| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Big North American Union Meeting In August |
| 2007-07-16 |
| In a month, August 20 and 21, the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico will sit down together in Montebello, Quebec to discuss making the borders between these three nations disappear. They will discuss progress on a vast highway project passing through America to link Mexico with Canada. So far, no one has asked the citizens of these three nations whether they want to do this. It is not up for a vote in Congress and, indeed, Congress has no supervision over the gnomes in the U.S. Department of Commerce who are busily “harmonizing” the laws under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). This, we’re told, is not a treaty so Congress has no constitutional oversight obligation. I guess it’s more like a nice big handshake between the presidents and prime minister of these three nations who, let’s face it, just know better than the rest of us. I mean, do Canadians really think they’re in charge of Canada? Americans should have a say about programs affecting America? Or has anyone asked Mexicans if they want to be part of some “harmonized” configuration not unlike the European Union? Last time I checked, the European Union lacked a constitution because some of its member states, notably France, had rejected the one that was offered. The Constitutions of the United States, Canada and Mexico are about three sovereign states determining their own regulations and laws. So far, fourteen U.S. States have passed resolutions in their respective and sovereign legislatures directing the federal government to abandon further activities involving SPP. Part of the opposition is directed at what is generally called the NAFTA Superhighway; an exceptionally wide corridor that would include rail lines, freeways, and pipelines from Mexico to the Canadian border. The Texas legislature passed a law intended to slow down the highway project with a two-year moratorium. The vote in the Texas House was 137-2. The Texas Senate passed it with only four votes in opposition, but the Governor vetoed it in late June, thus opening the door to the seizure of the private property needed for the Trans Texas Corridor (TCC). Turns out that Texas had already signed a 50-year lease with a private Spanish company named Cintra, one that permits for no competition by way of building new government roads or improving existing ones going in the same direction. Why are we not surprised to know that SPP was kicked off in 2005 by a meeting in Crawford, Texas of the then-presidents of the three nations hosted by President George W. Bush, a former Governor of Texas? Bush has been a leading proponent of the “immigration reform” legislation that more than two-thirds of Americans polled say they do not want. Tucked into those “reforms” were provisions to advance SPP. A Teddy Kennedy amendment to S. 1348 asserts that, “It is the sense of the Congress that the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico, which will lead to reduced immigration.” Oh, yeah? And here I thought the economic well being of Mexico was the job of the Mexican government. As this is written, the President and the Congress have the lowest popularity ratings ever. Perhaps it has something to do with a secretive process involving the highest levels of government and a consortium of multinational corporations who are eager for the nation-busting North American Union and the superhighway? Indeed, “secretive” is the mode of operation for SPP from the beginning. Last year, from September 12 to 14, a gathering sponsored by something called the North American Forum, brought together some very powerful people, but the media was not informed about it, nor has a list of attendees been available. One Canadian commentator has written that, “There is no better indication that these meetings and the SPP itself, constitute a parallel governing structure—unaccountable to any democratic institution or the public.” This is not the way America, Canada, and presumably, Mexico, is supposed to be governed. The public outcry against the proposed immigration reform bill was enough to kill it in its present form. In his book, “The Late Great U.S.A.” ($25.95, WND Books), Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., warns that, “There are movements afoot in Mexico, Canada, and the United States, similar to those in Europe that led to the formation of the European Union that, if left unchecked, will erode U.S. sovereignty and lead to a North American Union.” Perhaps when Congress begins to raise our taxes, authorize a superhighway, and offer yet another amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, the American people may take notice and want to do something about it. By then, however, it will be too late. That’s what President Bush is counting on. Meanwhile, he has a big calendar counting down the days to January 20, 2008 when he can start cashing in on having sold out the rest of us. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #12 I dunno, Cyber Sarge. That whole amnesty deal really soured a lot of people. I mean, how was that "right for America"? What in the hell was he talking about? And look at Europe. Pretty weird. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-07-16 19:14 |
| #11 You people really are gullable. how do you get from a public works project that would benifit three countries to the U.S. giving up our rights to ???Mexico??? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-07-16 18:51 |
| #10 Might not be so bad if I could buy a house on the beach in Acapulco but I just can't believe that I would ever be safe under the Mexican legal system. I'd worry about drinking the water too. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-07-16 16:26 |
| #9 I suggest that GWB do some serious thinking before trying any of this sh$$, if it's indeed on the menu. Our military swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution", not the government or the President. There are also some 200 million firearms in this country, and people that know how to use them. Trying to force this down the throat of the people would definitely result in another revolution - one far more deadly than the last one. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-07-16 15:58 |
