"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than f rom 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."
Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)

North American Union..... Part II

Vivelecanada
Tuesday April 10, 2007

According to a recent article in the American Free Press (March 24, 'GLOBALISTS GATHER IN BRUSSELS') at a recent Trilateral Commission meeting, members of the government and the corporate elite have come up with an innovative solution to the global warming problem. With all the resources available to this group of individuals; government studies, climate reports, and taxpayer dollars; we can all rest assured that the most effective and informed decision was made. What is this wonderful, radical solution that will adequately deal with the threat of global warming? Another tax of course.

And not just any tax, we are talking about a whopping one dollar per gallon gasoline tax as "penance" for causing pollution. Apparently these are the kinds of solutions being recommended at these super secret Trilateral Commission meetings by the ultra wealthy and former heads of the Central Intelligence Agency. But wait, the Trilateral Commission is a committee of private citizens from North America, Japan, and Europe isn't it? Who are they to be pushing additional taxation on the average taxpayer?

The terminology used at this meeting is also suspect. The fact that this tax should be imposed as "penance" should raise a few eyebrows. Penance? Like punishment or discipline? This suggests that this one dollar per gallon tax is simply reparations and not toward any effort to clean up the environment. So where will all this additional revenue go? Will any of it at all go to the environment? If so, who will police this new revenue stream? Can we trust a government with this huge windfall when it has shown such little respect for our hard earned tax dollars in the past?

So as usual the solution to this problem, like every other problem the government has to deal with, is to increase taxes. Problem, reaction, solution. But surely this private group of elites doesn’t have the power to lobby for such a tax, do they? Let’s dig a little deeper.

According to the same American Free Press article, back in 1991 at a meeting in Tokyo, the Trilateral Commission had called for a 10 cent increase in gasoline taxes. The Washington Post, who was in attendance, immediately followed up with an editorial on the topic the very next day. Would this pattern repeat itself this time? A quick search for "Carbon Tax" on the Washington Post website returns several results including two published on April 1; one entitled "Tax on Carbon Emissions Gains Support" and another entitled "We Can Get Out of These Ruts" which specifically mentions a dollar per gallon gasoline tax, but makes no reference to the Trilateral Commission. Are we to believe that both parties arrived at the exact same conclusion independently? This whole thing reeks of industry and media collusion, no big surprise considering the fact that the Washington Post attends all Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg meetings.

So it appears the writing is on the wall, get ready for a dollar per gallon carbon tax, another windfall for the powers that be. However, the phrase "carbon tax" sounds vaguely familiar, perhaps something else is going on here. Documents from the "North American Forum" which took place in September 2006 in Banff, Alberta have recently been released under Freedom of Information Act and may shed some light on the subject.

For those who are unaware (which is no big surprise due to the media's reluctance to cover the topic), the so called Security and Prosperity Plan of North America (SPP) was launched in March of 2005 by the leaders of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico in an effort to "increase security" and "enhance Prosperity" between the three nations through "greater cooperation and information sharing". More loosely known as the North American Union or NAFTA's big brother, the SPP has enjoyed relative anonymity in the media as it seeks to integrate the governmental, economic, and defense policies among others of the three North American countries.

Getting back to the North American Forum meeting in Banff, notes from the meeting make the statement that there is "significant interest" in climate change, a fact which can be leveraged to impose a carbon tax. This document goes on to state that the infrastructure of the North American Union should be implemented in secret, essentially "Evolution by Stealth". Wait a minute, this is supposed to be government by, of, and for the people, there was never any mention of stealth.

So in summary, we have the Washington Post publicly pushing for a carbon tax on behalf of the Trilateral Commission, and we have the SPP operating in relative obscurity thanks in no small part to the media's willingness to look the other way, privately pushing for a carbon tax to help fund the infrastructure of the forthcoming North American Union. Moreover, we suddenly have the unprecedented consensus between the media and all political parties, spearheaded by a former government official, regarding the threat of global warming, an issue that has only been ignored, obfuscated, and ostracized by politicians and the media in the past. Based on all of this, one can't help but ask the question; is the sudden Global Warming hysteria fueled by politicians and the media really an effort by the corporate elite to impose a carbon tax to fund the North American Union?

