Good evening, everybody. Tonight, an
astonishing proposal to expand our borders to incorporate Mexico and Canada
and
simultaneously further diminish U.S. Accordingly, the internal
authority of the state supersedes that of all other bodies.
Sovereignty. Have our political elites gone mad?
Lou Dobbs on Lou Dobbs Tonight, June 9, 2005
Introduction
The global elite, through the direct
operations of President George Bush and his Administration, are creating a
North
American Union that will combine Canada, Mexico and the U.S. into a
superstate
called the North American Union (North American Union - the
integration of Mexico,
Canada and the U.S. into a single economic and
political union, similar to the
European Union.(NAU). The NAU is roughly patterned after the European Union (EU). There is
no political or economic mandate for creating the NAU, and unofficial polls
of a
cross-section of Americans indicate that they are overwhelmingly
against this
end-run around national sovereignty.
To answer Lou Dobbs, "No, the political
elites have not gone mad", they just want you to think that they
have.
The reality over appearance is easily
cleared up with a proper historical perspective of the last 35 years of
political and economic manipulation by the same elite who now bring us the
NAU.
This paper will explore this history in
order to give the reader a complete picture of the NAU, how it is made
possible,
who are the instigators of it, and where it is headed.
It is important to first understand that
the impending birth of the NAU is a gestation of the Executive Branch of the
U.S. government, not the Congress. This is the topic of the first
discussion below.
The next topic will examine the global
elite's strategy of subverting the power to negotiate trade treaties and
international law with foreign countries from the Congress to the President.
Without this power, NAFTA and the NAU would never have been possible.
After this, we will show that the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the immediate genetic and necessary
ancestor of the NAU.
Lastly, throughout this report the NAU
perpetrators and their tactics will be brought into the limelight so as to
affix
blame where it properly belongs. The reader will be struck with the
fact that
the same people are at the center of each of these
subjects.
The Best Government that Money
Can Buy
Modern day globalization was launched
with the creation of the Trilateral Commission in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Its
membership consisted of just over 300 powerful elitists from North America,
Europe and Japan. The clearly stated goal of the Trilateral Commission was
to
foster a "New International Economic Order" that would supplant the
historical
economic order.
In spite of its non-political rhetoric,
The Trilateral Commission nonetheless established a headlock on the
Executive
Branch of the U.S. government with the election of James Earl
Carter in 1976.
Hand-picked as a presidential candidate by Brzezinski,
Carter was personally
tutored in globalist philosophy and foreign policy by
Brzezinski himself.
Subsequently, when Carter was sworn in as President, he
appointed no less than
one-third of the U.S. members of the Commission to
his Cabinet and other
high-level posts in his Administration. Such was the
genesis of the Trilateral
Commission's domination of the Executive Branch
that continues to the present
day.
With the election of Ronald Reagan in
1980, Trilateral Commission member George H.W. Bush was introduced to the
White
House as vice-president. Through Bush's influence, Reagan continued to
select
key appointments from the ranks of the Trilateral Commission.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush began his
four-year term as President. He was followed by fellow Trilateral Commission
member William Jefferson Clinton, who served for 8 years as President and
appointed fourteen fellow Trilateral members to his Administration.
The election of George W. Bush in 2000
should be no surprise. Although Bush was not a member of the Trilateral
Commission, his vice-president Dick Cheney is. In addition, Dick
Cheney's wife, Lynne, is also a member of the Commission in her own
right.
The Hegemony of the Trilateral Commission over the Executive Branch of the U.S.
government is unmistakable. Critics argue that this scenario is merely
circumstantial, that the most qualified political "talent" quite naturally
tends
to belong to groups like the Trilateral Commission in the first place.
Under
examination, such explanations are quite hollow.
Why would the Trilateral Commission seek
to dominate the Executive Branch? Quite simply - Power! That is, power to
get
things done directly which would have been impossible to accomplish
through the
only moderately successful lobbying efforts of the past; power
to use the
government as a bully platform to modify political behavior
throughout the
world.
