North American Union

[Soldier4Christ]

U.S., Mexico, Canada
'harmonizing' policies 
North American deep cooperation on many fronts
already under way, reveals new official publication

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which some have criticized as a framework for moving toward regional government between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, has laid out plans for increased regulatory cooperation between the three nations in new, full-color, trilingual publications obtained by WND.

Copies of the "2005 Report to Leaders" and the "2006 Report to Leaders" were sent to WND by several congressional offices that are beginning to take a serious interest in SPP working group activities and decision-making.

The copyright page of the 2005 report indicates that the report was co-published by the governments of the United States and Mexico, as well as copyrighted in Canada.

The 2005 and 2006 reports continue to discuss numerous memoranda of understanding and other agreements that the trilateral working groups are formulating on their own, without direct congressional oversight or any reference to being published in the Federal Register. Yet, the vast majority of the agreements reached under SPP have never been published.

The reports discuss the SPP's trilateral modification of administrative rules and regulation under the rubric of "integrating" and "harmonizing" into a "North American" structure what previously were administrative rules and regulations of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

For instance, under a heading that includes the U.N. "sustainability" language, the energy working group announces in the 2005 report that their goal is, "Creating a sustainable energy economy for North America." Justifying the working group's activity as producing "appropriate coordination" between regulators, the report concludes: "All agree that the regulatory efforts of the National Energy Board (NEB), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Comisión Reguladora de Energía (CRE) will benefit from increased communication and cooperation concerning the timing and other procedural aspects of related matters that may be pending between the three agencies."

The report then calls for the announcement of a trilateral regulators' group that will meet three times a year (every four months) to discuss "issues affecting cross-border energy projects." The 2006 report notes that this "key milestone" was completed.

Some critics of the SPP see it leading toward a breakdown of national sovereignty and representative government, fearing it will lead inexorably toward a European Union-style regionalization for North America.

"Now that we see books being published by SPP, how can anyone deny that the Bush administration is involved in a process of North American deep integration?" asks Jerome R. Corsi, author and WND columnist who is writing a book on the movement. "SPP is creating North American regulations that replace and supersede U.S. regulations in a wide range of policy areas. Just the three-language format of the full color production is enough to let readers know that the Bush administration considers our appropriate regulatory scope to be North American in nature. We no longer have a U.S. energy policy, for instance, we have a North American energy policy."

Corsi, known as one of the chief critics of plans for a North American Union, said:

"Since 2001 and the formation of the Prosperity Partnership with Mexico, trilateral working group activity in North America has been gaining momentum. After the declaration of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005, we have a full-fledged shadow bureaucracy that is setting up the regulatory structure for what could easily evolve into a full regional government."

The North American Energy Working Group has now set up a webpage on the U.S. Department of Energy website. A January 2006 report entitled "North America – The Energy Picture II" documents that the NAEWG first met June 27-28, 2001, in Washington. Since then, there have been eight more NAEWG full working group meetings "convened in various locations of the three countries, with many more meetings of the various expert groups convened under the NAEWG agenda."

According to "North America – The Energy Picture II," NAEWG activities can be traced back to the Hemispheric Energy Ministers Meeting in Mexico, on March 8, 2001, when the heads of Natural Resources Canada, the Mexican Secretariat of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Energy "formally committed to work together to facilitate a stronger North American energy sector."

"Despite the advanced stage of SPP working group activity," Corsi said, "few U.S. congressmen or senators have any idea that SPP working groups are producing a North American regulatory structure. I still find myself going into the offices of congressmen and senators on Capitol Hill and having to work with staff to show them SPP websites they never have seen before, even though some of their bosses sit on committees that are supposed to be responsible for oversight of the SPP activities I am showing them for the first time."

"SPP is one of the best kept secrets in Washington," Corsi told WND, "even though SPP has a website, there are SPP websites embedded in the websites of many government agencies, and now SPP is publishing full-color books in three languages. Yet, nobody in Washington has bothered to hold a single SPP hearing. Meanwhile, we are being led into regional government by bureaucrats whose mission is to create North American policies, not to worry about the sovereignty of the United States."

The SPP website contains somewhat different versions of the 2005 prosperity agenda and security agenda, as well as the 2006 prosperity agenda and the security agenda.

"This is no conspiracy," Corsi continued. "Conspiracies are conducted in secret. Now, SPP even publishes books documenting the North American deep integration agenda the SPP working groups are advancing day-by-day."