Should we be concerned about the fact that the North American Union is being implemented in secret, without consulting congress or the taxpayer? Should we be concerned about our own sovereignty? Is this plan and the shady implementation of it even legal? Lets look a little further into the implications of such an agreement. The Banff North American Forum documents state on more than one occasion of the need to narrow the gap between the average Mexican income and its northern neighbours and that this might be the single most important issue on the North American Agenda. The question is how will they do it? And how much will the average Canadian and American incomes suffer?

One of the methods for achieving parity of North American income levels, according to the documents, involved yearly cash infusions of 10 billion dollars compliments of North American taxpayers for a ten year period in order to set up a North American Investment Fund to be doled out as grants for setting up infrastructure and communications services into Mexico. While this scenario may sound all warm and fuzzy to the contractors who will probably be awarded no-bid contracts to do the work, I have a problem with making a ten year investment designed solely to lower my income levels to be more compatible with my Mexican counterparts. Furthermore, the Banff documents recommend that this fund be managed by the World Bank. The World Bank? Just who exactly will be managing my money and in extension, the implementation of the North American Union?

The current president of the World Bank is a fellow by the name of Paul Wolfowitz. That’s right, the same Paul Wolfowitz who served as Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush and who is also a "prominent architect" of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration known as the Bush Doctrine, which resulted in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But the invasion of Iraq was a horrible mistake, nobody can deny that now, and it has nearly bankrupted the U.S. I'm not sure I want Wolfowitz managing my money, and why would the North American Forum even recommend such a thing? Shouldn't the government manage this project and my money? Since when do corporations control tax dollars? This is sounding more and more like fascism. Am I working for and serving my country or am I working for and serving a giant corporation?

It gets worse; Paul Wolfowitz is also a member of the Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative research group which called for significant increases in defense spending in the 1990s as well as to "boldly and purposefully promote American principles abroad". This same group also famously stated that achieving its goals would be difficult in the absence of some "catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor" in its "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document released in September of 2000. Unfortunately the 9/11 attacks occurred one year later and the PNAC group have seen their plan come to fruition.

Convenient timing aside, it is somewhat disheartening to see statements like those of Robert Pastor, a leading intellectual force in the move to create a European Union style North American Community, who stated that a new 9/11 crisis could be the catalyst to merge the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. I am not liking this one bit, it appears that the groundwork for a North American Union is being secretly architected, allowing it to be swiftly implemented as circumstances (or terrorist attacks) dictate. Once again, problem, reaction, solution.

Numerous other interesting statements can be found in the Banff documents, including a question as to whether or not a North American Passport should be imposed to facilitate travel within the three countries. Wait a minute, I thought that increased passport requirements were required to secure our borders and to combat terrorism. And yet this requirement fits in nicely with the secret plan to implement a North American Union, how convenient. Evolution by stealth. It might be time to ask those that are secretly meeting to integrate Canada, the U.S., and Mexico to slow down and consult the taxpaying citizens of each of those countries for their opinions on the subject. And why not inform congress of the plan as well?

Contact your member of congress, contact the media, and demand open discussion on the subject of the North American Union, and if you don't like what you hear, demand that its implementation be halted. Educate yourselves on the topic, this article has only scratched the surface. There are detailed plans to tear down borders, integrate emergency response and military, and to implement one common North American currency. For those who may believe the North American Union will be good for the country, the Banff documents themselves state that Globalism has caused vast imbalances of wealth in Mexico and that wealth and income tend to be concentrated in the hands of conspicuous elites. So why would they continue down this road toward a North American Union and an eventual World Government?

The North American Union is often called NAFTA's big brother, examples of abuses of power in the NAFTA agreement include NAFTA's proportionality clause, which states that Canada must continue exporting the same proportion of oil and gas as in the previous three years, even if Canadians are freezing in the dark. With this kind of misuse, what surprises will NAFTA's big brother have for us? It is time to wrestle the control of our country and our futures away from the corrupt politicians and the elites whose only concern is cheap labour and increased corporate profits, none of which are good for any of us.