Of course, the obvious corollary to this
hegemony is that the influence and impact of the citizenry is virtually
eliminated.
Modern Day "World Order"
Strategy
After its founding in 1973, Trilateral
Commission members wasted no time in launching their globalist strategy.
But,
what was that strategy?
Richard Gardner was an original member
of the Trilateral Commission, and one of the prominent architects of the New
International Economic Order. In 1974, his article "The Hard Road to World
Order" appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine, published by the Council on
Foreign
Relations. With obvious disdain for anyone holding nationalistic
political
views, Gardner proclaimed,
"In short, the 'house of world
order' would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top
down.
It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William
James'
famous description of reality, but an end run around national
sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the
old-fashioned frontal assault."1 [emphasis added]
In Gardner's view, using treaties and
trade agreements (such as General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs or GATT) would bind and supercede constitutional law piece by piece, which is
exactly what has happened. In addition, Gardner highly esteemed the role of
the
United Nations as a third-party legal body that could be used to erode
the
national sovereignty of individual nations.
Gardner concluded that "the
case-by-case approach can produce some remarkable concessions of
'sovereignty'
that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis"2
Thus, the end result of such a process
is that the U.S. would eventually capitulate its sovereignty to the newly
proposed world order. It is not specifically mentioned who would control
this
new order, but it is quite obvious that the only 'players' around are
Gardner
and his Trilateral cronies.
It should again be noted that the
formation of the Trilateral Commission by Rockefeller and Brzezinski was a
response to the general frustration that globalism was going nowhere with
the
status quo prior to 1973. The "frontal assault " had failed, and a new
approach
was needed. It is a typical mindset of the global elite to view any
roadblock as
an opportunity to stage an "end-run" to get around it. Gardner
confirms this
frustration:
"Certainly the gap has never
loomed larger between the objectives and the capacities of the international
organizations that were supposed to get mankind on the road to world order.
We
are witnessing an outbreak of shortsighted nationalism that seems
oblivious to
the economic, political and moral implications of
interdependence. Yet never has
there been such widespread recognition by the
world's intellectual leadership of
the necessity for cooperation and
planning on a truly global basis, beyond
country, beyond region, especially
beyond social system."3
The "world's intellectual leadership"
apparently refers to academics such as Gardner and Brzezinski. Outside of
the
Trilateral Commission and the CFR, the vast majority of academic thought at the time was opposed to such
notions as mentioned above.
Laying the Groundwork: Fast Track Authority
In Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution, authority is granted to Congress "To regulate commerce with foreign nations." An end-run around
this insurmountable obstacle would be to convince Congress to voluntarily
turn
over this power to the President. With such authority in hand, the
President
could freely negotiate treaties and other trade agreements with
foreign nations,
and then simply present them to Congress for a straight up
or down vote, with no
amendments possible. This again points out elite
disdain for a Congress that is
elected to be representative "of the people,
by the people and for the people."
So, the first "Fast Track" legislation
was passed by Congress in 1974, just one year after the founding of the
Trilateral Commission. It was the same year that Nelson Rockefeller was
confirmed as Vice President under President Gerald Ford, neither of whom
were
elected by the U.S. public. As Vice-President, Rockefeller was seated
as the
president of the U.S. Senate.
According to Public Citizen, the bottom
line of Fast Track is that...
"...the White House signs and
enters into trade deals before Congress ever votes on them. Fast Track also
sets
the parameters for congressional debate on any trade measure the
President
submits, requiring a vote within a certain time with no amendments
and only 20
hours of debate."4
When an agreement is about to be given
to Congress, high-powered lobbyists and political hammer-heads are called in
to
manipulate congressional hold-outs into voting for the legislation. (*See CAFTA Lobbying Efforts) With only 20 hours of debate allowed, there is little
opportunity for public involvement.
