1. AMERICAN UNION
2. SOVEREIGNTY (5/27/07)

How would you like Mexican input in forming rules to regulate the food (pesticides are OK) and drugs you ingest, or to share defense secrets and plan border security and other important rules that affect your life?

You would have no recourse to complain to your congressman if you wanted to challenge he rules. Tri-partite bureaucrats from the United States , Mexico and Canada would make the rules under a sub-rosa scheme now underway. Bye-Bye U.S. sovereignty.

All of these regulatory areas are in a state of neglect in the public infrastructure of Mexico, whose leaders skim off money from the nation's limited assets and let the people be dammed, hoping they will migrate illegally to the United States and send money home.

But our imperial president, George W. Bush, wants to integrate the three countries in the ostensible interest of economics and security with the emphasis on economics. Translated that means cheap labor for corporations, and the further downgrading of the U.S. middle class and the lowering of U.S. standards to those of Mexico .

The so-called American Union now in the works would be patterned after the European Union. Planning the future would be formed by ruling elites much like those of the Bilderbergs who plan the future for so-called Western Civilization. More about that later.

It is way past time for the power-delegating Congress to assert its constitutional authority and curb power-usurping President Bush, who skirted lawmakers in promoting this hairbrained scheme in the interest of money-donating, irresponsible, avaricious corporations.

But Congress thinks and acts late on every thing but its annual pay raises. It often acts so late that the schemes of the president's are in place before it gets around to making any noise. The autocratic president makes his own rules with as little as possible regard for the people or Congress.

Congress is now proposing anemic, non-binding, no-win resolutions to protest the war in Iraq , although it has rubber-stamped every president's overseas ventures with resolution approval since World War II. It should have made the president come before it with a declaration of war as the Constitution calls far, along with adequate debate.

It is now acting irresponsibly by letting the enemy know we don't have the will to win and are ready to turn over regional control of the Middle East to a militant group of clerics in Iran , who supports Islamic terrorists. It could have stopped the Iraq invasion on the front end and let Saddam Hussein checkmate Iran . After all we have supported or ignored dictators arguably just as bad as Hussein. But now it is too late to leave Iraq , since we are committed and cannot abide another ignominious defeat such as Vietnam .

CURBING THE BUSH-CHENEY REGIME

If Congress really wants to protect this county and its sovereignty it should challenge Bush on his excessive use of executive orders that usurp its legislative prerogatives as well as the presidential signing statements that effectively change the intent of laws passed by Congress. It has the power to challenge and nullify Bush's abuse of perceived legislative powers.

It was amusing to note in early 2007 that the Venezuela Congress gave power to President Hugo Chavez to enact measures by decree. Bush has been doing this all along and to paraphrase the bandito in the movie, Sierra Madre, ‘'without no stinking decrees''.

Congress needs first to challenge Bush's back room deals to form a North American Union by his alleged executive power. That plan is called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SSP. It is billed as an effort to correlate economic and security practices and would ultimately produce a set of North American regulations that would supercede the present regulations of the three countries.

The blue print for SSP also calls for a common currency (the amero) as well as a common I.D. card or border pass for citizens of all three nations. Now you know why Bush has not been performing his constitutional duty by enforcing immigration laws and supports amnesty for illegal immigrants.

BACKGROUND

The SSP is the brain child of Robert A. Pastor, a professor at American University and former director of Latin American Affairs on the National Security council. He wrote a book that is an outline for the plan endorsed by Richard N. Hass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). That elite organization masquerades as a think tank with no agenda although it has saturated the government for nearly a century. (see list of organizations at the front of this site).

Pastor chaired a CFR task force for the plan, which plutocratic Bush-Cheney regime bought lock stock and barrel and is in the process of implementing without congressional or constituent input at this writing.

Bush met with former Mexican President Vincente Fox and Paul Martin of Canada in March 2005 in Waco , Tx., to launch the partnership agreement. Several meetings of government dignitaries have been held since. Another meeting was scheduled February 23, 2007 in Ottawa , Canada , in which secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security, were scheduled to meet their counterparts from Canada and Mexico to discuss the plan.

