Thread: Officials Meet To Implement North American Union

Officials Meet To Implement North American Union
Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Ottawa draws protests
Infowars.net | February 26, 2007
Steve Watson

Condoleeza Rice met with her Canadian and Mexican counterparts in Ottawa over the weekend to discuss plans for a North American Union at a secretive Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) meeting that has received scant media coverage outside of a few Canadian news outlets .
During a joint press conference with MacKay, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa, two dissenters, who had infiltrated, took to the stage in an effort to protest against the secretive and backhanded manner in which the SPP movement is being conducted. The two were quickly escorted off the premises.
Click here for a short video.
A Canadian report describes the SPP as "an international framework for trilateral and bilateral cooperation in North America" that is "not a formal international treaty" or "an overarching binding legal agreement." But what is an "international framework" that commits U.S. officials from various federal agencies to working with officials of two other countries? Why is such a process not subjected to congressional scrutiny and approval?
Last September we reported that Journalist Jerome Corsi has received the first documents pertaining to a FOIA request asking for full disclosure of the SPP office in its activities towards creating a Pan American Union.

According to a report by World Net Daily , the documents reveal that the Bush administration is running a "shadow government" without congressional oversight in conjunction with Canada and Mexico under the guise of a program "to increase security and to enhance prosperity among the three countries through greater cooperation."
Corsi asserts that a wide range of US administrative law is being re-written in stealth under this program to "integrate" and "harmonize" with administrative law in Mexico and Canada.
The documents contain references to upwards of 13 working groups within an entire organized infrastructure that has drawn from officials within most areas of administrative government including 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.
Corsi also reported that at a recent high-level confab in Banff, an assistant U.S. secretary of state, Thomas A. Shannon , chaired a panel that featured a presentation by Prof. Robert Pastor, author of a book promoting the development of a North American union as a regional government and the adoption of the amero as a common monetary currency to replace the dollar and the peso.

Move to conspiracy theory forum??

OMG is there a point to this thread?

Hey, when we join the North American Union will we get longer coffee breaks?

Originally Posted by Roach

Move to conspiracy theory forum??

Is that because you don't believe its happening? I hate to tell you but Conspiracies are real. Conspiracy theories are something else though.

This is happening

Media Cover-Up

Accuracy in Media attended the conference in order to produce this report and shed light on a process that is being conducted largely beyond the scrutiny of the public or the Congress.

AIM has previously documented that Pastor's campaign for a North American Community has received precious little attention from the major media, except for the notable case of CNN's Lou Dobbs, who has called it "utterly mad." In fact, a survey of news coverage discloses that several high-profile mentions of the concept of a North American economic, social or political entity have come from Pastor himself, such as a Newsweek International article that he wrote.

The conference, conducted in cooperation with the American Society of International Law, an organization affiliated with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, was held at the American University Washington College of Law. A large number of speakers came from American University.
Overruling the U.S. Supreme Court

Academic literature distributed in advance to conference participants about a common legal framework for the U.S., Canada and Mexico included proposals for a North American Court of Justice (with the authority to overrule a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court), a North American Trade Tribunal, a North American Court of Justice, and a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights for North America, also dubbed the North American Social Charter.

Under the latter concept, according to Laura Spitz of the University of Colorado Law School, North Americans might be able to enjoy "new rights" essential to "human flourishing" such as gay marriage. She argues in one paper that U.S. economic integration with Canada will make it nearly impossible for the United States not to recognize same-sex marriage so long as it is lawful in Canada.

Pastor himself talked about new institutions, such as a "permanent tribunal" on trade issues, but emphasized that such ideas "take time" and have to "take root." He advised conference participants to "think about the horizon," in terms of what is possible, over the course of 5, 10 or even 20 years from now.

Conservative concerns about Pastor's agenda were not assuaged by conference literature disclosing that the CNAS is sponsoring an event in May in which students participate in a model "North American Parliament." The concept suggests creation of a regional body to supersede the U.S. Government itself.

Such talk does indeed raise the specter of a North American Union similar to the currently functioning European Union, a political and economic entity of 27 European states that includes a European Parliament and a European Court of Justice. The EU has been charged with usurping the sovereignty of member states and moving European nations in a left-wing direction on matters such as acceptance of abortion and gay rights and abolition of the death penalty.

Indeed, the academic literature distributed to conference participants alluded to how the three countries of North America are "polarized" on "sensitive" cultural issues such as the death penalty, abortion and gay marriage and that it might take a long time to "harmonize" their legal systems on such matters.

While Pastor, a foreign policy advisor to each of the Democratic presidential candidates since 1976, tried to dismiss talk of a North American Union, he did emphasize in his remarks to the conference that North America is "more than a geographical entity" and is in fact a "community." His 2001 book, Toward a North American Community, begins by emphasizing his status as a resident of North America, rather than just a U.S. citizen, and outlines a vision of the three countries taking their relationship "to a new level."