N. American students trained for 'merger' 10 universities participate in 'model Parliament' in Mexico to simulate 'integration' of 3 nations September 25, 2006 [Source] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52104 American University Professor Robert Pastor   WASHINGTON – In another example of the way the three nations of North America are being drawn into a federation, or "merger," students from 10 universities in the U.S., Mexico and Canada are participating annually in a simulated "model Parliament." Under the sponsorship of the Canadian based North American Forum on Integration, students met in the Mexican Senate for five days in May in an event dubbed "Triumvirate," with organizers declaring "A North American Parliament is born." A similar event took place in the Canadian Senate in 2005. The intentions of organizers are clear. "The creation of a North American parliament, such as the one being simulated by these young people, should be considered," explained Raymond Chretien, the president of the Triumvirate and the former Canadian ambassador to both Mexico and the U.S. Participants discuss draft bills on trade corridors, immigration, provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement and produce a daily newspaper called "The TrilatHerald." The 10 universities taking part include Harvard, American University, Carlton University, Simon Fraser, Universite de Montreal, Ecole nationale d'administration publique, Monterrey TEC, CIDE, Monterrey University and Instituto Mexicano de la Juventud. Officials taking part have included James Williams, the former U.S. ambassador to Canada. The North American Forum on Integration says the annual event enjoys the support of the U.S. Embassy in Canada, the Canadian Embassy in Mexico and the North American Development Bank. It also has been supported by at least one U.S. news organization – the Houston Chronicle. NAFI says it is "a non-profit organization devoted to developing North American dialogue and networks and at publicizing issues raised by North American integration." The board of directors of NAFI include Robert A. Pastor, professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University and vice chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on North America. He has testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on the idea of merging the United States, Mexico and Canada in a North American union stretching from Prudhoe Bay to Guatemala. "What we need to do," Pastor instructed, "is forge a new North American Community. ... Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric border pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed through tolls." Pastor is the author of "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. As vice chairman of the May 2005 CFR task force, he is an architect of the Building a North American Community" plan 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. The CFR report is a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter." Some see it as the blueprint for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It calls for "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital and people flow freely." The CFR's strategy calls specifically for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people." It calls for laying "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." It calls for efforts to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations." It calls for efforts to "harmonize entry screening." In "Building a North American Community," the report states that Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal March 23, 2005, at that meeting in Waco, Texas. Pastor believes the U.S. and Canadian government should divert significant new taxpayer funding to solving the problems of the poor in Mexico. "If Canada and the United States contributed just 10 percent of what the European Union spends on aid for its poorest member, and if Mexico invested it wisely in infrastructure and education, then Mexico could begin to grow at twice the rate of its northern neighbors, and North America would have found the magic formula to lift developing countries to the level of the industrialized world," he said in 2002. The next Triumvirate model parliament conference will be in the United States – in either New York or Washington, according to a spokeswoman for the North American Forum. It's not just the mock "parliament" sessions involving students of the three countries that raises concerns among those suspicious about political and social "inertia" moving the U.S. into a European Union-style merger with its northern and southern neighbors. Earlier this month, a high-level, top-secret meeting of the North American Forum took place in Banff, Canada – with topics ranging from "A Vision for North America," "Opportunities for Security Cooperation" and "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration." Pastor was listed as a confirmed participant in that meeting, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Central Intelligence Agency Director R. James Woolsey, former Immigration and Naturalization Services Director Doris Meissner, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Energy Secretary and Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and top officials of both Mexico and Canada. Opposition is mounting to such meetings, policy papers and presidential directives leading to what some critics characterize as "NAFTA on steroids." The concerns began in earnest March 31, 2005, when the elected leaders of the U.S., Mexico and Canada agreed to advance the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Perhaps the most blistering criticism came earlier this summer from Lou Dobbs of CNN – a frequent critic of President Bush's immigration policies. "A regional prosperity and security program?" he asked rhetorically in a recent cablecast. "This is absolute ignorance. And the fact that we are – we reported this, we should point out, when it was signed. But, as we watch this thing progress, these working groups are continuing. They're intensifying. What in the world are these people thinking about? You know, I was asked the other day about whether or not I really thought the American people had the stomach to stand up and stop this nonsense, this direction from a group of elites, an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value. And I hope, I pray that I'm right when I said yes. But this is – I mean, this is beyond belief." No one seems quite certain what that agenda is because of the vagueness of the official declarations. But among the things the leaders of the three countries agreed to work toward were borders that would allow for easier and faster moving of goods and people between the countries. Coming as the announcement did in the midst of a raging national debate in the U.S. over borders seen as far to open already, more than a few jaws dropped. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. and the chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus as well as author of the new book, "In Mortal Danger," may be the only elected official to challenge openly the plans for the new superstate. Responding to a WND report, Tancredo is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of the government office implementing the trilateral agreement that has no authorization from Congress. Tancredo wants to know the membership of the Security and Prosperity Partnership groups along with their various trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements reached with counterparts in Mexico and Canada. Why the secrecy? Geri Word, who heads the SPP office, told WND the work had not been disclosed because, "We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public." The concerns about the direction such powerful men could lead Americans without their knowledge is only heightened when interlocking networks are discovered. For instance, one of the components envisioned for this future "North American Union" is a superhighway running from Mexico, through the U.S. and into Canada. It is being promoted by the North American SuperCorridor Coalition, or NASCO, a non-profit group "dedicated to developing the world’s first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America." The president of NASCO is George Blackwood, who earlier launched the North American International Trade Corridor Partnership. In fact, NAITCP later morphed into NASCO. A NAITCP summit meeting in 2004, attended by senior Mexican government officials, heard from American University's Pastor.