That meeting was in advance of one planned for June in Alberta with the heads of the three nations.

So, the plan without congressional input and no debate except in the executive branch is further along than anyone outside Bush's inner circle knows about.

CONCERNS

So far there has been no groundswell outrage and little concern expressed in the media or Congress about this half-baked scheme. It proposes that the U.S. integrate with a third-world country enmeshed in poverty with little investment in education, health or other basic needs to improve its status and the welfare of its citizens.

In fact, its economy is so bad that five members of the CFR task force registered strong objections for the immediate establishment of a North American Investment Fund. That fund would be largely financed by U.S. taxpayers.

‘'Any development fund should reinforce efforts that Mexico undertakes to further its own economic development and should not be established in advance of those efforts, ‘' the objectors, including former U.S. Trade Representative Carla S. Hills, stated.

In Congress a concurrent resolution has been introduced to oppose the plan, which also is tied to a NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) super-highway system that would run from the west coast of Mexico through the United States to Canada .

The resolution was sponsored by Reps. Virgil Goode ( Va. ), Ron Paul (Tx.), Walter Jones (NC) and Tom Tancredo ( Co. ). It has gained little attention, although Paul wrote a scathing objection to the proposed highway and integration plan in one of his weekly web site columns.

The mainline press has practically ignored the story, and most information about it has come from internet sites. A group called the Coalition to Block the North American Union has been formed to oppose the plan and support the congressional resolution.

The co-chairman of the coalition is Jerome Corsi who claims administrative law is being rewritten by working groups of the three nations in secret.

‘'There's hardly a major area of public policy where the Bush administration has not, through the SSP working groups, rewritten our administrative law and regulations from being U.S. in nature to being North American in nature,'' Corsi stated, according to a copyrighted story by AgapePress carried by WorldNetDaily.

COMPARISON TO EU & BILDERBERGS

The proposed pact is being billed simply as an aim to promote the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. It is being compared to the European Union, another regional group that has still to gain harmonious integration since it had its inception more than a half a century ago much like that of SSP.

One question about the regional groups comes to mind. Are they the forerunners of the one world government aspirations of the world elites who control most of the earth's wealth and have little regard for the national sovereignty.

In his book, Colossus, Niall Ferguson, professor of history at Harvard, states: ‘'Almost from its genesis in the European Coal and Steel Community (1951), the European Union has been predicated on transfers of resources from the larger, wealthier countries to the smaller, poorer countries.''

He also suggests that national interests still have not been overcome and that there are many problems still to be solved after almost six decades of negotiating.

If the EU pattern holds true for the proposed North American Union then the largest economic contributor to that union will be U.S. taxpayers. In return they will see their wages and the U.S. economic status reduced by trying to pull up a third world country to equality with a first rate nation.

Incidentally, the United States is the only first rate country that has a common border with a third world country, and it extends for 2,000 miles.

And who will do the planning for the three nations? Why, the elites, of course, with little regard for democratic input. In fact, the CFR recommendations called for a body of ‘'eminent advisers'' outside government ‘'along the lines of the Bilderberg conferences.''

The Bilderberg membership involves powerful West Europeans and North Americans who meet in secret annually to plan the future policies of the Western capitalist democracies. The so-called ‘'eminent advisers'' (rich elites) apparently would plan the future of the new American Union outside government as the Bilderbergs now do.

The time to stop this SSP nonsense and unconstitutional sovereignty giveaway by our imperial president is now. Providence has saved us from Spanish rule more than once, including Columbus ' navigational error. But we can't continue to rely on it.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

President Bush appears to be pulling out all the stops to dismantle U.S. sovereignty and make our republic just another state in a global union before he leaves office.

He has recently worked outside Congress to initiate a North American union with Mexico and Canada ; called for economic integration with the European Union and again revived a sea treaty twice defeated that would hand control of the oceans to the corrupt United Nations.