Congress clearly
understood the risk of giving up this power to the President, as evidenced
by
the fact that they put an automatic expiration date on it. Since the
expiration
of the original Fast Track, there been a very contentious trail
of Fast Track
renewal efforts. In 1996, President Clinton utterly failed to
re-secure Fast
Track after a bitter debate in Congress. After another
contentious struggle in
2001/2002, President Bush was able to renew Fast
Track for himself in the Trade
Act of 2002, just in time to negotiate the
Central American Free Trade Agreement
(CAFTA) and insure its passage in
2005.
It is startling to realize that since
1974, Fast Track has not been used in the majority of trade
agreements.
Under the Clinton presidency, for instance, some 300 separate
trade agreements
were negotiated and passed normally by Congress, but only two of them
were submitted under Fast Track: NAFTA and the GATT Uruguay Round. In fact, from 1974 to 1992, there were only three
instances of Fast Track in action: GATT Tokyo Round, U.S.-Israel Free Trade
Agreement and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Thus, NAFTA was only the fourth invocation of Fast Track.
Why the selectivity? Does it suggest a
very narrow agenda? Most certainly. These trade and legal bamboozles didn't
stand a ghost of a chance to be passed without it, and the global elite knew
it.
Fast Track was created as a very specific legislative tool to accomplish
a very
specific executive task -- namely, to "fast track" the creation of
the "New
International Economic Order" envisioned by the Trilateral
Commission in
1973!
Article Six of the U.S. Constitution
states that "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority
of
the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in
every
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of
any State
to the Contrary notwithstanding." Because international treaties
supersede
national law, Fast Track has allowed an enormous restructuring of
U.S. law
without resorting to a Constitutional convention (Ed. note: Both
Henry Kissinger
and Zbigniew Brzezinski called for a constitutional
convention as early as 1972,
which could clearly be viewed as a failed
"frontal assault"). As a result,
national sovereignty of the United States
has been severely compromised - even
if some Congressmen and Senators are
aware of this, the general public is still
generally ignorant.
North American Free Trade
Agreement
NAFTA was negotiated under the executive
leadership of Republican President George H.W. Bush. Carla Hills is widely
credited as being the primary architect and negotiator of NAFTA. Both Bush
and
Hills were members of the Trilateral Commission!
NAFTA "Initialing"
Ceremony: From left to right (standing)
President Salinas, President
Bush, Prime Minister Mulroney
(Seated) Jaime
Serra Puche, Carla Hills, Michael Wilson.
With Bush's first presidential term
drawing to a close and Bush desiring political credit for NAFTA, an
"initialing"
ceremony of NAFTA was staged (so Bush could take credit for
NAFTA) in October,
1992. Although very official looking, most Americans did
not understand the
difference between initialing and signing; at the time,
Fast Track was not
implemented and Bush did not have the authority to
actually sign such a trade
agreement.
Bush subsequently LOST a publicly contentious presidential race to democrat William Jefferson
Clinton, but they were hardly polar opposites on the issue of Free Trade and
NAFTA: The reason? Clinton was also a seasoned member of the
Trilateral
Commission.
Immediately after inauguration, Clinton
became the champion of NAFTA and orchestrated its passage with a massive
Executive Branch effort.
Some Unexpected Resistance
to NAFTA
Prior to the 1992 election, there was a
fly in the elite's ointment -- namely, presidential candidate and
billionaire
Ross Perot, founder and chairman of Electronic Data Systems
(EDS). Perot was
politically independent, vehemently anti-NAFTA and chose to
make it a major
campaign issue in 1991. In the end, the global elite would
have to spend huge
sums of money to overcome the negative publicity that
Perot gave to
NAFTA.
At the time, some political analysts
believed that Perot, being a billionaire, was somehow put up to this task by
the
same elitists who were pushing NAFTA. Presumably, it would accumulate
all the
anti-globalists in one tidy group, thus allowing the elitists to
determine who
their true enemies really were. It's moot today whether he was
sincere or not,
but it did have that outcome, and Perot became a lightning
rod for the whole
issue of free trade.
