North American union - Page 04


 Canadians call for vote on SPP

Activists demand national referendum on 'continental divide'

October 15, 2007   By Jerome R. Corsi   © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Canadian activists are demanding Prime Minister Stephen Harper fulfill a promise and submit the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America to a national referendum for an up or down vote.

"The Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet in both Liberal and Conservative regimes support the unification of North America as witnessed by the fact of [former Prime Minister] Paul Martin and [current Prime Minister] Stephen Harper being signatories to the SPP process," said Connie Fogal, leader of the Canadian Action Party.

Fogal rejects the idea that the vote on SPP should be taken solely in the Canadian Parliament.

"A decision about the restructuring of Canada into an integrated North America is not a decision for parliament, but for the citizens of Canada," Fogal says. "What every Parliamentarian should do is call for a no confidence vote on this issue to cease unification of Canada, the USA and Mexico, and then run a campaign on the life of Canada not its death."

Maude Barlow, the National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, agrees.

"So far, only 30 CEOs from North America's richest corporations, including Lockheed Martin, Bank of Nova Scotia, Chevron, Power Corporation and Merck, have had any meaningful input," a news release on Barlow's website proclaims. "Only they have been invited to annual closed-door meetings of SPP leaders and ministers, such as the one that took place in Montebello, Quebec, in August."

As WND previously reported, the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, dominated the SPP closed-door meetings with the SPP trilateral working groups, the trilateral cabinet members in attendance and President Bush, Mexico's President Felipe Calderon, and Harper at the third annual SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec, on Aug. 20-21.

WND has also reported the NACC is a shadowy council of 30 top North American multinational corporations self-appointed by the Chambers of Commerce in each of the three countries to constitute the sole outside advisory to the SPP.

The 30 companies composing the NACC are listed on a memo posted on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce website.

In the United States, the companies on the NACC are:

Campbell Soup Company // Chevron Corporation  //  Ford Motor Corporation  //  FedEx Corporation

General Electric Company  //  General Motors Corporation  //  Kansas City Southern  //  Lockheed Martin Corporation

Merck & Co., Inc.  //  Mittal Steel USA  //  New York Life Insurance Company  //  Procter & Gamble  //  UPS

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.  //  Whirlpool Corporation

No union leaders, public interest groups, environmental advocates or news media have ever attended the closed-door of the NACC with the SPP.

According to a document on the Commerce Department's SPP website, the organization of the NACC was agreed upon by the three leaders on March 31, 2006.

"We are pleased to announce the creation of a North American Competitiveness Council," the White House announced the same day.

"The Council will comprise members of the private sector from each country," the White House said, "and will provide us recommendations on North American competitiveness, including, among others, areas such as automotive and transportation, steel, manufacturing, and services. The Council will meet annually with security and prosperity Ministers and will engage with senior government officials on an ongoing basis."

On Sept. 25, Harper made a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York where he again endorsed SPP.

In a transcript archived on the CFR website, Harper referred to the NACC, saying: "At the North American summit that Canada hosted in Montebello last month, I was struck by the power of the message sent to us by the leaders from the American and Canadian private sectors."

"They appealed to us to see the connection between security and prosperity," Harper continued. "They told us that without the ‘and' we won't have either."

The CFR website also has archived a video of Harper's Sept. 25 remarks.
 

 Scholars confirm plans for N. American Union

October 5, 2007

Those who seek to understand what's behind the chatter about President George W. Bush's Security and Prosperity Partnership as a possible prelude to a North American Union, similar to the European Union, should read the 35-page white paper published recently by the Hudson Institute called "Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosperity Partnership."

The Washington, D.C., think tank is blunt and detailed in describing where the Security and Prosperity Partnership is heading.

Here's how Hudson defines the Security and Prosperity Partnership's goal: "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 key words are "economic integration," a phrase used again and again, into a North American "single market," another phrase used repeatedly.

"Integration" with Mexico and Canada is exactly what North American union means, but there's a big problem with this goal. "We the people" of the United States were never asked if we want to be "integrated" with Mexico and Canada, two countries of enormously different laws, culture, concept of government's role, economic system and standard of living.