Montreal hosts forth annual NAU parliament....

"North American Parliament" Meets At Integration Forum - May 27/08

Students trained in "sense of belonging to North America"

Conservatives get angry if you still think there is a "government of Canada". Civil

servant fired for referring to "new government" as 'government of Canada'.

Only one lone fringe Party taking the break-up of Canada seriously.

Canadians protest 'North American Union' Party to fly national flag upside down in protest at convention Posted: September 9, 2006 6:20 p.m. Eastern By Jerome R. Corsi Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51904 A Canadian political party intends to fly the national flag upside down during its convention this weekend as a signal of distress and resistance against the integration of Canada with the United States and Mexico into a North American Union regional government. Connie Fogal, the leader of the Canadian Action Party told WND "we are opposed to the plan to develop the Security and Prosperity Partnership into a EU-style North American Union government" which "amounts to treason and is a total violation of the constitutional rights of Canadian citizens." Fogel explained that the party has decided to fly the Canadian Flag upside down during its convention "as a signal of our distress and resistance against the integration of Canada with the United States and Mexico." Fogal argues the plan to form a North American Union is designed to avoid public scrutiny and to maintain "deniability" even as the legal structure for a new regional government is being put into place by the executive branches of the three countries. Connie Fogal Cabinet-level executive branch participants of the SPP working groups in Canada are organized to work with counterparts in the U.S. and Mexico largely out of public view. "The plan is to create the NAU incrementally," Fogal told WND, "because if any of the three governments were up front about their true intentions, the SPP plan would never fly." The U.S. Department of Commerce SPP website contains a link to the SPP counterparts in Mexico and Canada. Fogel used strong language in expressing to WND the focus of the Canadian Action Party to bring the SPP and NAU to the attention of Canadians. "The rapid integration of North America into one entity ruled by an unaccountable, unrepresented and unelected group cabal of administrative executive branch officials is treason pure and simple," she said. The Canadian Action Party is recognized by Canadian federal elections officials as an official Canadian political party. In the 2006 federal election, the party fielded some 36 candidates but received only some .04% of the vote. A video currently archived on YouTube.com records Connie Fogel's charge that the Canadian involvement in SPP and the movement to create the NAU constitutes treason. ____________________ Previous stories: Superhighway 'security' benefits questioned How NAFTA superhighway is built under radar screen NAFTA superhighway to mean Mexican drivers, say Teamsters Trans-Texas Corridor paved with campaign contributions More evidence Mexican trucks coming to U.S. Docs reveal plan for Mexican trucks in U.S. Kansas City customs port considered Mexican soil? Tancredo confronts 'super-state' effort Bush sneaking North American super-state without oversight? Documents disclose 'shadow government' Government documents released by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal the Bush administration is running a "shadow government" with Mexico and Canada in which the U.S. is crafting a broad range of policy in conjunction with its neighbors to the north and south, asserts WND columnist and author Jerome R. Corsi.

