|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
The North American Union - You Could Be Voting Your Rights Away (NaturalNews) One issue that is conspicuously absent from the rhetoric of the presidential candidates is the North American Union (NAU). The questions of immigration and border security are frequently raised and the candidates claim to realize the need for a clear immigration policy and effort to secure the borders of the United States. Yet when you begin to understand the purposes of the North American Union and the agenda of its proponents, you will understand why this will never happen. And you may also begin to see that you are being manipulated by the major candidates. The NAU, a goal of the Council on Foreign Relations, follows a plan laid out by Robert Pastor. It is currently promoted by the Bush administration to expand the size and scope of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). Its goal is to effectively create a North American trading block by erasing the borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada resulting in free, unimpeded movement of people and goods across those borders. It is also a political union that would integrate the governments of the three countries. And clearly it is an economic union with the intention of equalizing the wages and standard of living of all but the ruling elitists. Sounds a lot like the European Union, doesn’t it? There are even plans for a common currency called the amero. But there is one glaring difference. The people of the United States have never been asked if they want to become integrated with Mexico and Canada, two countries of enormously different laws, culture, economic systems, standards of living, and acceptance of the role of government. The European Union followed years of open debate at all levels, intense coverage of the ramifications and implications in major media, and a vote of the people. History and Origins of NAU President Bush signed the Declaration of Quebec City in April, 2001, making a “commitment to hemispheric integration”. After Hugo Chavez of Venezuela voiced opposition, these plans were scaled back to include only North America. The Independent Task Force on North America, a project organized by the Council on Foreign Relations and co-chaired by Robert Pastor, was launched in October, 2004. This group published two documents: Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010 (March, 2005), and its final report Building a North American Community (May, 2005). This Task Force had as its central recommendation the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community. The boundaries of this community would be defined by a common external tariff and outer security perimeter. Also called for is the replacing of all three branches of the US government with a North American version effectively ending U.S. representative government. In March 2005, at their summit meeting in Waco, Texas; Bush, President Fox of Mexico and Prime Minister Martin of Canada issued a joint statement announcing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The creation of this agreement was never submitted to Congress for discussion or decision. The U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division implementing working groups to advance a North American Union agenda. This agenda included movement of goods, finances, e-commerce, environment, business facilitation, food and agriculture, and health. The result is an action agreement to be implemented immediately and directly by regulations, without any envisioned Congressional debate or oversight. In September 2006, Rep. Virgil Goode (Va), Rep. Ron Paul (Tx), Rep. Walter Jones (NC), and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Co) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 487, expressing concerns about the NAU. Resolution was passed by the House of Representatives with the Senate concurring that the U.S. should not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; the U.S. should not engage in the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway System, and the President should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the U.S. In October 2006, Congressman Paul formally denounced the formation of the SPP and the plans for the North American Union and the SPP as “an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments”. Paul says that the real issue raised by the SPP is nation sovereignty. “Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.” In this speech Paul predicts that the NAU will become a sleeper issue for the 2008 election, stating that “any movement toward a NAU diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live.” A report authored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIC) was presented to all three governments in September 2007. CSIC is a political influence group of internationalists who have crafted many of the government policies of the past several years. At the core of the report is its plan for America’s future, North American “economic integration” and “labor mobility”. The plan for government integration is also revealed as the report states: “to remain competitive in the global economy, policymakers must devise forward-looking, collaborative policies that integrate governments”. Also called for is the adoption of “unified North American regulatory standards”. Features of NAU: The Trans-Texas Corridor and the NAFTA Superhighway The NAFTA Superhighway and its entry point at the trans-Texas corridor were first proposed in 2002. It consists of a 1,200 foot wide highway that also carries utilities such as electricity, petroleum and water as well as railway tracks and fiber-optic cables. When completed, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the U.S. through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union. With Mexican