In yet another ploy to usurp the power of our national constitution, president George W. Bush is pushing ahead with a plan for the North American Union. This plan, like so many before it, has the support of elite Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans since it will further integrate the three countries’ economies and add additional wealth to their coffers. However, what is the cost to the average citizen? First of all, one must understand that this plan is going by various names and euphemisms, such as the North American Security and Prosperity Initiative, NAFTA — Plus, or the Grand Bargain, but regardless the end result will be to create a new political and economic entity that would supercede the constitutions of the various countries involved. Why should anyone be surprised to see this happening when it has been obvious for so long that president Bush is a deceiver and a liar who is seeking to undermine our constitutional rights and give him the possible opportunity to become the first long-term dictator of the United States — something that he has envisioned since 9/11.

Anyone with a propensity to look at things from the evangelical right may conclude that this is just another foreordained step towards a one world government and the beginning of the reign of the anti-Christ. For others it is just an economic strategy to combat and be competitive with the newly formed European Union. Like the EU, the American Union would replace each of the countries’ independent currencies with a common currency called the Amero and everything from environmental regulations to security would be brought in line with a common standard. Vive le Canada opposes the creation of this union because it believes that it will mean the loss of Canadian sovereignty and democracy as it hands over more power to unelected corporations. At the Web site, individuals can see the timeline of the progress the three countries are making towards a new North American Union. For those of us in the United States we need to also fear the loss of our guaranteed constitutional rights if this union succeeds.

For Canada, its fears are that, unlike the European Union, the countries joining the American Union are not equal in size or power. This means that the United States and, therefore, the Bush Administration, could confer their vastly unpopular policies on both themselves and Mexico. Vive le Canada believes that erasing their border with the United States would mean adopting the United States policies as well as creating a climate of insecurity in the realms of economics, military strategies, and an environment of political instability that would jeopardize its standing with the rest of the world. The first step towards uniting these three countries actually began in 1921 when Edward Mandell House, the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson, founded the Council on Foreign Relations. However, this first step was relatively informative in nature and it wasn’t until 1973 when David Rockefeller joined with fellows from the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Ford Foundation that the Trilateral Commission was formed. This commission is made of the top political and business leaders from around the world. This commission quickly began taking steps to control foreign affairs when in 1974 it published its first major article, “The Hard Road to World Order.” In the article, Richard Gardner wrote: “In short, the house of world order would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” If you read the article you will see that Gardner advocated trade agreements as a means of creating a new economic world order.

It is interesting to note that for the next five years things were relatively quiet until President Ronald Reagan came on the scene and proposed the “North American Agreement” which was geared at producing a one country government between Canada, the United States, and Mexico that would allow goods and people from the three countries to cross boundaries at will. While this original proposal was presented in 1979 during his campaign for president, by January of 1981 he officially proposed the North American Common Market. It then took until October of 1984 for the U.S. Congress to adopt the Trade and Tariff Act that extended the powers of the president to concede trade benefits and to enter into bilateral free trade agreements. Once this statute was in place, the Canadian Royal Commission issued a report to the Government of Canada recommending free trade with the United States.

Once all of the United States and Canadian ducks were in order, Mexico was approached and in November 1987 it signed an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico to establish a free trade zone between the two countries. By April of 1991, cooperation agreements had also been signed between Mexico and Canada covering taxation, cultural production, and exports. This set in place all of the negotiations for the signing of NAFTA on August 12, 1992.

Frighteningly, this was not to be the end and, by December 1994, the Free Trade Area of Americas (or FTAA) was initiated. In that agreement the “Heads of State and Government of the 34 democracies in the region agree to construct a Free Trade Area of the Americas, in which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated. This is according to the official FTAA Web site. Upon the completion of these negotiations, Mexico was given a $6 billion line of credit by the U.S. and Canada for agreeing to let the Peso float.