The 2006 published Report to Leaders documents the following working group activity in the Prosperity Agenda:

    * Manufactured Goods and Sectoral and Regional Competitiveness
    * Movement of Goods
    * E-Commerce and ICT
    * Financial Services
    * Transportation
    * Energy
    * Environment
    * Food and Agriculture
    * Health

The 2006 Report to Leaders identifies the following Security Agenda initiatives, key milestones, and status of completion in the following areas:

1. Secure North America from External Threats

    * Traveler Security
    * Cargo Security
    * Bioprotection

2. Prevent and Respond to Threats within North America

    * Aviation Security
    * Maritime Security
    * Law Enforcement Cooperation
    * Intelligence Cooperation
    * Protection, Prevention and Response

3. Further Streamline the Secure Movement of Low-Risk Traffic Across Our Shared Borders

    * Border Facilitation
    * Science and Technology Cooperation

SPP is organized within the Department of Commerce. Those who want to receive copies of the printed 2005 and 2006 reports, may contact Geri Word, the administrator within the Department of Commerce who appears most responsible for organizing SPP activity.

Geri C. Word
U.S. Department of Commerce
Office of NAFTA and Inter-American Affairs

[Soldier4Christ]

Congressman battles North Americanization 
Introduces resolutions aimed at stopping SPP from integrating continent

Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., is preparing to introduce a series of House resolutions aimed at stopping the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America from integrating the continent into a trilateral U.S.-Mexico-Canada structure of administrative law.

Goode also intends to block the previously undisclosed, but already signed, Social Security agreement to "totalize" U.S. Social Security benefits with legal and illegal Mexicans working in the U.S.

"I hope our effort will be successful in stopping the implementation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership," Goode told WND. "If we are not successful in stopping SPP, we are going to see further erosion in the sovereignty of our country."

As WND previously has reported, SPP has laid out plans for increased regulatory cooperation between the three nations in new, full-color, trilingual publications of the 2005 and 2006 SPP Reports to Leaders, which is archived in electronic form on the Department of Commerce SPP website.

Goode objected that the open borders philosophy of the Bush administration "will level down the United States. SPP will enhance neither the security of the United States nor the prosperity of our economy."

Goode also told WND that he plans to re-introduce in the 110th Congress H.C.R. 487, a resolution he introduced previously to block both NAFTA Super Highways and the formation of a EU-style North American Union.

In an e-mail to WND, Goode's office affirmed the re-introduction of H.C.R. 487 can be expected perhaps as early as today.

"The NAFTA Superhighway will bring more trucks and vehicles from south of our border into our country," Goode explained to WND. "It will cost American jobs and decrease safety for our traveling public. The NAFTA Super Highway will end up opening further opportunities for illegals to be smuggled into the United States."

Goode said the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico will allow Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, to draw from the U.S. Social Security system for their work in this country.

"Because of the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico, it is difficult to devise an accurate estimate of how much this agreement will cost our system, but it could be billions," he said.

Goode pointed out his position is supported by a report from the General Accounting Office, the GAO.

"What the GAO points out," Goode said, "is that a common open border with Mexico and the economic disparity between Mexico and the U.S. have fostered significant and longstanding unauthorized immigration into the U.S., making a totalization agreement with Mexico potentially far more costly than any other."

The House resolutions Goode already has introduced into the current Congress include:

    * H.C.R. 18. Expressing disapproval by the House of Representatives of the Social Security totalization agreement signed by the commissioner of Social Security and the director general of the Mexican Social Security Institute June 29, 2004. Introduced Jan. 4, it has been joined by 27 co-sponsors.

    * H.C.R. 22. Expressing the sense of Congress that the president should provide notice of withdrawal of the United States from NAFTA. Introduced on Jan. 10, it is co-sponsored by Rep. Walter Jones, R-NC.

Among the claims made in the "whereas" clauses of the House Resolutions introduced by Goode are charges that:

    * A totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico negatively impacts the Social Security system of the United States and puts America's seniors at risk.

    * According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 1.8 million workers have applied for trade adjustment assistance as a result of jobs lost because of NAFTA.

    * Unrestricted foreign trucking into the U.S. will pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the U.S. of illegal drugs and terrorist activities.

    * The economic and physical security of the U.S. is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA.

    * The U.S. trade deficits with Canada and Mexico have widened significantly since the implementation of NAFTA.

The totalization agreement signed with Mexico allows workers, including illegal immigrants working in the U.S., to combine work credits from both countries to become eligible for benefits in the U.S. Thus, even if an immigrant worker for Mexico, legal or illegal, does not have enough U.S. work credits to draw U.S. Social Security benefits, credits can be combined from Mexico. Under totalization, Mexican workers could qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits with as few as six quarters of work, rather than the 40 quarters normally required of U.S. citizens.

On Sept. 11, 2003, testifying before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Barbara D. Bovbjert, the GAO's director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, noted the cost of a Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico is "highly uncertain."

She said the agreement would also extend Social Security benefits to the non-U.S. citizen family members of the Mexican workers under the program, even if the non-U.S. citizen family members do not live in the United States, as well as to survivors of entitled Mexican workers.