Perot hit the nail squarely on the head
in one of his nationally televised campaign speeches:
"If you're paying $12, $13,
$14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory south of the
border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, hire young -- let's assume you've
been
in business for a long time and you've got a mature workforce - pay a
dollar an
hour for your labor, have no health care - that's the most
expensive single
element in making a car - have no environmental controls,
no pollution controls,
and no retirement, and you didn't care about anything
but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going
south..."5 [emphasis added]
Perot's message struck a nerve with
millions of Americans, but it was unfortunately cut short when he entered
into
public campaign debates with fellow candidate Al Gore. Simply put, Gore
ate
Perot's lunch, not so much on the issues themselves, but on having
superior
debating skills. As organized as Perot was, he was no match for a
politically
and globally seasoned politician like Al Gore.
The Spin Machine gears up
To counter the public relations damage
done by Perot, all the stops were pulled out as the NAFTA vote drew near. As
proxy for the global elite, the President unleashed the biggest and most
expensive spin machine the country had ever seen.
Former Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca was
enlisted for a multi-million dollar nationwide ad campaign that praised the
benefits of NAFTA. The mantra, carried consistently throughout the many spin
events: "Exports. Better Jobs. Better Wages", all of which have turned out
to be
empty promises
Bill Clinton invited three former
presidents to the White House to stand with him in praise and affirmation
NAFTA.
This was the first time in U.S. history that four presidents had ever
appeared
together. Of the four, three were members of the Trilateral
Commission: Bill
Clinton, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Gerald Ford was
not a Commissioner,
but was nevertheless a confirmed globalist insider.
After Ford's accession to
the presidency in 1974, he promptly nominated
Nelson Rockefeller (David
Rockefeller's oldest brother) to fill the Vice
Presidency that Ford had just
vacated.
The academic community was enlisted
when, according to Harper's Magazine publisher John MacArthur,
...there was a pro-NAFTA
petition, organized and written my MIT's Rudiger Dornbusch, addressed to
President Clinton and signed by all twelve living Nobel laureates in
economics,
and exercise in academic logrolling that was expertly converted
by Bill Daley
and the A-Team into PR gold on the front page of The New York
Times on September
14. 'Dear Mr. President,' wrote the 283
signatories..."6
Lastly, prominent Trilateral Commission
members themselves took to the press to promote NAFTA. For instance, on May
13,
1993, Commissioners Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance wrote a joint op-ed
that
stated:
"[NAFTA] would be the most
constructive measure the United States would have undertaken in our
hemisphere
in this century."7
Two months later, Kissinger went
further,
"It will represent the most
creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since
the
end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of
a
free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere." [NAFTA] is not a
conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new
international system."8
[emphasis added]
It is hardly fanciful to think
that Kissinger's hype sounds quite similar to the Trilateral Commission's
original goal of creating a New International Economic Order.
President Clinton
signing NAFTA On January 1, 1994, NAFTA became law:
Under Fast Track procedures, the house had passed it by 234-200 (132
Republicans
and 102 Democrats voting in favor) and the U.S. Senate passed it
by 61-38.
That Giant Sucking Sound Going
South
To understand the potential impact of
the North American Union, one must understand the impact of
NAFTA.
NAFTA promised greater exports, better
jobs and better wages. Since 1994, just the opposite has occurred. The U.S.
trade deficit soared and now approaches $1 trillion dollars per year; the
U.S.
has lost some 1.5 million jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and
Mexico have
fallen significantly.
Patrick Buchanan offered a simple
example of NAFTA's deleterious effect on the U.S. economy:
"When NAFTA passed in 1993, we
imported some 225,000 cars and trucks from Mexico, but exported about
500,000
vehicles to the world. In 2005, our exports to the world were still
a shade
under 500,000 vehicles, but our auto and truck imports from Mexico
had tripled
to 700,000 vehicles.
"As McMillion writes, Mexico now
exports more cars and trucks to the United States than the United States
exports
to the whole world. A fine end, is it not, to the United States as
"Auto Capital
of the World"?