Documents Reveal Bush/CFR "Administrative Coup D'etat" of America
Bush 'super-state' agenda to create American Union is now official

Top U.S. official chaired N. America-confab panel

Yet more evidence the phoney "conservative" Tories have surrendered Canadian

sovereignty to other governments! This is a serious matter when foreign police can

cross our border at will, and subject Canadians to unauthorized "law enforcement"

agencies. Agencies who have proven ties to criminal activities, such as torture. These

people have NO LEGITIMATE authority to enforce US law in Canada, so treat them as

the ARMED invaders they are.

Borders being blurred for joint forces takeover of "rebel" states. US troops will also

be coming to a city near you to condition public for military occupation and

suppression.

 

Canadian Forces to take part in invasion of eastern U.S. By DAVID PUCLIESE Can West News Service OTTAWA — Canadian soldiers, sailors and aircrew will be participating in a seaborne invasion off the east coast of the U.S. next month in the first major test of the military’s plan to have a rapid response force capable of intervening in failed or failing states around the world [read North American Union, under Northcom]. The troops will be put ashore by landing craft operating from the USS Gunston Hall, a U.S. navy amphibious assault ship. The landing and accompanying operations off the coast of North Carolina are being billed as an experiment designed to test Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier’s plan to create a floating strike force that could position itself off the coast of any global hotspot. Commodore Paul Maddison, commander of the military’s standing contingency force, said about 1,100 Canadian Forces personnel will be involved in the experiment. “This is a joint exercise being led by the navy;’ he said. “In terms of concept development it’s always good to do an experiment to actually kick some ideas around and see what comes out the other side and to get smarter along the way?’ The 2005 defence policy statement recommended the military acquire an amphibious assault ship capable of prepositioning a standing contingency task force made up of both regular troops and special forces. At the time Hillier said he wanted the force to be exercising its capabilities in 2006 with an initial operational capability ready by 2007. Besides transporting 800 troops, Hillier said an amphibious ship bought by Canada would have to carry up to six helicopters and be capable of offloading smaller landing craft. Military personnel on board such a vessel could be used for a variety of missions, including rescuing Canadians trapped in a foreign country, delivering humanitarian aid or conducting combat operations.

Talk of the North American Union is finally hitting gangbusters in Canadian Papers, though

the spin is often that such a massive integration is not going to affect sovereignty.

 

