the United States and Canada.

“In Europe today, citizens of the 27 constituent states of the European Union can travel virtually at will from country to country.  Border control has been surrendered.  Each person who enters one EU country is free to travel through any and all of the others with virtually no restrictions.

“That is what the elites of the United States, Canada, and Mexico have in mind for us.  That helps explain why the Montebello meeting is being held behind closed doors, with little access to SPP deliberations by the general public or even by the media and elected politicians from the three countries.

“That is why the Coalition to Block the North American Union of which I am Chairman is conducting this news conference.  Our message to Messrs. Bush, Harper, and Calderon is similar to the one which Ronald Reagan delivered to Mikhail Gorbachev when he said ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall.’

“Our message is ‘President Bush, President Calderon, Prime Minister Harper, tear down the wall of silence and let the people see what you are scheming to do.’ ”  Source:  Statement of Howard Phillips, at August 20, 2007 Coalition to Block the North American Union press conference he hosted in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

MONTEBELLO SPP CONFERENCE MOVES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO INCREMENTALLY INTEGRATE U.S., CANADA, AND MEXICO IN A NORTH AMERICAN UNION – WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION OR OVERSIGHT BY U.S. CONGRESS 

            From 8:30 A.M. until 12:30 P.M. on August 13, I participated in a Washington, D.C. conference sponsored by the Hudson Institute concerning “The Montebello Summit and the Future of North America”.

The conference dealt with the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and the North American Union (NAU).  The only speaker who made the case against the integration of North America (undermining the status of America as an independent Constitutional republic) was Dr. John Fonte.  Other speakers included Dr. Barbara Kotschwar of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Dr. Robert Pastor of American University, Daniel Schwanen of the Centre for International Governance and Innovation, Sidney Weintraub of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Jaime Daremblum of the Hudson Institute (HI), former Democrat Congressman James R. Jones, Greg Anderson of the University of Alberta, Christopher Sands of the HI, and Ken Weinstein of the HI. 

ECONOMIC INTEGRATION IS A KEY GOAL

In a paper entitled “Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosperity Partnership”, Professor Anderson and Mr. Sands made some of the following points: “The SPP process is the vehicle for the discussion of future arrangements for economic integration to create a single market for goods and services in North America….  The design of the SPP is innovative, eschewing the more traditional diplomatic and trade negotiation models in favor of talks among civil service professionals and subject matter experts within each government.  This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States….” 

DECISION-MAKING BY TECHNOCRATS UNDERCUTS CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

“The SPP is the successor to two previous efforts that had stalled or expired prior to 2005.  First, a set of trilateral working groups established in the NAFTA to look at harmonizing standards and eliminating differences in regulation….  The design of the SPP is creative in handling asymmetry by attempting a less political, technocratic negotiation process; however, this has raised issues of transparency and accountability that threaten the future of the SPP process”. 

SECRECY IS DESIGNED TO EXCLUDE POPULAR OPPOSITION

The authors acknowledge that “the process must be made more transparent to answer legitimate citizen concerns about potential outcomes.”  They go on to admit that “The design of the SPP is flawed by the exclusion of Congress from the process.” 

“POLITICIZATION” IS GOOD – CONTROL BY UNACCOUNTABLE BUREAUCRATS IS BAD

The authors oppose politicization (which is another word for accountability to American citizens) saying “The design of the SPP made it difficult to include special interest input without politicizing the negotiations.  … the inclusion of some interest groups and not others resulted in a further erosion of confidence in the SPP process.” 

MANIPULATION OF CONGRESS AND THE PEOPLE IS THE SPP STRATEGY

The authors observed that “The United States [i.e. George W. Bush] faces three important challenges in designing and conducting negotiations under the SPP:  managing the asymmetry with smaller neighbors; managing Congress, which has a constitutional role on trade and must be persuaded to fund security measures; and the [sic] managing the pressures from special interests….” 

U.S. SURRENDERS ITS ADVANTAGES

According to the authors, in order to persuade Canada and Mexico to fully cooperate with the Bush administration, it is important for the U.S. to be “structuring negotiations in such a way that the U.S. advantages are minimized, treating negotiators for Canada and Mexico as equals and partners and avoiding any explicit resort to its advantages of size. … The United States has tried to overcome the defensive instincts of its neighbors by structuring negotiations in such a way that the U.S. advantages are minimized….  Incentives for cooperation rise in the presence of expectations about benefits from future cooperation.”  The authors also admit that “In the context of North America, and of deepening continental integration, the management of Congressional relations presents significant challenges for U.S. negotiators….”

AN INCREMENTAL MARCH TO THE NAU

Just as today’s European Union began 50 years ago with the creation of the European Iron and Coal Community, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement negotiations in the 1980s were a first step on the path toward a North American Union (NAU).  These were preceded by the Trade Act of 1974, which created the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations.