"What happened? Post-NAFTA,
the Big Three just picked up a huge slice of our auto industry and moved it,
and
the jobs, to Mexico."9
Of course, this only represents the auto
industry, but the same effect has been seen in many other industries as
well.
Buchanan correctly noted that NAFTA was never just a trade deal:
Rather, it was
an "enabling act - to enable U.S. corporations to dump their
American workers
and move their factories to Mexico." Indeed, this is the
very spirit of all
outsourcing of U.S. jobs and manufacturing facilities to
overseas locations.
Respected economist Alan Tonelson,
author of The Race to the Bottom, notes the smoke and mirrors that
cloud what has really happened with exports:
"Most U.S. exports to Mexico
before, during and since the (1994) peso crisis have been producer goods -
in
particular, parts and components sent by U.S. multinationals to their
Mexican
factories for assembly or for further processing. The vast majority
of these,
moreover, are reexported, and most get shipped right back to the
United States
for final sale. In fact, by most estimates, the United States
buys 80 to 90
percent of all of Mexico's exports."10
Tonelson concludes that "the vast
majority of American workers have experienced declining living standards,
not
just a handful of losers."
Mexican economist and scholar Miguel
Pickard sums up Mexico's supposed benefits from NAFTA:
"Much praise has been heard
for the few 'winners' that NAFTA has created, but little mention is made of
the
fact that the Mexican people are the deal's big 'losers.' Mexicans now
face
greater unemployment, poverty, and inequality than before the agreement
began in
1994."11
In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to
the citizenry of the United States or Mexico. Still, this is the backdrop
against which the North American Union is being acted out. The globalization
players and their promises have remained pretty much the same, both just as
disingenuous as ever.
Prelude to the North American
Union
Soon after NAFTA was passed in 1994, Dr.
Robert A. Pastor began to push for a "deep integration" which NAFTA could
not
provide by itself. His dream was summed up in his book, Toward a North
American
Union, published in 2001. Unfortunately for Pastor, the book was
released just a
few days prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and
thus received
little attention from any sector.
However, Pastor had the right
connections. He was invited to appear before the plenary session (held in
Ontario, Canada) of the Trilateral Commission on November 1-2, 2002, to
deliver
a paper drawing directly on his book. His paper, "A Modest Proposal
To the
Trilateral Commission", made several recommendations:
"... the three governments
should establish a North American Commission (NAC) to define an agenda for
Summit meetings by the three leaders and to monitor the implementation of
the
decisions and plans.
A second institution should
emerge from combining two bilateral legislative groups into a North American
Parliamentary Group.
"The third institution should be a
Permanent Court on Trade and Investment
"The three leaders should
establish a North American Development Fund, whose priority would be to
connect
the U.S.-Mexican border region to central and southern Mexico.
The North American
Commission should develop an integrated continental plan for transportation
and
infrastructure.
"...negotiate a Customs Union and
a Common External Tariff "Our three governments should
sponsor Centers for North American Studies in each of our countries to help
the
people of all three understand the problems and the potential of North
America
and begin to think of themselves as North
Americans"12 [emphasis added]
Pastor's choice of the words "Modest
Proposal" are almost comical considering that he intends to reorganize the
entire North American continent.
Nevertheless, the Trilateral Commission
bought Pastor's proposals hook, line and sinker. Subsequently, it was Pastor
who
emerged as the U.S. vice-chairman of the CFR task force that was
announced on
October 15, 2004:
"The Council has launched an
independent task force on the future of North America to examine regional
integration since the implementation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement
ten years ago... The task force will review five spheres of policy
in which
greater cooperation may be needed. They are: deepening economic
integration;
reducing the development gap; harmonizing regulatory policy;
enhancing security;
and devising better institutions to manage conflicts
that inevitably arise from
integration and exploit opportunities for
collaboration."13
Independent task force, indeed! A total
of twenty-three members were chosen from the three countries. Each country
was
represented by a member of the Trilateral Commission: Carla A. Hills
(U.S.),
Luis Rubio (Mexico) and Wendy K. Dobson (Canada). Robert Pastor
served as the
U.S. vice-chairman.