drivers and without the involvement of the teamsters union, the Mexican trucks will drive straight into the heart of the US, crossing the border in fast lanes, and checked only by a new electronic system. The first customs stop will be the new Smart Port complex in Kansas City. From there the trucks may disperse into the U.S. or continue northward into Canada, again crossing the border with only an electronic checkpoint. Millions of acres of land for the completion of this highway will be taken under the new laws of eminent domain. A government pilot program has allowed Mexican trucking companies to make deliveries anywhere in the U.S. since April 2007, even before the completion of the superhighway. There is no limit on the number of trucks the 100 companies in the pilot program can operate. Eventually all Mexican trucking companies are to be granted the same access. These Mexican drivers are paid substantially less that their U.S. counterparts, their operations are not regulated, and they are driving on U.S. taxpayer subsidized roads. The Amero This is the name of what may be the North American Union’s counterpart to the euro. It was first proposed by Canadian economist Herbert G. Grubel in his book The Case for the Amero published in 1999, the same year the euro became currency. Robert Pastor supported Grubel’s idea in his book Toward A North American Community published in 2001. If implemented, the Amero’s debut may come later in the progression of the NAU, with exchange rates that depend on market forces at the time, after the economies of the three countries have been integrated and homogenized. The North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza Finalized and released at the September 2007 summit of the SPP, this plan calls for a “comprehensive coordinated North American approach during outbreaks of influenza." It gives authority to international officials “beyond the health sector to include a coordinated approach to critical infrastructure protection,” including “border and transportation issues”. It sets up a “senior level Coordinating Body to facilitate the effective planning and preparedness within North America for a possible outbreak of avian and/or human influenza pandemic under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).” The SPP is to act as “decision-makers.” “The chair of the SPP Coordinating Body will rotate between each national authority on a yearly basis” resulting in foreign decision making for Americans in two out of every three years. The plan suggests that these powers will include “the use of antivirals and vaccines... social distancing measures, including school closures and the prohibition of community gatherings, isolation and quarantine.” Council on Foreign Relations Since its inception in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has attracted men and women of power and influence. Its stated intentions are to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. The ultimate, declared aim of the CFR is to create a one-world government, and to make the U.S. a part of it. The stated intentions of the CFR are clearly treasonous to the U.S. Constitution. The influence of the CFR is wide. Not only does it have members in the U.S. government, but its influence has also spread to other vital areas of American life. Members have run, or are running, NBC and CBS, the New York Times, and The Washington Post, and many other important newspapers. The leaders of Time, Newsweek, Fortune, Business Week, and numerous other publications are CFR members. The organization’s members also dominate the political world. U.S. presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have been CFR members with the exception of Ronald Reagan. The organization’s members also dominate Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rudy Guiliani are all either members of the CFR or have close ties with it. Mike Huckabee is reportedly not a member, but following his interaction with the group in September, he has become a favored candidate in the eyes of the media. Republican Ron Paul is the only remaining significant candidate who does not have ties with the CFR. He has has voiced opposition to the NAU for several years. Where Do You Stand on This Issue? There is an ideological battle being waged between the forces supporting globalism and the forces supporting national sovereignty. If you plan to participate in the 2008 presidential election, you will need to answer these questions for yourself: Do you believe in the timelessness of the Constitution, or do you believe that the Constitution has served its usefulness and it’s time for another model for government? Are you in favor of international government and more regulation by the United Nations, or do you favor continuation of the institutions that have served the U.S. in the past? Do you want big government with its attendant costs and regulations, or do you favor small government that allows for self direction? About the author Site with lots of info and links about loss of liberty and the NAU: "Once people realize they can control their own lives, that their own power exists within them rather than outside of themselves...then the controlling game is over." "Strange times are these in which we live, when old and young are taught falsehoods in school, and the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once, a lunatic and fool." -- Plato Voters Choose to Perpetuate the Superhero Presidency (NaturalNews) There is no other office on earth that can captivate us like the presidency of the United States. The 2008 candidates have given us an entire season of debates so we know the fine points of the differences between them. While the average civics teacher will tell you that Americans do not appreciate their national political heritage nearly enough, it is all too clear that the typical American is not