Bovbjert further testified, "Under totalization, unauthorized workers could have an additional incentive to enter the United States to work and to maintain the appropriate documentation necessary to claim their earnings under a false identity."

The totalization agreement signed with Mexico was being held secret by the Bush administration until a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the TREA Senior Citizens League, a 1.2 million-member nonpartisan seniors' advocacy group, forced the Social Security Administration to release the document to the public.

The agreement between the U.S. and Mexico was signed in June 2004 and awaits President Bush's signature. Congress will have 60 days following the president's signature to disapprove of the agreement by either the House or the Senate voting to reject it. If neither chamber rejects it, the agreement can become law without the approval of Congress.

[Brother Jerry]

Yeah unfortunately I was to young to do anything as far as the Soc Sec totalization.  I can understand it and the idea behind it.  However unless SS benifits were equal across the board it is unfair to the paying country.  If that is to be done and done properly...then all the SS money that these folks paid into the system shoudl be put into a different international account and that is where it is paid out from.  Not the individual countries SS funds that are for it's citizens.  And as far as illegals....well thank you for the contribution to the SS fund of the US...but you are here illegally and get no benifits!

And the SPP....letter to congress and reps is being drafted now
It makes no sense what so ever for our nation to give up so much to our neighbors with no or little return.  We will be opening our borders to allow tons of workers to come into our country and get the big bucks.  We are raising the minimum wage that we would end up having to pay these folks.  And that money does not make it back into our economy in normal means and we end up losing it.  On top of issues in whcih they fill out the W-2 in manners that get them the most money up front and then skip out on paying taxes.  That equal money lost to our government. 

Nope forget it...I can think of a thousand reasons that this is bad juju.  And not one reason that this is good.  A free border free drive to Cancun is just not worth it.

[Soldier4Christ]

Amen. I like the idea of the separate international SS account if any. Even then it will cost the U.S. tax payers to administer it unless it is taken out of the collection of that tax to pay for it.

[Brother Jerry]

Either take it out of the account....whcih means no one gets benifits
Or each country pays X amount per year for administration.

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

If I understand this correctly, it's insane and has no chance of working. Our own system is broken and will go bankrupt soon, but they want us to pay for someone else's system?

Let's say that the other countries pay their own way completely, and we have ZERO financial responsibility for their systems. Why would the other country want us to manage or administrate something we can't even do for ourselves?

What this really appears to be is another bill that they want to force American tax payers to pay. I say absolutely NO! Let the other country pay their own bills, and let them try to do a better job on a Social Security type system than we have. In terms of someone trying to give us the bill or a portion of the bill, that's NO! We are a very kind and generous people, but it's wrong to sign something into law that forces our generosity. After one cuts through all the mumbo jumbo, that's the purpose of this bill in my opinion.

[Soldier4Christ]

The people that are pushing this bill on Soc Sec for non residents have more to this agenda than just Sod Sec. 1. is to further socialism 2. It is one of the first steps to bring about a union of the U.S./Mexico/Canada into one nation similar to the EU which includes a new unified currency called the amero. The same people that are pushing this Soc Sec bill are also the ones that are pushing the bill that will stop people from knowing what Congress is doing and are also pushing the trilateral union.

Too many people are blind to this and have the attitude that it will never happen, that it is just a conspiracy theory. All the while these politicians are doing it right under everyones noses. The U.S. is moving into a new government. The government the founding fathers set up is quickly being dismantled.

[nChrist]

Hello Pastor Roger,

I appreciate you clarifying this for me because I didn't understand it. It's MUCH WORSE than what I was thinking. I was thinking on a tiny scale compared to what is really going on.

This would obviously be Unconstitutional. There would have to be a Constitutional Convention and a vote of the people to even consider this. I seriously doubt that 10% of the population would remotely allow something like this. SO, some folks worked behind the backs of the people and tried to get it done illegally. I'm thinking that Federal Prison would be the only place for these folks, and it wouldn't matter to me who it was, certainly including the President of the United States, past or present.

Brother Roger, thank you again for clarifying this. It takes some time for something this big to sink in. Every American needs to know about this and STOP IT DEAD IN ITS TRACKS. Our leaders need to know that they are ONLY OUR REPRESENTATIVES and the PEOPLE ARE STILL IN CHARGE.

There appears to be one amazement after another with some of the things that our government is trying to do. I love the idea of a Constitutional Convention that would be completely binding on everyone, including the Supreme Court. I bet we could all think of things we would want resolved and put to rest. The first thing that needs to be done is harshly define power:  Federal, State, Local, THE PEOPLE. Contrary to what many have been led to believe, the Federal Government was designed to be a servant of the States, not the master of the States. AND, THE PEOPLE are the BOSS, not our elected representatives. There appears to be a heavy odor coming from our elected government in Washington, D.C. They need to be reminded that they are servants of the PEOPLE - NOTHING MORE!