| #8 The vote in the Texas House was 137-2. The Texas Senate passed it with only four votes in opposition, but the Governor vetoed it in late June, thus opening the door to the seizure of the private property needed for the Trans Texas Corridor (TCC). Doesn't Texas allow for a veto override? Or was the 137 to 2 vote just fer fun? |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2007-07-16 14:47 |
| #7 JSU: The very basis of such efforts is predicated on evading such restrictions. The EU was slapped together in much the same manner. It uses a three-pronged approach of gradualism, incrementalism, and a strict avoidance of any democratic process that could derail it, to overcome resistance. First they start by introducing "frameworks" for "economic union", in this case, NAFTA and the FTAA, which gives other nations access to each other's legal systems. This allows say, a Mexican company to sue a US company in US court, if the US Congress or President decides that they can't merge. These paper agreements are then augmented by creating transportation and business systems that transcend the borders, such as the Mexico-US-Canada super corridor. The really extreme stuff is poo-poo'ed early on: "We have no intention of introducing the single currency of the Amero (Euro)", or eliminating border controls, or having a single parliament (like the European Parliament) take sovereignty away from the national governments." Importantly, they believe that if they can just build up enough momentum, then eventually they can steamroller over the opposition, as they did and continue to do in Europe. It was a tremendous mistake for them to allow the hoi-polloi to vote on their constitution, and you see what it got them. So quickly they have decided to have their constitution anyway, just not call it that, and to heck with what the masses think. The biggest irony of all is that the entire thing was based on a flawed axiom: that national borders really have to intrinsic meaning. The light never dawned that such borders arose for very, very good reasons, and that those reasons still remain. The EU still exists. As did the Holy Roman Empire, its progenitor, the Holy Roman Empire. And there is a good chance that the EU may collapse as a governing body, as did the HRE, yet continue to survive, as a powerless and ineffectual joke, for another 900 years. No reason we should make the European mistake. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-07-16 14:37 |
| #6 This is pure black helicopter stuff. In the US, treaties and other foreign agreements have only the force of the domestic laws implementing them If you don't like any particular policy, you can kill it here; there's no shadowy super-law that can stop you. Improved trade infrastructure makes perfect sense, and is not inconsistent with securing the borders. |
| Posted by: JSU 2007-07-16 13:09 |
| #5 Personally, I would have little opposition to an expanded USA. However, that would mean the USA taking control of additional land in North America. If the Canadians and Mexicans don't mind, we should submit a timetable for induction of specific parcels of land. First, however, I would consider the addition of such states to our body politic. To ease this transformation, I would be sure to include equal parts Canada and Mexico with enough time to complete each expansion. Also, in order to keep the Senate within manageable size, smaller states would have to consolidate to free up Senate seats. I expect Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont to join upstate New York as a state. Mass, Rhode Island, and Conneticut would become another state, Long Island, New York City and the lower counties of New York could join New Jersey, while West Virginia would rejoin with Virginia and the rest of that area, once Maryland and Delaware would be called Pennsylvania. That would give us 16 Senate seats to fool with. And sinse most of the Senators from those states are useless assholes anyway, it would be a fine move. It's the president however who is the big fool in this case. One party hates him, the other party has lost respect for him, so he goes off site to trade what is not his for acceptance and recognition. Mr. President, sir, go 'F' yourself with a chainsaw. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-07-16 13:03 |
| #4 Although I feel there are several legitimate grounds for impeaching Bush... Yeah, the list just goes on and on. Since it is a slow day, perhaps you could enumerate the top ten for our enlightenment and amusement. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-07-16 12:54 |
| #3 January 20, 2008 is a year early. Just saying. It would have been nice to know which 14 states have passed resolutions. Here they are, courtesy of a site called "Vive Le Canada" (Is that like a Canadian John Birch Society or something? A John Maple Society?) Idaho represents the 14th state to introduce anti-NAU and SPP resolutions. The other states include Arizona (S.C.M. 1002), Illinois (H.J.R. 29), Georgia (S.R. 124), Missouri (S.C.R. 15 and H.C.R. 33), Montana (H.J.R. 25), Oklahoma (S.C.R. 10), Oregon (S.J.M. 5), South Carolina (S. 416 and H. 3185), South Dakota (S.C.R. 7), Tennessee (S.J.R. 88), Utah (H.J.R. 7), Virginia (S.J.R. 442 and S.J.R. 387), and Washington (H.J.M. 4018 and S.J.M. 8004). I'm stunned, as a former resident, to see Illinois in the list. (Who knows whether it passed in Springfield after introduction?) |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-07-16 12:53 |
| #2 the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico will sit down together in Montebello, Quebec to discuss making the borders between these three nations disappear. So far, no one has asked the citizens of these three nations whether they want to do this. Christalmighty! These traitors better not try to give away our soverneignty. They need to quit being stuck in the stupid mode. First it was the amnesty bill, now this $hit. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-07-16 12:53 |
| #1 Although I feel there are several legitimate grounds for impeaching Bush, this surely rises to the top of the heap. Talk about High Crime against the Republic. Totally undermining all precepts of our Constitution certainly qualifies. It's amazing what the elitists think they can get away with right out in front of the public, due to their abiding interest in Paris Hilton's latest troubles. |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter2970 2007-07-16 12:48 |