The plan for a North American Union is real
By John Tait
As Americans celebrated New Years Day in 1994, a major step toward the existence of a North American Union came into effect. The North American Free Trade Agreement removed most existing tariffs between the United States, Canada, and Mexico while starting a process whereby all other taxes on imports would be phased out over the next 15 years.
Less than four weeks earlier, President Clinton signed the agreement. Former Presidents Ford, Carter, and Bush attended the ceremony in a show of support.
While introducing Clinton, Vice President Al Gore said, “There are some issues that transcend ideology. That is, the view is so uniform that it unites people in both parties. This means our country can pursue a bipartisan policy with continuity over the decades. That's how we won the Cold War. That's how we have promoted peace and reconciliation in the Middle East. And that's how the United States of America has promoted freer trade and bigger markets for our products and those of other nations throughout the world. NAFTA is such an issue.”
The statement was notable not because the speech was performed so eloquently nor passage of the law so noble, but because it provides tangible evidence that neither major party plans to defend American sovereignty. By their own admission, the Council on Foreign Relations has been pursuing their goal of forming a “One-World Government.”
Just two years prior to the signing of NAFTA, CFR member and Deputy Secretary of State from 1994-2001 Strobe Talbott made the following credible threat against American sovereignty. “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
At the CNN/You Tube debate on November 28th, one skeptic questioned Ron Paul regarding the goals and influence of the CFR. To the displeasure of most of his fellow candidates, Paul responded that the Council does pose a serious threat to American independence. However, the answer was inspiring to those of us not foolish enough to believe that it is merely a coincidence for an organization of only 3,000 people to control such a large percentage of the upper echelons of our government.
The actual erosion of American autonomy by the executive branch has been underway for generations. Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush are the only non-CFR members to receive the Presidential nomination of either major party since Harry Truman occupied the White House. While Bush is not a member, the CFR has been represented by the majority of his original and current staff. Among the most notable are Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld.
According to the CFR official website, “One of the Council’s main functions is to provide a nonpartisan forum for informed foreign policy debate.” However, the debate seems to be closed.
The CFR not only controls the message, but also the messengers. The most influential major network anchors are CFR members. Tom Brokaw, Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer, Jim Lehrer, and Dan Rather are amongst the most well-known, comprising a lengthy list.
In addition to television, an extensive list of the most distributed newspapers and magazines are run under the direction of CFR members. The tally includes The Washington Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, U.S. News and World Report, Time, Newsweek, and National Review
The media also has done its part in promoting CFR members for the office of President. Only candidates who are members have been issued “top-tier” status. This includes Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney.
The man they hope to succeed is an actual contributor at the meetings in which our nation’s demise is planned. Thus far, the leaders of the three countries in question have met on at least four occasions specifically to address the issue of a North American Union. The first of which was in March of 2005, shortly after Bush’s second term began. A year later, the trio met in Cancun. Thus far in 2007, they have met twice north of the border with Felipe Calderon picking up right where former Mexican President Vicente Fox left off. The first conference took place in February in Ottawa followed by the infamous August meeting in Montebello.
When questioned about the intentions of the three national leaders, Bush called the creation of the North American Unions “quite comical.” However, the evidence proves otherwise. George Bush’s old 2000 election ally and CFR member Kathryn Harris was the House sponsor of H.R. 2672 which is better known as The North American Cooperative Security Act. Its stated purpose is to “direct the Secretary of State to establish a program to bolster the mutual security and safety of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and for other purposes.”
The idea of one government consisting of three separate and distinct cultures has been attempted. Perhaps, the most infamous of which is Iraq. In 1921, the country of Iraq was created consisting of three separate and distinct people: Sunni’s in the center, Kurd’s to the north, and Shia in the south. The arrangement was made not by the people it would affect most, but at the hands of British imperialism led by Prime Minister David Lloyd George.
In its earliest years, Iraq was held together by a brutal dictator representing the Sunni’s and defended by the British. Chaos, violence, and bloodshed are still widespread almost nine decades later.
The Council on Foreign Relations released a report titled “Building a North American Community,” which not only disregards the importance of the nation-state, but threatens our rights as Americans. “Canada and the United States should consider eliminating restrictions on labor mobility altogether and work toward solutions that in the long run could enable the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico as well.”
The task force concludes, “Establishment by 2010 of a security and economic community for North America is an ambitious but achievable goal that is consistent with this principle and, more important, buttresses the goals and values of the citizens of North America, who share a desire for safe and secure societies, economic opportunity and prosperity, and strong democratic institutions.”
The conclusions made by the task force are wrong for four main reasons. One, the idea of a “North-American Citizen” is an invention desired by the few and despised by the many. Similar problems would occur in such an instance in which the governments of China, Pakistan, and India formed a single government. Crime, hatred, and barriers would result due to differences of race, culture, language, and notions of an ideal society. The possibility of three separate countries achieving the goal of forming one nation comprised of people with a distinct history, culture, and language would be impossible due to drastic differences which already exist.
Second, as contemporary history has shown Western nations do not benefit from the arrival of others into our societies. The results have been devastating from the vicious attacks of ambulance drivers in Sweden, French police officers risking their lives on a daily basis in the heavily Muslim and African populated suburbs of France, or Americans throughout the entire country suffering from an invasion aided by the Mexican government and allowed by ours.
Third, our economic opportunity would be weakened. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median household income in 2006 was $48,201. The previous year, 53% of Mexico’s roughly 100 million citizens had an annual income of only $720 or less. While that may be beneficial to the short term interests of business owners looking for “cheap labor,” millions of Americans would be devastated by the depressed wages and increased crime which would result.
Finally, a democracy consisting of people with different cultures is extremely weak and constantly on the brink of civil war. Whether we look at the aforementioned current state of affairs in Iraq, the sharp divide in Belgium between Flanders and Wallonia, or the Quebec sovereignty movement in Canada, the evidence continues to mount that diversity and democracy is a dangerous combination.
(Editor's note: The fact that massive immigration from Latin America has been dealt with in piece-meal fashion by Washington belies a reluctance 'at the top' to impede the progress of a North American Union.)
Strong calls for an end to American sovereignty, including the demise of the American dollar, are heard from north of the border. Former Canadian Member of Parliament, Herbert Grubel, in “The Case for the Amero” argues that American sovereignty is trivial. “As an economist, however, I think the sovereignty is not infinitely valuable. The merit of giving up some aspects of sovereignty should be determined by the gains brought by such a sacrifice.” As is the case with supporters of such policy, sovereignty and freedom have become expendable, especially at the expense of a perceived improved financial situation.
However, what some believe to be in our short-term economic interest should not supersede what logic, history, and common sense tells us are true.