[Soldier4Christ]

You're most welcome brother. A Constitutional Convention sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately Congress wants to start on a new Constitution and as you pointed out they can't without reprisal from the people. That is why the bill to keep disclosure of what they are doing from the public. I see all of this as a sign of things to come and it is coming soon.

[Soldier4Christ]

Plan for superhighway
ripped as 'urban legend'
Congressman, DOT undersecretary
disagree over threat to sovereignty

Congressmen and a policy official of the Department of Transportation engaged in a spirited exchange over whether NAFTA Super Highways were a threat to U.S. sovereignty or an imaginary "Internet conspiracy," such as the "black helicopter myths," advanced by fringe lunatics.

At a meeting Wednesday of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Jeffrey N. Shane, undersecretary of transportation for policy at the U.S. Department of Transportation, testified.

During the questioning by committee members, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, asked Shane about the existence of plans for a "NAFTA superhighway."

Shane responded he was "not familiar with any plan at all, related to NAFTA or cross-border traffic."

After further questioning by Poe, Shane stated reports of NAFTA superhighways or corridors were "an urban legend."

At this, the chairman, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., questioned aloud whether Shane was just "gaming semantics" when responding to Poe's question.

"Mr. Shane was either blissfully ignorant or he may have been less than candid with the committee," Poe told WND in a telephone interview.

Asked about the Department of Transportation's work with Dallas-based trade group NASCO, the North American SuperCorridor Coalition Inc., and the Texas Department of Transportation plans to build the Trans-Texas Corridor, Poe told WND "the NAFTA superhighway plans exist to move goods from Mexico through the United States to Canada. It appears to be another one of the open-border philosophies that chips away at American sovereignty, all in the name of so-called trade."

Poe said there are security obstacles to the project that must be addressed.

"I don't understand why the federal government isn't getting public input on this," he said. "We get comments like Mr. Shane's instead of our own government asking the people of the United States what they think about all of this. This big business coming through Mexico may not be good business for the United States."

Poe continued to insist "the public ought to make this decision, especially the states that are affected, such as Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and all the way through up to Canada. The public needs to make input on this. So, I don't understand, unless there's some other motive, why the public isn't being told about these plans and why the public is not invited to make input."

Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., introduced House Concurrent Resolution 40 earlier this week to express the sense of Congress that the United States should not build a NAFTA superhighway system and should not enter into an agreement with Mexico and Canada to form a North American Union.

Asked to comment on Shane's response to Poe, Goode dismissed Shane's claim that NAFTA superhighways were just another "urban legend."

"Let's take Mr. Shane at his word. Let Mr. Shane come over here from the Department of Transportation and endorse House Concurrent Resolution 40," he said. "If, in his mind he's not doing anything to promote a NAFTA superhighway and he's not doing anything to promote the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, then he won't mind joining his voice with ours to be in opposition to any such 'urban legend,' as he so calls it."

Goode added this comment in a playful retort to Shane's attempt to dismiss the discussion: "My prediction is Mr. Shane will run for the timber."

In a serious tone, Goode objected to Shane's attempt to play what he agreed was a game of semantics.

"When President Bush had the meeting in Waco, Texas, the three leaders called the new arrangement the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,' SPP for short," Goode said. "But, as is suggested by Congressman DeFazio at the hearing, the intent of people like Mr. Shane is to use different words and different names as a way to deflect attention from what they are really doing."

Asked about White House Press Secretary Snow's denial that there was any White House plan to create a North American Union, Goode's reply also was direct.

"I guess Mr. Snow is saying that a Security and Prosperity Partnership and a North American Union are not one and the same," he said. "That's just the use of his words, but is he denying that President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin had the meeting and came up with the Security and Prosperity Partnership in 2005? I doubt it."

Also present in the audience at the subcommittee meeting was Rod Nofzinger, director of Government Affairs for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association. Nofzinger told WND Shane's denial struck him as less than genuine. In an e-mail to WND, Nofzinger commented:

    "Considering what we know about the Bush administration's efforts to open the border to Mexican trucks and that DOT officials have met with groups such as NASCO, I was truly surprised to hear Mr. Shane say flat out that he had no knowledge of plans or meetings related to NAFTA or cross-border surface trade corridors."

Substantiating Nofzinger's argument is a speech Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta gave April 30, 2004, at a NASCO forum in Fort Worth, Texas. Mineta told the NASCO meeting:

    "NAFTA has opened the doors to expanding and flourishing trade across our borders. Since its implementation, total U.S. trade with Mexico has increased almost 200 percent – with 70 percent of the U.S./Mexico trade passing through Texas.