Here's how Hudson explains the Security and Prosperity Partnership's process: "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 (North American Free Trade Agreement) that would require congressional ratification or the passage of implementing legislation in the United States. The SPP was designed to function within existing administrative authority of the executive branch."

Hudson explains further: "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 with each government. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States."

Indeed, the Security and Prosperity Partnership is very "innovative." The arrogance of the Security and Prosperity Partnership's "design" to give the executive branch full "authority" to "enforce and execute" whatever is decided by a three-nation agreement of "civil service professionals," as though it were "law," is exceeded only by its unconstitutionality.

The Hudson white paper admits the problem that the Security and Prosperity Partnership completely lacks "transparency and accountability." Hudson freely admits "the exclusion of Congress from the process"; constituents who contact their congressmen discover that members know practically nothing about the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Hudson states that, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, one of the U.S. challenges is "managing Congress." Is Congress now to be "managed," either by executive-branch "authority" or by "dozens of regulators, rule makers and officials working with their counterparts" from Mexico and Canada?

The Hudson white paper reminds us that the 2005 Council on Foreign Relations document called "Building a North American Community" bragged that its recommendations are "explicitly linked" to SPP. The Council on Foreign Relations document called for establishing a "common perimeter" around North America by 2010.

Hudson praises the Council on Foreign Relations document for "raising public expectations" about what the Security and Prosperity Partnership can accomplish. The think tank explains that, while immigration is not an explicit Security and Prosperity Partnership agenda item, "mobility across the border is central to the idea of an integrated North American economic space."

"Harmonization" with other countries is another frequently used word. One of the Security and Prosperity Partnership's signature initiatives is "Liberalizing Rules of Origin."

The Hudson paper reveals the Security and Prosperity Partnership's cozy collaboration with "some interest groups and not others." Translated, that means collaboration with multinational corporations, but not with small business or citizen groups.

After the heads of state of the United States, Mexico and Canada met in Waco, Texas, in March 2005 and announced the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership by press release, the North American Competitiveness Council emerged as "a private sector forum for business input" to Security and Prosperity Partnership working groups. But, according to Hudson, it wasn't merely "private" because it was "given official sanction."

After the three amigos met in Cancun, Mexico, in 2006, President Bush provided taxpayer funding for a think tank called the Center for Strategic and International Studies to meet secretly and produce a report called "The Future of North America." That document's favorite catchword is "North American labor mobility," which is a euphemism for admitting unlimited cheap labor from Mexico.

The Hudson white paper states that "SPP combines an agenda with a political commitment." That's exactly why those who want to protect American sovereignty don't like the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Among the people who take the Security and Prosperity Partnership seriously are Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., who introduced a House resolution opposing a North American Union and a NAFTA Superhighway; similar resolutions have been introduced into the state legislatures of 14 states. Then there is California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter's amendment to prohibit the use of federal funds for Security and Prosperity Partnership working groups, which passed in the House by a vote of 362-63 on July 24.

The Hudson white paper suggests that it might be "necessary" for the Security and Prosperity Partnership to change its name and acronym. It is unlikely that a change of name will silence the American people who are outraged by the Security and Prosperity Partnership's goals and process.
 

 'NAFTA Superhighway stops here,' says Okla. senator

Trans-Texas Corridor needs to make 'Texas turnaround' at state border

October 1, 2007 By Jerome R. Corsi © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon

"The NAFTA Superhighway stops here, at the border with Oklahoma," Randy Brogdon, a Republican state senator who has championed the fight to keep the Trans-Texas Corridor out of Oklahoma, told a packed 300-person audience at the first public meeting of OK-SAFE in Tulsa on Saturday.

Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise, Inc. is a non-profit, Oklahoma corporation set up to oppose a NAFTA Superhighway and North American Union as threats to the sovereignty of the U.S.

Brogdon objected to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, arguing President Bush had entered the agreement after secret discussions with Mexico's then-president Vicente Fox and Canada's then-prime minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005.

