come quickly lord jesus!
Jenifer gilley
check out my blog
http://claudastar.blogspot.com/
AIM: jenibear1998
msn
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Scovell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:39 PM
Subject: Fw: [CCNN] Creating the North American Union


> If you think this is a pipe dream, log on to the government website and 
> read
> the governmental documents for yourself.  It is going to happen.  The
> government site is
>
> www.spp.gov
>
> Phil.
>
>
>> Subject: [CCNN] Creating the North American Union
>>
>>
>>    *Creating the North American Union
>> *by Dennis Behreandt
>> October 2, 2006
>> http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4213.shtml
>>
>> The plans for a North American Security and Prosperity Partnership are
> steps
>> on the way to a North American Union. (Tell your representative and
> senators
>> "NO North American
>> Union!"<http://www.capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=9037471>
>> )
>>
>> On June 21, viewers of CNN's *Lou Dobbs Tonight* heard the alarming
>> introduction to a segment of the program devoted to the future of the
> United
>> States of America. "The Bush administration's open-borders policy and its
>> decision to ignore the enforcement of this country's immigration laws is
>> part of a broader agenda," Dobbs intoned. "President Bush signed a formal
>> agreement that will end the United States as we know it, and he took the
>> step without approval from either the U.S. Congress or the people of the
>> United States."
>>
>> The agreement Dobbs was talking about was crafted a year earlier. On 
>> March
>> 23, 2005, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexican President
>> Vicente Fox met with President Bush in Waco, Texas, to discuss plans for
>> integrating Canada, the United States, and Mexico. During that meeting,
> the
>> three heads of state argued that the three nations are "mutually 
>> dependent
>> and complementary" and need to work together more closely on a range of
>> issues. "In a rapidly changing world, we must develop new avenues of
>> cooperation that will make our open societies safer and more secure, our
>> businesses more competitive, and our economies more resilient," the three
>> leaders said in a joint statement.
>>
>> The standard diplomatic language was a prelude to a radical proposal
> calling
>> for the merger of the three nations in several important ways. Under a
>> so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the nations will no
>> longer have separate borders, but will "implement common 
>> border-security."
>> The three nations will no longer respond on the national level to
>> emergencies but will have a "common approach to emergency response." And,
> in
>> a move that has tremendous implications for the growing immigration
> crisis,
>> the three leaders agreed that the United States' north and south borders
>> would be eliminated. Under the SPP plan, the three nations will 
>> "implement
> a
>> border-facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve the legitimate
>> flow of people and cargo at our shared borders."
>>
>> This plan is nothing short of revolutionary. As Dobbs put it on his CNN
>> program, it is "an absolute contravention of our law, of our 
>> Constitution,
>> every national value." Though the plan sounds like a new innovation, it 
>> is
>> not new. It is the next step in a progression of steps that, in a manner
>> very similar to the process used in Europe to supplant individual nations
>> with the European Union, will ultimately lead to the formation of a new
>> government for the United States, the North American Union. If not
> stopped,
>> the plan for a North American Union will supplant the former independent
>> states of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. And this is not
> conjecture.
>> The North American Union is official U.S. policy.
>>
>> The European Template
>>
>> The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) serves as the intellectual
> incubator
>> for most of the foreign policy direction followed by the executive branch
> of
>> the federal government. Before the trilateral meeting between the heads 
>> of
>> state in Waco on March 23 of last year, the CFR had already undertaken an
>> initiative with its counterparts in Mexico and Canada (Consejo Mexicano 
>> de
>> Asuntos Internacionales and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives) to
>> study the possibility of integrating the three nations. Laying the
>> foundation for the Waco meeting, the CFR produced a document entitled
>> *Creating
>> a North American Community: Chairmen's Statement Independent Task Force 
>> on
>> the Future of North America*. The document called for "the creation by
> 2010
>> of a community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity for all
>> North Americans."
>>
>> The CFR is proposing nothing less than a plan to create a North American
>> Union, similar to the European Union. The CFR protests that this is not
> its
>> intention. "A new North American community will not be modeled on the
>> European Union or the European Commission, nor will it aim at the 
>> creation
>> of any sort of vast supranational bureaucracy," the *Chairmen's
>> Statement*said.
>>
>> But this is exactly the kind of statements that were made about the EU
>> during its earlier phases of development. The EU got its start in 1950
> with
>> the plan for European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The plan was
>> developed by Robert Schuman, who would become a socialist prime minister
> in
>> France, and French planning minister Jean Monnet in 1950. The so-called
>> Schuman Plan was adopted via the Treaty of Paris in 1952. The ECSC merged
>> the coal and steel industries of West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, 
>> the
>> Netherlands, and Luxembourg and created a supranational governing
>> organization. According to Georgetown University historian Carol Quigley,
>> "This was a truly revolutionary organization since it had sovereign
> powers,
>> including the authority to raise funds outside any existing state's
> power."
>> As Quigley noted, "This 'supranational' body had the right to control
>> prices, channel investment, raise funds, allocate coal and steel during
>> shortages, and fix production in times of surplus." In short, "The ECSC
> was
>> a rudimentary government," Quigley concluded.