This CFR task force was unique in that
it focused on economic and political policies for all three countries, not
just
the U.S. The Task Force stated purpose was to
"... identify inadequacies in
the current arrangements and suggest opportunities for deeper cooperation on
areas of common interest. Unlike other Council-sponsored task
forces,
which focus primarily on U.S. policy, this initiative includes
participants from
Canada and Mexico, as well as the United States, and will
make policy
recommendations for all three countries."14 [Emphasis added]
Richard Haass, chairman of the CFR and
long-time member of the Trilateral Commission, pointedly made the link
between
NAFTA and integration of Mexico, Canada and the U.S.:
"Ten years after NAFTA, it is
obvious that the security and economic futures of Canada, Mexico, and the
United
States are intimately bound. But there is precious little thinking
available as
to where the three countries need to be in another ten years
and how to get
there. I am excited about the potential of this task force to
help fill this
void,"15
Haass' statement "there is precious
little thinking available" underscores a repeatedly used elitist technique.
That
is, first decide what you want to do, and secondly, assign a flock of
academics
to justify your intended actions. (This is the crux of academic
funding by NGO's
such as Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation,
Carnegie-Mellon, etc.) After
the justification process is complete, the same
elites that suggested it in the
first place allow themselves to be drawn in
as if they had no other logical
choice but to play along with the "sound
thinking" of the experts.
The task force met three times, once in
each country. When the process was completed, it issued its results in May,
2005, in a paper titled "Building a North American Community" and subtitled
"Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America." Even
the
sub-title suggests that the "future of North America" is a fait accompli
decided
behind closed doors.
Some of the recommendations of the
task force are:
"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 for infrastructure and human capital."
"Establish a permanent tribunal
for North American dispute resolution."
"An annual North American
Summit meeting" that would bring the heads-of-state together for the
sake
of public display of confidence.
"Establish minister-led working
groups that will be required to report back within 90 days, and to meet
regularly."
Create a "North American Advisory
Council"
Create a "North American
Inter-Parliamentary Group."16
Sound familiar? It should: Many of the
recommendations are verbatim from Pastor's "modest" presentation to the
Trilateral Commission mentioned above, or from his earlier book, Toward a
North
American Union.
2006 SPP Summit in Cancun
Shortly after the task force report
was issued, the heads of all three countries did indeed meet together for a
summit in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The specific result of the summit
was
the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
(SPPNA). The joint press release stated
"We, the elected leaders of Canada,
Mexico, and the United States, have met in Texas to announce the
establishment
of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North
America.
"We will establish working
parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with
stakeholders
in our respective countries. These working parties will respond
to the
priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific,
measurable,
and achievable goals. They will outline concrete steps that our
governments can
take to meet these goals, and set dates that will ensure the
continuous
achievement of results.
"Within 90
days, ministers
will present their initial report after which, the working
parties will submit
six-monthly reports. Because the Partnership will be an
ongoing process of
cooperation, new items will be added to the work agenda
by mutual agreement as
circumstances warrant."17
Once again, we see Pastor's North
American Union ideology being continued, but this time as an outcome of a
summit
meeting of three heads-of-states. The question must be raised, "Who
is really in
charge of this process?"
Indeed, the three premiers returned to
their respective countries and started their "working parties" to "consult
with
stakeholders." In the U.S., the "specific, measurable, and achievable
goals"
were only seen indirectly by the creation of a government website
billed as
"Security and Prosperity Partnetship of North America."
(www.spp.gov) The
stakeholders are not mentioned by name, but it is clear
that they are not the
public of either of the three countries; most likely,
they are the corporate
interests represented by the members of the
Trilateral Commission!