Critics charge the sea treaty signed by former President Clinton but never ratified by the Senate would undermine both U.S. sovereignty as well as U.S. security.

In addition to what he is doing from the White House, his elite friends at the Council on Foreign relations (CFR), who initiated the American Union study that led to Bush's backing of the plan, are also working overtime in pushing globalism.

As an example Benn Steil, director of international economics at the CFR, contends that ‘'economic development outside the process of globalization is no longer possible.'' Writing in CFR's Foreign Affairs magazine, Steil calls for a one-world currency to replace the dollar and the euro

Even billionaire George Soros, former director of CFR, claiming the United States can't deal with global affairs alone, plans to initiate a foreign-affairs institute in Europe similar to the globalist CFR, according to Bloomberg.com. (For more about the CFR see terms and organizations at the head of this web site).

The Senate has gotten into the act by reviving its amnesty plan for who knows how many millions of illegal aliens with a proviso hidden in the measure to speed up implementation of the North American integration plan. And even the Supreme Court, with three CFR members aboard, has ruled that U.S. soldiers must wear United Nations uniforms if ordered to do so. So much for sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution.

LOST

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) originated about a quarter of a century ago in the United Nations as part of a plan to transfer wealth and technology from developed to underdeveloped countries under UN direction.

Under LOST the UN would be given power to tax U.S. citizens and businesses and also would establish an international court system to enforce its decisions. It would place the world's oceans (about 70 percent of the planet's surface) under control of an International Seabed Authority (ISA) that the UN would establish.

The ISA would set production controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing, regulate ocean exploration, issue permits and settle disputes in the UN court. It would regulate waters more than 200 miles off the coasts of all nations.

This treaty, as noted, was defeated by Ronald Regan but revived by the State Department in 2003 and signed by Bill Clinton only to be defeated again by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee then headed by Sen. Jesse Helms.

But globalists never sleep. It was revived again in 2004 and defeated again by then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. But Bush, Dick Cheney and some senior Republican senators have revived it again. Now that Democrats control the Senate they hope to get it approved. They claim the treaty provides an international framework for competition for the ocean's resources, including oil.

Critics of the treaty claim it would, among other things: Make illegal President Bush's initiative to battle proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; effectively deter the U.S. from intercepting vessels of terrorists no matter what they were carrying; gravely limit U.S. Naval or Coast Guard ships from intercepting, searching or seizing suspect vessels at sea like those carrying nuclear devices to rogue nations; and add another international court to judge U.S. citizens.

CORRUPT UN

The treaty would be vulnerable to the same corrupt practices that have surfaced in the UN since its inception. The latest, you will recall, was the Oil-for-Food program in Iraq that involved billions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks.

The United States would have just one vote under the treaty and would be vastly outnumbered by nations hostile to our interests. Most country members of the UN already usually vote against U.S. interests, especially Arabic/Islamic states.

The UN is trying not only to control the wealth of the ocean floors, but it is also trying to regulate American corporations; police internet trade rules; foist alien values on American citizens; control our military, and reduce our national sovereignty and claim jurisdiction over us.

Bush 43 is abetting the agency that gets most of its money from U.S. taxpayers even though the Texas Republican Party Platform, which he ignores, calls for the U.S. to pull out of the UN and remove its headquarters from the United States .

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas called the proposed sea treaty ‘'dangerous and foolish.'' But that doesn't slow down our autocratic, globalist president who has failed to honor his oath of office to ‘'protect and defend'' the Constitution.

INTEGRATION WITH EU

Bypassing Congress, Bush has signed an ‘'agreement'' with representatives of the European Union to strengthen transatlantic economic integration, Jerome R. Corsi reported in a copyrighted story on WorldNetDaily.

The investigative reporter pointed out that the agreement is not a treaty or a law and was signed by Bush on his own authority without consulting Congress. It is similar to another agreement reached in 2005 with Canada and Mexico which also bypassed congress.