    "There are, however, some things that we still need to do in the United States to fulfill our obligations under the NAFTA treaty. One of them is to finally open the market between Mexico and the United States for trucking and busing."

Mineta continued:

    "And to our friends from Mexico who are here today, I say, 'Welcome, and get ready.' Opening the border is of mutual benefit."

Specifically referring to Interstate Highways 35, 29 and 94 – the core highways supported by NASCO as a prime "North American Super Corridor" – Mineta commented:

    "You also recognized that the success of the NAFTA relationship depends on mobility – on the movement of people, of products, and of capital across borders.

    "The people in this room have vision. Thinking ahead, thinking long-term, you began to make aggressive plans to develop the NASCO trade corridor – this vital artery in our national transportation through which so much of our NAFTA traffic flows.

    "It flows across our nation's busiest southern border crossing in Laredo; over North America's busiest commercial crossing, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit; and through Duluth, and Pembina, North Dakota, and all the places in between."

In a statement provided WND by e-mail, DeFazio cut past Shane's attempt to dismiss the subject by ridicule, writing:

    In the hearing, Undersecretary of Transportation for Policy Jeff Shane, in response to a question from Representative Ted Poe, said the NAFTA superhighway was an urban legend. Whatever the case, it is a fact that highway capacity is growing to and from the border to facilitate trade, and there is no doubt that the volume of imports from Mexico has soared since NAFTA, straining security at the U.S. border. Plans of Asian trading powers to divert cargo from U.S. ports like Los Angeles to ports in Mexico will only put added pressure on border inspectors. The U.S. needs to invest in better border security, including enhanced screening of cargo crossing our land borders.

Shane declined to comment for this article.

[Soldier4Christ]

House resolution opposes North American Union 
Lawmakers seek to block NAFTA superhighway system, continental integration

Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has introduced a House resolution expressing congressional opposition to construction of a NAFTA Super Highway System or entry into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

Goode said the goal behind House Concurrent Resolution 40, introduced Monday, is "to block a NAFTA Superhighway System and to indicate the opposition of the Congress to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America that was declared by President Bush, Mexico's then-President Vicente Fox, and Canada's then-Prime Minister Paul Martin, at the conclusion of their summit meeting in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005."

The preamble of HCR 40 refers to the Trans-Texas Corridor being built by the Texas Department of Transportation, noting "a NAFTA Super Highway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union to facilitate trade between the SPP countries."

A subsequent "whereas" clause notes "the State of Texas has already begun planning of the Trans-Texas Corridor, a major multi-modal transportation project beginning at the United States – Mexico border, which would serve as an initial section of a NAFTA Super Highway System."

The resolution expresses concern "it could be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would likely increase the insurance rates for American drivers."

Another concern with the plans for a NAFTA Super Highway is that "future unrestricted trucking into the United States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities."

The Spanish investment consortium, Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A., owned by the Madrid-based Groupo Ferrovial, is funding the construction of TTC-35 and will lease the highway for 50 years. To prevent more such foreign leasing of U.S. highways, HCR 40 notes as a risk that "a NAFTA Super Highway would likely include funds from foreign consortiums and be controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States."

Regarding SPP, HCR 40 states "reports issued by the SPP indicate that it has implemented regulatory changes among the three countries that circumvent United States trade, transportation, homeland security, and border security functions and that the SPP will continue to do so in the future."

Further, HCR 40 charges "the actions taken by the SPP to coordinate border security by eliminating obstacles to migration between Mexico and the United States actually makes the United States-Mexico border less secure, because Mexico is the primary source country of illegal immigrants into the United States."

The resolution calls for Congress to express its sentiment that:

    * the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement Super Highway System;

    * the United States should not allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership to implement further regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and

    * the president of the United States should indicate strong opposition to these acts or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.

As WND previously reported, in the 109th Congress, Goode had introduced HCR 487, which is substantially the same as the re-introduced HCR 40.

WND has also reported Goode has introduced two additional bills into the new Congress, with the intent of blocking any North American integration by the Bush administration. The two additional resolutions are:

    * H.C.R. 18. Expressing disapproval by the House of Representatives of the Social Security totalization agreement signed by the Commissioner of Social Security and the Director General of the Mexican Social Security Institute June 29, 2004. Joined by 27 co-sponsors. Introduced Jan. 4, 2007.

    * H.C.R. 22. Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should provide notice of withdrawal of the United States from NAFTA. Co-Sponsored by Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C.. Introduced Jan. 10, 2007.

HCR 40 currently has five co-sponsors, all Republicans: John J. Duncan Jr. of Tennessee, Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, Jones of North Carolina, Ron Paul of Texas, Cliff Stearns of Florida and Zach Wamp of Tennessee.