It is pointed out in the paper that “Perhaps the most important feature of the SPP design is that it is neither intended to produce a treaty nor an executive agreement like the NAFTA that would require congressional ratification or the passage of implementing legislation in the United States.”

CONGRESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT COULD UNDERCUT CONTROL BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

“The SPP was designed to function within existing administrative authority of the executive branch.  Rules and standards could be set, law enforcement and national security prerogatives pursued, all within the broad parameters of constitutional authority or prior congressional authorization. … With presidential and cabinet-level political support, the dozens of objectives outlined under each of the 20 SPP working groups would proceed on the basis of trilateral consultation at the staff-level within respective government agencies already responsible for those policy areas.

“Shifting the substantive work of the SPP to the staff level, much as the NAFTA working groups had done, would ostensibly depoliticize the policy work being done by leaving it in the hands of technical experts.  Technocratic negotiations would reduce the power-politics dimension of the talks….”

It is asserted that “while shifting responsibility for agenda items to the staff-level could potentially de-politicize work on small issues, it also effectively removed it from the kind of public accountability normally associated with U.S. trade negotiations.”

It is also observed in the paper that “Another intervening factor that altered perceptions of the SPP between Waco and Cancún came in May of 2005 when the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States released its Independent Task Force Report No. 53, Building a North American Community.”  This report “recommended the establishment of a customs union and common security perimeter by 2010.”

The authors point out that “The U.S. Congress has no formal role in the SPP.  As criticism of the lack of transparency and public accountability of the SPP negotiations has grown, congressional interest and concern about the SPP has also grown.  There is now a handful of Members of Congress (concentrated, for now, in the House of Representatives) publicly opposed to proceeding with the SPP, and determined to convene investigations and oversight into the content of the talks.  Congressional hostility represents the biggest threat to the continuation of the SPP after Montebello, and after the end of the Bush administration….”

CONGRESSMAN WALTER JONES VOICES CONCERN OVER “PARTNERSHIP” WITH CANADA AND MEXICO; OPPOSES NORTH AMERICAN UNION

            “Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-NC) today expressed concern over the implications of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) on border security, American jobs and our nation’s sovereignty as President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon convene this week’s North American Leaders’ Summit in Montebello, Canada.

            “ ‘My Eastern North Carolina constituents are troubled by our weakly defended borders, our exploding trade deficit and the erosion of our national sovereignty,’ Congressman Jones said.  ‘As a result, many of them have expressed their concerns about our nation’s leadership role in the SPP.’ ” 

WHITE HOUSE IS ON THE RECORD RE NAU GOALS

            “The SPP is a trilateral partnership between the U.S., Mexico and Canada established in March 2005.  According to a White House document posted on the SPP’s website (www.spp.gov), the Bush administration and that of former Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minster Harper formed the SPP to, among other things, ‘facilitate further the movement of … persons within North America’ and to ‘maximize trade … across our borders by striving to ensure compatibility of regulations and standards and eliminating redundant testing and certification requirements.’  The document also announces that a series of trilateral working groups are convening to harmonize many of America’s regulations with those of Mexico and Canada.” 

BUSH TACTICS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

            “ ‘My constituents and I are extremely concerned about this “partnership” for many reasons,’ Jones continued.  ‘Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that Congress – not the executive branch – has the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations.”  Also, many SPP working group meetings are held in secret, and the public, the press and members of Congress have no opportunity to participate or conduct oversight.’ ”

NAFTA IS A CONTINUING DISASTER

            “ ‘Since NAFTA was approved, the United States has lost 3.1 million manufacturing jobs.  More than 10 thousand illegal aliens now stream across our southern border every week.  The U.S. does not need its government equalizing standards and regulations that will result in more American jobs going to Mexico and more illegal aliens coming to America,’ Jones said.  ‘The SPP also appears to cast aside America’s sovereignty and takes another step towards combining the United States, Mexico and Canada into a single EU-style North American super state.’

            “ ‘While the American people and Congress understand the importance of promoting good relations with our neighbors, these concerns will only intensify if pursuit of the SPP continues out of public view and without congressional oversight or approval,’ Jones concluded.

            “Congressman Jones is an original cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 40, a resolution which states that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.”  Source:  From Washington, D.C., August 20, 2007 Press Release issued by the office of Congressman Walter Jones (R-N.C.). 

PAT BOONE ADDS HIS VOICE 

“When patriot Nathan Hale proclaimed, as he was about to be executed by the British, ‘I regret that I have but one life to give for my country’ – he wasn't referring to Mexico.  He certainly wasn’t referring to Canada.

“No, he was willing and ready to die for the dream called America, under a declaration of independence from the purposes and perversions of other nations.  And like that hero, hundreds of thousands of other Americans have given their lives to preserve tha