Continental integration talks spark fierce debate in U.S. Saturday, February 17, 2007 - Kelly Patterson, CanWest News Service OTTAWA -- A sweeping accord for the economic integration of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico has unleashed a firestorm of debate south of the border. Everyone from national congressmen and state legislators to bloggers and YouTubers are raising the alarm about the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a plan to harmonize the countries' economic and security practices. Criticism ranges from measured calls for stronger congressional oversight to hysterical charges that the "treasonous" deal will flood the U.S. with illegal aliens and terrorists. "The deal will weaken the sovereignty of the U.S. It will create a North American Union" similar to the European model, warns Representative Virgil Goode, who, along with six other legislators, has tabled two resolutions opposing the deal in the U.S. House of Representatives. Canada will be in the eye of the storm next Friday as U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff arrive in Ottawa to meet their Canadian and Mexican counterparts to discuss the accord, in the lead-up to a summit of the heads of state in Alberta this June. The wide-ranging accord lays the tracks for the harmonization of everything from immigration screening and terrorist watch lists to drug-safety and consumer-protection regulations. The SPP aims "to build a safer, more secure and economically dynamic North America" says Melisa Leclerc, spokeswoman for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day. But critics argue that the pact, brokered by U.S. President George Bush, then-prime minister Paul Martin and Mexican leader Vicente Fox in 2005, amounts to a set of backroom deals that bypass the democratic channels of all three countries to avoid opposition. Many of the accord's 300-some initiatives affect regulatory issues such as visa-screening rules that are under the control of bureaucrats rather than legislators. Since January, legislators in six states have tabled resolutions opposing the plan. "A merger between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico would be a direct threat to the national independence of the U.S. and an eventual end to national borders," says Val Stevens, a Washington state senator who recently filed a resolution opposing the pact. Officials on both sides of the border strongly deny the charges that they're engineering a North American Union. "All three governments are sovereign democracies, and the SPP work is the kind of standard intergovernmental diplomacy and co-ordination that occurs all the time on various issues," said U.S. Department of Commerce spokesman Matt Englehart. Any steps that would require legal changes will be vetted by Congress, Englehart adds. The pact aims simply to "promote the safe and efficient movement of people and goods" among the three trading partners, he says. "That's nice government bureaucratese," scoffs Jerome Corsi, an author and outspoken critic of the pact, pointing to the sheer scale of the project, which involves scores of officials in all three countries. "You don't need trilateral working groups that report directly to three cabinet secretaries, the National Security Council and the president" to do housekeeping tasks such as cleaning up Lake Erie, he says. "The SPP puts in place an elaborate, robust structure" that "will be permanent, and will ultimately ... produce a new set of North American regulations that would supersede any regulations we have in Canada and the U.S." Corsi says Canadians should be concerned by this, too, noting that some SPP documents refer to the Alberta oilsands "not as a Canadian resource, but as a North American resource." "What if you want to sell it to a country we (the U.S.) don't want it sold to?" he asks. But Robert Pastor, director of the Center of North American Studies at American University and an influential proponent of economic integration, says the SPP is no threat to sovereignty. "The idea of a North American Union is impossible. ... There's no way these national governments are going to be dissolved," he says, noting that the relationships among the three nations are very different from those in Europe. "But we would be making a huge mistake we didn't learn from five decades of European (economic) integration. "We're better off the more we communicate with each other and work together." Nonetheless, John McManus, president of the patriotic John Birch Society, says the European Union, which began with a common market and regulatory harmonization, has all but wiped out national identity on the continent. "Last month, Roman Herzog, German president from 1994 to 1999, said 84 per cent of the legal acts in Germany stem from European Union headquarters in Brussels. "Then he asked whether Germany can still unreservedly be called a parliamentary democracy anymore." The Security and Prosperity Partnership is the "beginning of the end of independence," he concludes. "I would think Canadians want to stay Canadians, and here in America we want to stay American." Ottawa Citizen Right underneath this above article was the following with was an attempt to label the above as a mere "conspiracy theory". This tactic is the same one used to question any of the alleged facts of 911, and is no longer effective. Supercorridor spells ‘demise of U.S.’ Conspiracy theorists having a field day with prospect of North American Union By KELLY PATTERSON - Can West News Service TORONTO — A “cabal of elite globalists” is plotting the demise of the United States, setting it up to be overrun by “socialist Canada and corrupt Mexico” as they press on with secret plans to forge ­a North American Union. That’s what a host of American conspiracy theorists are saying about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a ongoing plan to harmonize the countries’ economic and security practices. The sweeping accord has set the talk show phone lines and patriot blogs abuzz south of the border ever since it was announced two years ago. “While you were, busy, your govern­ment was busy, too” warns one website featuring a map of North America rimmed with fire as if about to explode. The online Whistleblower magazine ran a special edition titled, “Alien Nation: Secrets of the Invasion,” predicting the deal spells the end of the U.S. as we know it, and that the U.S. will “be inte­grated with the socialism, corruption, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. Hundreds of blog sites, from ‘vanishing American” to “freedom in our time” have taken on the issue, and YouTube lists more than 100 entries on the “North a American Union.” ‘One World Monopolists” are set to “shred crush and destroy our constitution," writes one critic, adding the plot is being “deviously facilitated by a com­plicit and deliberately silent media”. Patriot bloggers are especially wor­ried the deal, which will streamline bor­der security for designated “trusted travelers” and harmonize customs and immigration rules, means illegal aliens, drug smugglers and terrorists will pour across the Mexican border into the U.S. One site quotes Mario Obledo, for­mer head of the Mexican-American lobby group MALDEF, predicting, “Cal­ifornia is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who does not like it should leave.” They’re worried a “North American superhighway,” stretching from the Mex­ican port of Lazaro Cardenas to Kansas City and on to Canada via Winnipeg, will create a conduit for criminals from Mex­ico right into the heart of America. They say the highway is the brainchild of a Dallas-based organization called North America’s Supercorridor Coalition Inc., a trilateral coalition to promote trade routes among the three countries. The coalition strongly denies there is any such plot, although it’s promoting improvements to an existing trade corri­dor linking the three transportation hubs. There’s no “secret plan to create a NAFTA superhighway way that would under­mine our national sovereignty,” says U.S. Commerce Department spokesman Matt Englehart, adding that, while many high­way improvement projects are underway, all undergo the required environmental assessments and public consultations. If there is no "secret plan", why were secret meetings held in 2006 at Banff Springs Alberta, and why does attendee Stockwell Day still not wish to disclose the subject of his comments, made at this meeting? And if sovereignty is not affected, why does Stockwell day acknowledge giving FREE REIGN to FBI agents within the borders of what is called Canada?