The second annual summit meeting took
place on March 30-31, 2006, in Cancun, Mexico between Bush, Fox and Canadian
prime minister Stephen Harper. The Security and Prosperity Partnership
agenda
was summed up in a statement from Mexican president Vicente
Fox:
"We touched upon fundamental
items in that meeting. First of all, we carried out an evaluation meeting.
Then
we got information about the development of programs. And then we gave
the
necessary instructions for the works that should be carried out in the
next
period of work... We are not renegotiating what has been
successful or
open the Free Trade Agreement. It's going beyond the
agreement, both for
prosperity and security."18 [emphasis added]
Regulations instead of
Treaties
It may not have occurred to the
reader that the two SPP summits resulted in no signed agreements.
This
is not accidental nor a failure of the summit process. The so-called
"deeper
integration" of the three countries is being accomplished through a
series of
regulations and executive decrees that avoid citizen watchdogs and
legislative
oversight.19
In the U.S., the 2005 Cancun summit
spawned some 20 different working groups that would deal with issues from
immigration to security to harmonization of regulations, all under the
auspices
of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (www.spp.gov). The SPP
in the U.S. is
officially placed under the Department of Commerce, headed by
Secretary Carlos
M. Gutierrez, but other Executive Branch agencies also have
SPP components that
report to Commerce.
After two years of massive effort, the
names of the SPP working group members have not been released. The result of
their work have also not been released. There is no congressional
legislation or
oversight of the SPP process.
The director of SPP, Geri Word, was
contacted to ask why a cloud of secrecy is hanging over SPP. According to
investigative journalist Jerome Corsi, Word replied
"We did not want to get the
contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public." 20
This paternalistic attitude is a typical
elitist mentality Their work (whatever they have dreamed up on their own) is
too
important to be distracted by the likes of pesky citizens or their
elected
legislators.
This elite change of tactics must not be
understated: Regulations and Executive Orders have replaced Congressional
legislation and public debate. There is no pretense of either. This is
another
Gardner-style "end-run around national sovereignty, eroding it
piece by
piece."
Apparently, the Trilateral-dominated
Bush administration believes that it has accumulated sufficient power to ram
the
NAU down the throat of the American People, whether they protest or not.
Robert A. Pastor: A Trilateral
Commission Operative
As mentioned earlier, Pastor is hailed
as the father of the North American Union, having written more papers about
it,
delivered more testimonies before Congress, and headed up task forces to
study
it, than any other single U.S. academic figure. He would seem a
tireless
architect and advocate of the NAU.
Although he might seem to be a fresh,
new name to in the globalization business, Pastor has a long history with
Trilateral Commission members and the global elite.
He is the same Robert Pastor who was the
executive director of the 1974 CFR task force ( funded by the Rockefeller
and
Ford Foundations) called the Commission on US-Latin American
Relations
- aka the Linowitz Commission. The Linowitz Commission,
chaired by an original
Trilateral Commissioner Sol Linowitz, was singularly
credited with the giveaway
of the Panama Canal in 1976 under the Carter
presidency. ALL of the Linowitz
Commission members were members of the
Trilateral Commission save one, Albert
Fishlow; other members were W.
Michael Blumenthal, Samuel Huntington, Peter G.
Peterson, Elliot Richardson
and David Rockefeller.
One of Carter's first actions as
President in 1977 was to appoint Zbigniew Brzezinski to the post of National
Security Advisor. In turn, one of Brzezinski's first acts was to appoint his
protege, Dr. Robert A. Pastor, as director of the Office of Latin American
and
Caribbean Affairs. Pastor then became the Trilateral Commission's
point-man to
lobby for the Canal giveaway.
To actually negotiate the
Carter-Torrijos Treaty, Carter sent none other than Sol Linowitz to Panama
as
temporary ambassador. The 6-month temporary appointment avoided the
requirement
for Senate confirmation. Thus, the very same people who created
the policy
became responsible for executing it.