As time progressed, Chile was included in the Free Trade Agreement and by July 1997 the U.S. presidency proposed applying NAFTA parity to Caribbean countries as well. In July 2000, Mexico’s President Fox came up with his “20/20 vision” for the newly formed American Union that would include having a customs union, a common external tariff, greater coordination of policies, common monetary policies, a free flow of labor, and fiscal transfers for the development of poor Mexican regions.” President Fox further suggested that $10 to $30 billion in U.S. monies be invested in NAFTA to support the underdeveloped regions of Mexico with the funds being administered by an international Inter-American Development Bank. By March of 2005, plans had already been put into motion for the creation of the Texas NAFTA Superhighway that is scheduled to parallel Interstate 35, be composed of 10 lanes, and travel through the heart of the U.S. from the Mexican border at Laredo, Texas, to the Canadian border at Duluth, Minnesota.

In April of the same year Senate Bill 853 (The North American Security Cooperative Act) was touted as a bill to protect the American public from terrorists by creating a North American Union. It must be known that along with this the U.S. has by this time also entered a pact with countries in Central America forming the Central America Free Trade Agreement or CAFTA. Senate Republicans in June of 2005 argued that CAFTA will promote democratic governance but there is nothing at all democratic about CAFTA’s multitudinous pages of grants of vague authority to foreign tribunals on which foreign judges can force the U.S. to change our domestic laws to be “no more burdensome than necessary on foreign trade.”

Fortunately, for us there are still voices out there to sound the alarm as was seen in June 2005 when Lou Dobbs of CNN began his June 9^th broadcast by asking if “our political elites have gone mad?” after announcing that “an astonishing proposal to expand our borders to incorporate Mexico and Canada and simultaneously further diminish U.S. sovereignty was under consideration.” Fear must strike at Americans hearts when they hear that on January 10, 2006 government officials from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico met in Louisville, Kentucky for a “Public-Private Dialogue” around the SPP. Discussion hits were centered on “marrying policy issues with business priorities” thus expanding the SPP beyond those initial stages of process and building a “genuine constituency for North American integration making for a North American council for competitiveness that would be led by unelected/unsupervised corporate leaders.

Enter, however, hero Tom Tancredo, who in June of 2006 demanded a super state accounting from the Bush administration demanding a “full disclosure of activities that had been implemented by the Bush Administration in implementing a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that could lead to a North American union, despite having no authorization from Congress.” For further information on how the North American Union Threatens U.S. sovereignty, see informationliberation.com’s article North American Union Threatens U.S. Sovereignty. Also, check out Republican Congressman Ron Paul’s article A North American United Nations? or Patrick Buchanan’s article The NAFTA super highway.

Thank God for sensible Canadians who have, since April 1, 2007 begun progressive movements to fight the American Union and have filed heated charges of a cover up putting on enough pressure to force the shut down of hearings regarding the Union after Alberta professor and director of the Parkland Institute, Gordon Laxer, testified that acceptance of this plan would leave Canadians “to freeze in the dark” if the government were to forge ahead with plans to integrate energy supplies across North America, if the government forges ahead with plans to integrate energy supplies across North America. By July their movement had spread and NDP MP Peter Julian began gathering signatures on a petition to stop the SPP. To date these brave Canadians have fought fearlessly to stop this senseless union and went so far as to schedule a National day of action against SPP on August 20, 2007. For an eyewitness report from Victoria, see Victoria SPP protest here. So the issue comes to us Americans, are we brave enough to fight for our constitutional freedoms? Do we want to leave a free electorate who hold the political elite accountable for their actions as a legacy to our children? Or do we want to forfeit our rights to the business mongrels of Enron and the other business elitists out there whose sole desire is to gain more and more power while usurping the rights of the working American?

Tags: north american union, nafta, bush administration, canada, mexico, united states, constitution, spp, north american united nations, nafta superhighway, u.s. sovereignty, cafta, senate bill 853, hard road to world order