only captivated with the presidency during election season, but has lifted the president to the stature of mythical hero. It is this awe for the presidency that has allowed presidents from Washington to Bush to exercise powers never allowed to them under the Constitution. Many of the abuses of the power of the presidency are derived from the president’s role as commander-in-chief, a position that was designed to accommodate Washington, a military general. It is the combination of president and commander- chief that, in the minds of many Americans, lifts the holder of the office to archetypal or mythical status. The president of the United States has far more power than any office in the history of humanity, powers reminiscent of those of the Greek superhero Hercules or the Sumerian king Gilgamesh. The current president claims the right to detain, torture and kill anyone on earth and to initiate wars and occupations in any nation of his choice without approval from any people or country. The president claims the right to levy taxes at will, seize anything, prohibit anything, mandate anything, spy on anyone, and require all jurisdictions to bend to his will. Although his power to alter reality is limited by the economic realities of the country, the holocaustic power of the modern presidency extends to the nuclear weapons within his reach. It doesn’t matter who the president is. The end result of the presidency is almost always the loss of many lives through war. Even the best presidents violated the Bill of Rights, instituted regressive taxation, engaged in detrimental foreign diplomacy, and increased intrusive police powers. The worst presidents rank among the greatest political criminals in the annals of history. Yet most Americans hold fast to their heroic image. It’s just a matter of which would-be tyrant in swashbuckler’s clothing should get the job. Could the power of the president be retrenched? Ron Paul’s failed presidential bid showed us that a politician can facilitate big steps toward liberty only to the extent that he is supported by public opinion. As he has acknowledged, it is only a classical liberal culture, not great individuals standing alone, that makes a society free. This classical liberal culture would be one composed of grown up individuals who have achieved freedom in the classical existential manner, by accepting total responsibility for themselves. This kind of individual is his own superhero. So, ironically, even the president does not have the power to bring down the modern presidency, whose powers are of epic proportion and greater than any single human who might occupy that office. Presidential power is a reflection of the collective national political climate, as well as the collective national consciousness that worships presidential supremacy. Even now, in a time when presidential approval ratings are close to all time lows, no one wants to give it up. Consider the current lot of candidates, McCain, Obama, and Clinton. All say they stand for change, yet all three want to uphold the infrastructure of the imperial presidency. Each is tied to the Council on Foreign Relations, committed to the North American Union and the New World Order. These are modern day epic characters whose agenda’s are no different in proportion than the great Herculean feats. Each candidate wants to greatly expand the presidency in one way or another. Each represents an archetype. All are master politicians adept at telling us what we want to hear. And their campaigns give us what we long for most in a president – someone to make us feel warm and fuzzy about being Americans. Modern politicians get votes not so much based on their political stances, but on how they make people feel about America. When Americans like the president, they also tend to think more highly of the presidency. They want more from their government, and are less bothered when it commits great wrongs. But this all encompassing pride in the presidency is what has allowed it to become the nations’ master and a giant menace to the rest of the world. It is unfortunate that Americans project onto the presidency the responsibility for providing them with cultural identity, patriotism, and self-respect. These are characteristics the truly free individual is able to provide for himself. In his article Our Enemy, The Presidency, Anthony Gregory views the presidency as too powerful, inherently corrupting, and inhumanely destructive. In his view, "The presidency as it supposedly should be, under the Constitution, is a relatively humble office overseeing the executive branch, one of the three composing a radically restrained government with very limited enumerated powers. Today, the presidency overshadows the other branches, the states, and all Constitutional and statutory limits on its power.” How did it get to the point that 300 million people, and to a great extent the rest of the world, have to live under the rule of one all-powerful official? Is it our wish to remain in a childlike state relying on a figure endowed with epic powers to take care of us? Is it for this that we are willing to sacrifice our freedom as individuals? Ron Paul’s campaign was the closest in modern electoral history to being a campaign against the omnipotent presidency itself. His message to us was to grow up and take responsibility for our own lives and freedom, healing ourselves of the need for the mighty superhero to take care of us. But we have chosen instead, as Gregory puts it “to love and celebrate the presidency, looking to it as savior, moral guardian for the nation, stabilizer of the economy, provider of goods and necessities, protector against evil and liberator of the world.” We have chosen to remain in the state of childhood, reveling in the adventures of our superheros. Source: Lew Rockwell.com Our Enemy: The Presidency by Anthony Gregory |
 |
 |
||