Rather than use the phrase "union," he described the creation of an "emerging entity called North America" growing out of the fact that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), passed in 1993, had brought about a "remarkable degree of economic integration" among the three countries. One panel was devoted to analyzing how NAFTA could be expanded into the areas of intellectual property and taxation and regulations.
Attacking Conservatives

One speaker, Stephen Zamora of the University of Houston Law School, denounced the idea of a wall separating Mexico and the U.S., in order to control illegal immigration, asking, "What does citizenship mean anymore?" He expressed pleasant surprise when a Mexican in the audience said she had dual citizenship in Mexico and the U.S. Later, he said he was just as concerned about people living in Mexico as people living in the U.S.

Another speaker, Tom Farer, Dean of the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver, made a point of saying that his representative in Congress, Tom Tancredo (R-Col.), a staunch advocate of U.S. border security, was a backward thinker. Tancredo could be seen "dragging his knuckles along the ground," Farer said, trying to crack a joke.
No Border Control

Pastor acknowledged that the U.S. Government doesn't want to enforce its immigration laws. He said, however, that the solution is not a fence, except in some isolated high-crime areas along the border, and it's not to punish companies for hiring illegal aliens, since identity documents can be too easily forged. He said the solution is a national biometric and fraud-proof identification card that identifies national origin and legal status.

Another part of his solution, a $200-billion North American Investment Fund, is for the purpose of narrowing the income disparity between Mexico , on the one hand, and the U.S. and Canada, on the other. "You need a lot of money to do it and do it effectively," he said. He said Mexico would be required to put up half of the money, with the U.S. contributing 40 percent and Canada 10 percent. It would be done over 10 years.

The fund, he said, would focus on economic development in the southern and middle parts of Mexico, which haven't been touched to any significant degree by NAFTA. This, he indicated, would go a long way toward stemming illegal immigration to the U.S.

So the failures of NAFTA are now being used not to repeal the measure but to expand it and increase foreign AID to Mexico.

Pastor said Senator John Cornyn, known as a conservative Republican, had introduced his North American Investment Fund as a bill in Congress but had backed away from it under conservative fire.
The Nature of NAFTA

An important moment in the conference occurred when Alan Tarr, director of the Centeor State Constitutional Studies at Rutgers University, was challenged about glossing over President Clinton's submission of NAFTA as an agreement, requiring only a majority of votes in both Houses of Congress for passage, and not a treaty, requiring a two-thirds vote in favor in the Senate. NAFTA passed by votes of 234-200 in the House and 61-38 in the Senate. Tarr said he had not intended to be uncritical of what Clinton did. Pastor quickly interjected that there was nothing improper in submitting NAFTA as an agreement rather than a treaty.

But Clinton's move was seen at the time as an effort to bypass constitutional processes, and the United Steelworkers challenged NAFTA's constitutionality in court. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001, after lower courts had thrown the case out, saying it was a political matter between the president and Congress. The Bush Administration sided with Clinton and the Supreme Court declined to get involved.

The history of NAFTA is one reason why so many conservatives are concerned that a North American Community could be transformed into a North American Union that runs roughshod over U.S. constitutional processes and guarantees.

One of the main concerns of conservatives, who have formed a "Coalition to Block the North American Union," has been the lack of congressional interest and oversight. They are backing a bill introduced by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) to put Congress on record against a North American Union.
The Secretive SPP

....continued

© 2007 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved
Accuracy In Media
Reprinted with Permission by The August Review

The August Review - North American Union "Conspiracy" Exposed

There is no conspiracy here. There is no hiding this fact from the people as they haven't even tried. This is a plain as day venture that will effect each and every person in the United States and beyond. This isn't a thread about 911 or Oklahoma where the facts are skewed a bit, this is an honest venture that many Americans are against.

It is really up to you as people.

Global society or borders. You decide.

I agree this thread is misplaced.

Originally Posted by johnflesh

There is no conspiracy here. There is no hiding this fact from the people as they haven't even tried. This is a plain as day venture that will effect each and every person in the United States and beyond. This isn't a thread about 911 or Oklahoma where the facts are skewed a bit, this is an honest venture that many Americans are against.

It is really up to you as people.

Global society or borders. You decide.

Well it seems someone one this forum just can't handle the truth and has put it in a box were it will be ignored. We are only talking about the future of the USA, and then of our way of life.

Its so not real I guess, it keeps showing up on CNN YouTube - North American Union Traitors Include Chertoff, Rice, Bush

Its open treason, but it seems some "Americans" don't want to help America, thats very sad. Home of the free and land of the Brave...my butt.

"not a formal international treaty" or "an overarching binding legal agreement."

Oh my God! A non-binding, informal, unofficial joint statement. Get the rifle Alice.

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

Oh my God! A non-binding, informal, unofficial joint statement. Get the rifle Alice.

The Elites by pass government and own our leaders.

they do not need to go though set policy they are above it because they are above our leadership.

I hope you don't have kids.... I knew this crap was coming 20 years ago, but I didn't know how...and today here it is in all its glory.

The elites don't care about the USA, they don't care about the people, they don't care about the environment, and they HATE GOD.

The only think they care about is their "VISION" their "Federation of man"..their NEW WORLD ORDER. They care not what cost it costs us. Everything thats going on is at our expense...not theirs...they are willing to sacrifice US..a. to gain their vision.

They do not hold our world view...they do not care how many die and suffer to gain what they want...its just tough darts for us...while they sit in their mansions and dictate.

NO JOKE! REAL DEAL...WAKE UP.