"President Bush has proven that he is more than willing to over-step his executive authority when it came to trade policy," Brogdon told the group.

"Ariticle 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says, 'Congress shall have the Power to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,' not the president," Brogdon pointed out. "Yet President Bush has entered into an agreement with Mexico and Canada called SPP that seeks to eliminate our trade and security borders and he has failed to get the explicit approval of Congress."

The SPP website, in a section entitled "Myths vs. Facts," supports Brogdon's argument, openly admitting that SPP is neither a law nor a treaty.

"Texas highways are famous for 'Texas turnaround' U-turns," Brogdon quipped. "Maybe it's time we tell Governor Perry to do a Texas turnaround at the border with Oklahoma."

"We don't need a new superhighway four-football-fields-wide coming through the heart of our state just so Mexican trucks can carry Chinese containers from Mexican ports to Kansas City," he said.

Brogdon objected that the Bush administration's below-the-radar push for a new continental NAFTA Superhighway will risk the supremacy of U.S. laws on U.S. highways.

"Anyone driving on an international highway system running through the United States would be subjected not to U.S. law, but to international law," Brogdon argued. "We would be subject to an international tribunal in case of a dispute, including accidents or other lawsuits."

Brogdon objected to the Department of Transportation's push to allow 100 Mexican trucking companies to have free access on U.S. roads for their long-haul rigs.

"The Bush administration is pushing the Trans-Texas Corridor under the cause of better roads and economic development," Brogdon stressed. "I'm sure we all want good roads and bridges, but not at the expense of our nation's sovereignty."

As WND previously reported, Brogdon has opposed legislation that would have pre-authorized the extension north into Oklahoma, as a deceptive piece of legislation (HB 1917) that would have put Oklahoma in a highway "pilot project" that was unlimited in scope and required Oklahoma to waive its 11th Amendment rights.

"The 11th Amendment gives protection to Oklahoma from being sued in federal court by a foreign nation," Brogdon explained. "So for us to be a part of this project we had to waive our 11th Amendment rights. This benign piece of legislation that started out as a simple re-surface project in Southeast Oklahoma was in fact the first step to create the NAFTA Superhighway through Oklahoma."

The bill was strongly supported by the North America's SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc., a Dallas-based trade organization of which the State of Oklahoma is a member.

Brogdon has championed legislation demanding Oklahoma withdraw from NASCO, saving the state a $25,000 annual membership fee.

"NASCO's mission statement says their goal is 'to create the world's first 'international, intermodal superhighway' system," Brogdon pointed out. "NASCO lobbied the Oklahoma state legislature to pass HB 1917 and they found many of my colleagues sympathetic to their cause. In the state senate, we were able to kill the bill during debate. We won a battle, but the war is not over."

Brogdon predicted that the battle to extend the Trans-Texas Corridor north into Oklahoma would be pressed once again by NASCO in the Oklahoma legislature's next session.

"NASCO will probably work with legislators favorable to their cause to package the next bill with a catchy name," Brogdon warned. "The bill will come down as something like, 'Economic Development and Transportation for the Next Generation and Our Kids.' It will be disguised, but I assure you, the outcome will still be the same. Our sovereignty will be under attack."

Still, Brogdon expressed his confidence in winning the battle against the NAFTA Superhighway in Oklahoma.

"I'm encouraged at what lies ahead for this state and for the nation," Brogdon told the group. "History reveals that Americans always rise to the occasion to protect this country. We are in a battle for this nation's sovereignty. But I see American patriots here today, in this assembled group, men and women still dedicated to the Constitutional cause so eloquently laid out by our founding fathers."

"Ladies and gentlemen, know this – our future will not be determined by the politicians," Brogdon concluded. "Our future lies solely in our hands because 'We the People,' and not some bureaucrats in Washington or a trade group in Dallas, are the government of the United States."

WND reported NASCO changed its name from the original name, North America's Superhighway Coalition.

NASCO also has repeatedly redesigned its webpage so as to de-emphasize the continental nature of the "super corridor" NASCO supports.

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57915

 
Home     Back    Top