It calls for deeper transatlantic economic integration and ‘'regulatory convergence.'' That means, according to Corsi, ‘'rewriting our administrative laws to conform with...the EU administrative laws and regulations…in 40 different policy areas.''

The agreement established a new Transatlantic Economic Council that would be chaired by a cabinet-level officer in the White house on the U.S. side and a member of the European Commission on the EU side.

This, of course, is in addition to other world and regional organizations and conventions such as the World Trade Organization and NAFTA. In short, the dismantling of U.S. sovereignty is on a fast track.

NORTH AMERICAN SECURITY AND PROSPERITY PARTNERSHIP

All of these so-called co-operative and integration plans as well as most treaties and trade agreements are Robin Hood arrangements for the rich countries (in most cases U.S. taxpayers) to give to poor nations.

Niall Ferguson pointed this out in his book Colossus about the European Union, as an example. ‘'Almost from its genesis…the European Union has been predicated on transfers of resources from the larger, wealthier countries to small, poorer countries,'' he wrote.

And that will hold true for the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) that calls, among other things, for economic integration with a dysfunctional third world country, Mexico , that is deficient in its entire infrastructure and can't even control rampant drug crime within its borders. The drug cartels are even shutting down newspapers there. The SPP would be patterned after the EU.

The SSP is the brain child of Robert A. Pastor, a professor at American University who proposed the plan in a book. CFR President Richard N. Hass suggested a study chaired by Pastor and recommended the plan later endorsed by President Bush. Bush met with former Mexican President Vincente Fox and Paul Martin of Canada in March 2005 in Waco , Tx., to launch the partnership agreement and several meetings of government dignitaries have been held since.

Bush did this on his own authority outside Congress just as he did with the EU economic agreement. But there is growing opposition to SPP. As an example, Reps. Virgil Goode (VA.) and Ron Paul Tx., Walter Jones (NC) and Tom Tancredo ( Co. ) have introduced a concurrent resolution in Congress to oppose the plan.

Corsi wrote ‘'There is hardly a major area of public policy where the Bush administration has not, through the SSP working groups, rewritten our administrative law and regulations from being U.S. in nature to being North American in nature.''

Under the agreement products tested on one country would be acceptable in all three. The regulatory process would be integrated for agriculture and food products. How would you like your food and drugs tested and stamped pure in Mexico ? It would be about like getting them stamped in China , which has recently exported tainted toothpaste as well as human and pet food.

In the Month of April, 2007 alone, the Food and Drug Administration detained 107 food imports from China .

Some other things the SPP would do:

--Give unlimited access to each country's territory (is this why Bush won't enforce the immigration laws already on the books and why he praises the new Senate amnesty plan?).

--Rewrites much of U.S. administrative law to conform to that of the other two countries. Remember signing statements by the president also nullifies many congressional laws through non-enforcement.

--Calls for a super highway stretching across the United States from Mexico to Canada . That would invite Mexican truckers to travel throughout the United States with questionable cargo like drugs.

--Calls for the free flow of people within North America with a common I.D. card.

--Provides a common tariff and places more emphasis on economic recommendations than on security. Critics rightly point out that the United States has less to gain from trilateral economic reform than from security reform.

The plan also calls for a North American investment fund. U.S. taxpayers, of course, would pay for the fund in exchange for lower wages themselves and the influx of even more labor from Mexico .

‘'…A more prosperous Mexico in the long-turn means less illegal immigration,'' Pastor wrote. Didn't we hear something like this when NAFTA was created? Maybe Pastor can tell us how to bring up a dysfunctional third world country to an economic par with the greatest industrial nation on earth.

This whole plan is nonsense and benefits corporations who are looking for cheap labor and the elites who own the world's resources. At stake is U.S. sovereignty, security and economic welfare and the U.S. middle class.

If the whispered objective by some disgruntled politicians to impeach Bush ever gains enough momentum to become feasible, the secret backing of SPP and failure to enforce the nation's immigration laws, which he swore to do, plus the dismantling of U.S. sovereignty ought to be included among the charge.

Top