[Soldier4Christ]

North America activists
plotted 'stealth' strategy 
Details of secret Banff meeting
released as part of FOIA request

Participants in a high-level, closed door, three-day conference on the integration of the three North American nations debated whether openness about goals was preferred to a stealthy policy of building infrastructure before a vision of the end result was even laid out to the people of the U.S., Mexico and Canada, according to notes obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Official notes taken on a session on "Border Infrastructure and Continental Prosperity" at the North American Forum in Banff, Canada, last September, reveal the internal debate over continued secrecy.

"While a vision is appealing, working on the infrastructure might yield more benefit and bring more people on board ('evolution by stealth')," record the notes discovered amid documents obtained by Judicial Watch.

Several speakers at the event emphasized the importance of "deepening economic integration," "integrating the energy infrastructure" and "the development of new institutions" between the three North American nations.

Participants promoted the idea of using popular issues, such as concern over climate change, to push integration of energy and environmental governance and the possibility of imposing a carbon tax.

Judicial Watch released yesterday the documents it received in a FOIA request from the U.S. Northern Command, whose commander, Admiral Timothy Keating, participated in the conference along with Northcom political adviser Deborah Bolton and Plans, Policy and Strategy Director Maj. General Mark Volcheff. A similar request concerning participation in the North American Forum meeting by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is still pending.

At least one attendee of the conference said the meeting was intended to subvert the democratic process. Mel Hurtig, a Canadian author and publisher elected as the leader of the National Party of Canada, told WND last fall the idea of the North American Forum is to move the countries toward integration without public consent or even knowledge.

"What is sinister about this meeting is that it involved high level government officials and some of the top and most powerful business leaders of the three countries and the North American Forum in organizing the meeting intentionally did not inform the press in any of the three countries," he said. "It was clear that the intention was to keep this important meeting about integrating the three countries out of the public eye."

The conference raised more suspicions about plans for the future merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico – with topics ranging from "A Vision for North America," "Opportunities for Security Cooperation" and "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."

Confirmed participants included Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State George Shultz, who serves as co-chairman of the North American Forum, former Central Intelligence Agency Director R. James Woolsey, former Immigration and Naturalization Services Director Doris Meissner, North American Union guru Robert Pastor, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Energy Secretary and Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and top officials of both Mexico and Canada. But the only media member scheduled to appear at the event, according to documents obtained by WND, was the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady.

The event was organized by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canada West Foundation, an Alberta think-tank that promotes closer economic integration with the United States.

The next meeting of the North American Forum is set for Oct. 12-14 in Puerto Vallarta.

The Canadian event is another in a series of meetings, policy papers and directives that have citizens, officials and members of the media wondering whether these efforts represent some sort of coordinated effort to implement a "merger" some have characterized as "NAFTA on steroids."

Prominent at the Banff conference was Robert Pastor, an American University professor who wrote "Toward a North American Community," 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.

Pastor also was vice chairman of the May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force entitled "Building a North American Community" that presents itself as a blueprint for using bureaucratic action within the executive branches of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada to transform the current trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America into a North American union regional government.

He calls for the establishment of a North American Community, which some view as a significant step toward a European Union-style system of regional or continental governance.

"Increasing interdependence offers additional costs and opportunities," he told the Banff audience. "To mitigate the dangers and expand the benefits of a more integrated and less regulated market requires continental plans and institutions. It requires a new consciousness among both leaders and people – a new way of thinking about our neighbors. This will take time, but we want to begin the journey."

Pastor continued: "Our purpose is to build a greater sense of being a part of North America. We do not want to displace the pride each of us feel in our countries, but rather to supplement that with a feeling of being North American. We do so not to build a fortress or to separate ourselves from the world. On the contrary, we want to connect better with our closest neighbors in order to strengthen our ability to compete in the world and to serve as a models for other regional groups."

Pastor said narrowing the gap in income "may be the single most important issue on the North American agenda." He pointed hopefully to a bill introduced June 29, 2006, by Sen. John Cornyn calling for a North American Investment Fund to channel grants to Mexico for this purpose. He failed to note, however, that Cornyn had already withdrawn his bill two months prior to the Banff conference after the senator was alerted by WND to the role it played in fostering regional government in North America.

[Soldier4Christ]

11 states oppose North American Union
Eagle Forum working with legislators to halt globalists' plans

Eleven states are working on resolutions that would oppose not only the implementation but the idea of a "North American Union," or other plans that would lead to the integration of the United States into a larger structure.

"Americans are rapidly learning the new vocabulary of the globalists," Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum told WND, "and they don't like it."

While President Bush, many members of Congress, and Bush administration bureaucrats deny there are plans for a North American Union, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, those in state legislatures are taking no chances.