Now all that is needed is some sort of drill that will get the public accustomed to the

presence of military vehicles on our city streets. How likely is that, you ask?

Bare in mind that one of the agreements signed under the North American Union

"package" was a pact allowing US troops into Canada to do "police work".

They're going to come for your guns first folks - just like they

practiced in New Orleans and elsewhere. Now that the precedent

has been set for foreign troops to enter Canada, who knows

where that will end. And it may all be sparked by a false flag

terrorist event, and/or economic collapse.

Watch for drills in your area involving Police and military.

Many drills are not made public knowledge, and

set the stage for false flag terrorism.

• Bizarre terror drill involves Victoria Police Department.

• PM to talk border security, terrorism with U.S.

Harper charts plan to rebuild Armed Forces - May 13/08
Troop strength will rise to 100,000 under 20-year, $30-billion program

Analysis: EU dreams of common army - March 27/07 (UPI)
 

US Army Announces Readiness for Total Military Takeover of America

Sorcha Faal / whatdoesitmean.com | October 21 2006

U.S. and EU Agree to Harmonize Regulatory Standards 2007-05-03

Copyright reform bill critics eye victory - Dec 10/2007

Minister of Industry Jim Prentice has said his proposed copyright reform bill will bring Canada in line with its international obligations

Canada, U.S. bow to [UN] pressure on climate change - Dec 16/2007
UN official says accord promotes ambitious, transparent, flexible solution for global problem

Sarko Wins One for the Global Elite

“It is a top priority to get the European bicycle rolling again, according to Pierre Lellouche,

Sarkozy’s foreign policy advisor…. The differences between the candidates is more one of

approach rather than substance, with Sarkozy being the better strategist.” According to

Lellouche, even the top dog socialists in France “admit they’ll vote for Sarkozy,” as their

primary focus is globalization.

Putin calls for new financial world order - June11/2007

Crisis may make 1929 look a 'walk in the park' - Dec 24/2007
Twenty billion dollars here, $20bn there, and a lush half-trillion from the European Central Bank at give-away rates for Christmas. Buckets of liquidity are being splashed over the North Atlantic banking system, so far with meagre or fleeting effects.

Ottawa police chief calls for more surveillance cameras - Nov 27/2007

Treaty 'hands swathes of power to Brussels' - London Telegraph June 23/2007

______

Two hour video "Terror Storm" exposes government sponsored terror against its own people.

Please help us defend your Freedom and Liberty with a donation of

your choosing... Click 'make a donation' button below. Thank You!