The Trilateral Commission's role in the
Carter Administration is confirmed by Pastor himself in his 1992 paper The
Carter Administration and Latin America: A Test of Principle:
"In converting its
predisposition into a policy, the new administration had the benefit of the
research done by two private commissions. Carter, Vance, and Brzezinski were
members of the Trilateral Commission, which provided a conceptual framework
for
collaboration among the industrialized countries in approaching the full
gamut
of international issues. With regard to setting an agenda and an
approach to
Latin America, the most important source of influence on the
Carter
administration was the Commission on U.S.-Latin American Relations,
chaired by
Sol M. Linowitz."21
As to the final Linowitz Commission
reports on Latin America, most of which were authored by Pastor himself, he
states:
"The reports helped the
administration define a new relationship with Latin America, and 27 of the
28
specific recommendations in the second report became U.S. policy."22
Pastor's deep involvement with
Trilateral Commission members and policies is irrefutable, and it continues
into
the present.
In 1996, when Trilateral Commissioner
Bill Clinton nominated Pastor as Ambassador to Panama, his confirmation was
forcefully knocked down by Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), who held a deep
grudge
against Pastor for his central role in the giveaway of the Panama
Canal in 1976.
The setback obviously did not phase
Pastor in the slightest.
Where from
here?
The stated target for full
implementation of the North American Union is 2010.
"The Task Force proposes the
creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security,
prosperity,
and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle
affirmed in the
March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that 'our
security and
prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.' Its
boundaries will be
defined by a common external tariff and an outer security
perimeter within which
the movement of people, products, and capital will be
legal, orderly, and safe.
Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure,
just, and prosperous North
America." 23
Don't underestimate the global elite's
ability to meet their own deadlines!
Conclusion
This paper does not pretend to give
thorough or even complete coverage to such important and wide-ranging topics
as
discussed above. We have shown that the restructuring of the United
States has
been accomplished by a very small group of powerful global
elitists as
represented by members of the Trilateral Commission.
The Trilateral Commission plainly stated
that it intended to create a New International Economic Order. We have
followed
their members from 1973 to the present, only to find that they are
at the dead
center of every critical policy and action that seeks to
restructure the U.S.
Some critics will undoubtedly argue that
involvement by members of the Trilateral Commission is merely incidental.
However, the odds for their involvement at random is too large to be even
remotely understandable; it would be like winning the lottery jackpot five
times
in a row, with the same numbers!
The credo of The August Review is
"Follow the money, follow the power." In this view, the United States has
literally been hijacked by less than 300 greedy and self-serving global
elitists
who have little more than contempt for the citizens of the
countries they would
seek to dominate. According to Trilateralist Richard
Gardner's viewpoint, this
incremental takeover (rather than a frontal
approach) has been wildly
successful.
To again answer Lou Dobbs question,
"Have our political elites gone mad?" -- No Lou, they are not
"mad",
nor are they ignorant. To look into the face of these global elites
is to look
into the face of unmitigated greed, avarice and treachery.
Footnotes:
Gardner, Richard, The Hard Road to
World Order, (Foreign Affairs, 1974) p. 558
ibid, p. 563
ibid. p. 556
MacArthur, The Selling of Free Trade,
(Univ. of Cal. Press, 2001) p. 228
Washington Post, op-ed, Kissinger
& Vance, May 13, 1993
Los Angeles Times, op-ed, Kissinger,
July 18, 1993
Tonelson, The Race to the Bottom
(Westview Press, 2002) p. 89
ibid.
ibid.
ibid. p. 10
Further
Reading
Meet Robert Pastor: Father of the North
American Union, Human Events,
Jerome
R. Corsi, July 25, 2006
Robert A. Pastor Resume, American University, 2005
North America's Super Corridor Coalition, Inc.
Website
| |
Source: http://www.augustreview.com/issues/general/toward_a_north_american_union_200608181/
Note: If any HOTLINKS don't work go
directly to source above.
Lateran Treaty with the Pope, establishing the Vatican as a City State with full diplomatic rights. Newspapers at the time proclaimed the "wound" to the Vatican and the papacy to be healed.