Already, 11 states have introduced resolutions to oppose the SPP, the NAU, and even the idea of the amero, a proposed currency that could be used to replace the dollar.

The resolutions also typically oppose the creation of North American Free Trade Act superhighways along the model of the Trans-Texas Corridor, the car-truck-train-pipeline corridor that is four football-fields wide and is being built parallel to Interstate 35 from Laredo, Texas to the border with Oklahoma, south of Oklahoma City.

Schlafly told WND that those lawmakers, and their constituents, are reacting against a wide range of concepts and structures being generated by the increasing pace of the integration of North America they see under the Bush administration.

"That's why state legislators are responding with resolutions criticizing a 'North American Community,' SPP, 'harmonization' of regulations, NAFTA superhighways, foreign-owned toll roads, totalization of Social Security, and speculation about the amero," Schlafly explained. "The groundswell is growing against measures that lead to 'economic integration' with other countries."

Schlafly also has joined with Howard Philips of the Conservative Caucus to create an organization specifically opposing the NAU and NAFTA superhighways.

"Phyllis Schlafly is doing a magnificent job leading the charge to oppose the North American integration at the state level," Phillips told WND. "Once again, we see the genius of Eagle Forum being able to communicate a message throughout America in terms that mobilize voters to take action."

Robert Pastor is an American University professor who is using his book, "Toward a North American Community," to promote 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.

The resolutions are typically worded to oppose, in addition to SPP and the NAU, the construction of NAFTA Superhighways and the creation of the Amero as a North American unitary currency.

Anti-NAU resolutions have been introduced in the following state legislatures:

Arizona: Senate Concurrent Memorial 1002

Georgia: Senate Resolution 124

Illinois: House Joint Resolution 29

Missouri: Senate Concurrent Resolution 15 House Concurrent Resolution 33

Montana: House Joint Resolution 25

Oregon: Senate Joint Memorial 5

South Carolina: House Concurrent Resolution 3185 You also can find the bill here under "H 3185"

South Dakota: Senate Concurrent Resolution 7

Utah: House Joint Resolution 7

Virginia: Senate Joint Resolution 442

Washington: Senate Joint Memorial 8004 House Joint Memorial 4018

StopTheNAU tracks state legislative motions to oppose the SPP and NAU.

[Soldier4Christ]

North American Union: Fact or fiction?
Exclusive: Henry Lamb provides evidence of efforts to destroy U.S. sovereignty

Reaction to reports about a possible North American Union have been robust, to say the least.

Reaction from a few conservative pundits is way beyond robust, nearing the ridiculous. Popular radio talk-show host, Michael Medved, describes the journalists reporting on the possible North American Union as '' ........ and creeps and jug-heads and drunks and reprobates.''

John Hawkins, a blogger at Right Wing News says claims about a North American Union are ''... not true at all.'' He then explains why he thinks the claims are false.

People who are unfamiliar with the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or the North America Free Trade Agreement, or the Trans-Texas Corridor, or the European Union could easily believe the very superficial analysis of these two, and other pundits who have ridiculed the formation of what could easily become a North American Union.

About the only thing that is correct in the reaction of either of these two pundits is the fact that no one is admitting officially that a North American Union is under construction.

What is quite publicly under construction is a ''North American Community,'' with the express goal of deeper ''integration'' of the economies and culture of the United States, Canada and Mexico. This North American Community is the brainchild of Dr. Robert Pastor, who, as co-chair of a special task force of the Council on Foreign Relations, produced a report entitled ''Building a North American Community.'' This report is essentially a regurgitation of Pastor's earlier book: ''Toward a North American Community.''

Among other goals, Pastor wants the three countries to:

    * Adopt a common external tariff.
    * Adopt a North American Approach to Regulation
    * Establish a common security perimeter by 2010.
    * Establish a North American investment fund
    * Establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution.
    * Hold an annual North American Summit meeting
    * Establish minister-led working groups
    * Create a North American Advisory Council
    * Create a North American Inter-Parliamentary Group.

Pastor considers NAFTA to be '' ... the first draft of an economic constitution for North America,'' because it sets up the legal mechanism for achieving all his goals without bothering Congress.

The president apparently agrees with these goals, because he launched the Security and Prosperity Partnership in 2005, which consists of nearly 20 ''minister-led'' working groups, with appointed bureaucrats from each of the three countries, all working toward deeper ''integration'' through harmonization of procedures, rules and regulations – all of which is happening without bothering Congress.

While this is happening, Pastor, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Security and Prosperity Partnership all say they ''in no way, shape or form'' are working toward a North American Union. What they are working toward is Pastor's North American Community.

If it looks like a skunk, and smells like a skunk, it's probably a skunk – regardless of what you call it.

Is it just a coincidence that what is now the European Union began its life in 1957 as a customs union called the European Economic Community. A customs union is a free trade area with a common external tariff. The participant countries set up common external trade policies.

Do Robert Pastor's ideas point to a new and better direction, or are his ideas an echo of a treacherous past that robbed European nations of their independence, their currency and their sovereignty?

By following the European Union timeline, it is easy to see how the European ''Community'' evolved into a ''Common Market,'' and evolved its own currency, and finally established its own Parliament.

Look again at Pastor's goals. Are they not perfectly aligned with the history of the European Union? Again, it may be just a coincidence that the European Union was nurtured from the beginning by the Royal Institute for International Affairs. This non-government organization was created in 1920, by the same people who created its sister organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, in 1921.

Perhaps the North American Union is best described as a work in progress, having established a ''Common Market'' through NAFTA and CAFTA, and now approaching the ''Community'' stage through the Security and Prosperity Partnership. If the bureaucrats are not stopped by Congress, we will see, first, a ''North American Inter-Parliamentary Group,'' which is only a step away from a North American Parliament.

People, including pundits, who fail to see this work in progress could learn much from this NAU presentation. The NAU is moving quickly and quietly toward the same kind of political reality that now grips Europe. Only a concerned and enlightened constituency can compel elected officials to stop this erosion of America's sovereignty.

[Soldier4Christ]

Commerce chief pushes for 'North American integration' 
Communiqué shows SPP far more than just 'dialogue' with Canada, Mexico

While the Bush administration insists the controversial Security and Prosperity Partnership is just a dialogue with Canada and Mexico, a State Department cable released to WND shows Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez pressing to implement major trilateral initiatives to help "capture the vision of North American integration."

The cable was among some 150 pages of State Department SPP documents recently released to WND under a Freedom of Information Act request.

Howard Phillips, who has formed a coalition to block development of a "North American Union" and formation of NAFTA superhighways, told WND the document "makes clear that the agenda of SPP is to pursue major economic integration that redefines U.S. businesses into a 'North American' definition."

"By leading with economics, SPP is crafting a North American regulatory structure that transforms U.S. regulations by 'harmonizing' them with Mexican and Canadian regulations, all without specific congressional approval," said Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus.

The State Department communiqué, dated May 20, 2005, documents a March 13, 2005, meeting between Gutierrez, Mexican Secretary of Economy Fernando Canales and Canadian Privy Council Assistant Secretary Phil Ventura. The meeting was held just prior to the announcement of SPP at the trilateral summit with the country's three leaders in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005.

The cable notes Gutierrez opened the discussion by stressing that the July 23, 2005, "Report to Leaders" needed "to show results" that would be "enduring and create an on-going process."

Gutierrez suggested each working group should propose one "big ticket" issue, rather than the "50-60 smaller initiatives" that were then in the SPP "matrix," allowing the "SPP ministers" to capture the attention of the "SPP leaders" with major North American integration goals that were both tangible and important.

"This memo gives us an important 'behind the scenes' look at the trilateral bureaucratic process that gave rise to the "Report to Leaders.

The 2005 "Report to Leaders" on the SPP website, Phillips noted, resulted from a detailed process of trilateral bureaucratic meetings that led to cabinet-level discussions within the three governments. The end result, he said, was for the report to "focus on the major SPP working group initiatives that could advance the goal of North American integration."

Phillips contended a "close reading of the document makes a lie of the SPP 'myth vs. facts' contention that SPP is just a 'dialogue.'"

"The document quotes Canada's Ventura as stating that the three countries should prepare a joint document declaring their trilateral intention to 'integrate' a list of industries, including automobiles, pharmaceuticals, textiles, furniture, and steel," he argued. "Ventura said the more 'trilateral integrated' industries that could be listed, the better."

At the meeting, Gutierrez proposed that the SPP ministers think in terms of a trilateral "integrated" auto industry creating a "Made in North America Vehicle by 2009." He also suggested announcing "an IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) Violation Free Zone by 2010" and that SPP ministers should hold weekly conference calls to advance the agenda.

"The economic route being pursued behind closed doors by SPP working groups is a replay of the exact stealth route taken in Europe," Phillips noted.

"Right now the EU is celebrating with a series of television commercials the evolution over a 50-year period from an initial coal and steel agreement to a full-fledged European Union regional government with the euro as a regional currency," he said.

The recently uncovered State Department memo, Phillips added, makes clear the same bureaucratic process of regional integration is being implemented in North America within working group and minister meetings that are closed to the public and the press.

"The State Department memo also makes clear that Gutierrez is a major moving force driving the North American integration agenda for the Bush White House," Phillips said.

Supporting Phillips' contention, the State Department cable noted in the last paragraph the meeting got off to a slow start, but under Gutierrez's leadership "it resulted in concrete ideas and direction for the working groups."