>>
>> Creating a regional, supranational government was always the aim in
> Europe.
>> In 1990, the European Commission admitted as much in the publication
> *Europe
>> — A Fresh Start: *"Monetary union and economic integration are two
>> long-standing ambitions which the six founding States ... set 
>> themselves."
>> The document continued, describing the intent of the EU's founders: "We
> see,
>> then, that the institutions set up since 1950 on the initiative of Robert
>> Schuman and Jean Monnet are responding well to the aim of their founders:
>> broadening the scope of democratically and efficiently organized
> collective
>> action to cover the new arenas of interdependence among Europeans." The
> end
>> result of this gradual planning has been union in Europe.
>>
>> That union was the goal all along was not readily apparent during the
>> decades of its development. The long-term aim of the ECSC was hidden by
> its
>> purportedly narrow scope. From its name alone, it appeared that the
>> six-nation arrangement had only to do with coal and steel. Later EU
>> precursors followed the same plan. The European Economic Community, at
> first
>> glance, appeared to be nothing more than a free trade arrangement. It was
>> nevertheless founded on the Monnet doctrine that economic integration 
>> must
>> precede political integration.
>>
>> Such deception, in fact, remained one of the key elements in crafting the
>> EU, right up until recent years, a fact referenced by Villy Bergström, a
>> recent former deputy of the Swedish central bank. "I have never before
> seen
>> such manipulated, obscure and faked policies as in relation to Swedish
>> relations to the EU," Bergström wrote a few years ago. "Information has
> been
>> evasive and unclear, giving the impression that membership of the EU 
>> would
>> mean much less radical change than what has been the case."
>>
>> The strategy of building the EU through piecemeal means paid off.
> Following
>> the creation of the ECSC, European internationalists supported by the 
>> U.S.
>> government added additional elements to the emerging European superstate.
>> Though they suffered setbacks — a nascent European Defense Community was
>> rejected by France, and initial plans for a European Political Community
>> were shelved shortly after the creation of the ECSC — those setbacks were
>> temporary. The Treaty of Rome created the European Economic Community in
>> 1957. The EEC was the immediate predecessor of today's European Union.
>>
>> An EEC for North America
>>
>> North American integration got its big start with the North American Free
>> Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The arrangement was billed as little more than
> the
>> creation of a free trade arrangement between Canada, Mexico, and the
> United
>> States. But it really was the initial step toward regional integration.
>> According to professor Guy Poitras of San Antonio's Trinity University,
> one
>> of the factors motivating the creation of NAFTA was the view that it was
> an
>> important early step toward further integration. In his book *Inventing
>> North America*, Poitras noted that NAFTA's creation of regionalized
>> interdependence gave "a structural foundation for the task of inventing
>> North America."
>>
>> In a pro-NAFTA article in the *Washington Post *in 1993, William Orme, 
>> Jr.
>> pointed out that the then-fledgling trade pact was indeed a steppingstone
> to
>> further integration. "NAFTA," Orme admitted, "lays the foundation for a
>> continental common market, as many of its architects privately
> acknowledge.
>> Part of this foundation, inevitably, is bureaucratic: The agreement
> creates
>> a variety of continental institutions — ranging from trade dispute panels
> to
>> labor and environmental commissions — that are, in aggregate, an 
>> embryonic
>> NAFTA government."
>>
>> That free trade agreements like NAFTA must evolve into political unions 
>> is
>> taken for granted among academics that work closely with such issues. In
>> 1998, Glen Atkinson, professor of economics at the University of Nevada 
>> in
>> Reno, described this step-by-step process in an article entitled 
>> "Regional
>> Integration in the Emerging Global Economy" in the *Social Science
> Journal.
>> *Integration "must be an evolutionary process of continuous institutional
>> development," Atkinson wrote. Indeed, the development of supranational
>> governing organs is inevitable, though it will erode national 
>> sovereignty,
>> he writes. "The need for shared institutions among the parties is 
>> critical
>> for integration, which will lead to a weakening of national sovereignty 
>> in
>> some areas of interest. Sovereignty, however, must reside someplace in
> order
>> to enforce regional working conditions, intellectual and other property
>> rights and other concerns." NAFTA, being a "free trade" arrangement, is
> only
>> a preliminary step. According to Atkinson:
>>
>> The lowest level of integration is a free trade area which involves only
> the
>> removal of tariffs and quotas among the parties. If a common external
> tariff
>> is added, then a customs union has been created. The next level, or a
> common
>> market, requires free movement of people and capital as well as goods and
>> services. It is this stage where institutional development becomes
> critical.
>> The stage of economic union requires a high degree of coordination or 
>> even
>> unification of policies. This sets the foundation for political union.
>>
>> Now, according to those most concerned with creating a North American
> Union,
>> it's time to move beyond NAFTA. Professor Robert Pastor of American
>> University serves also as vice-chair of the CFR Task Force on North
> America
>> and is one of the primary intellectual architects of North American
>> regionalism. According to Pastor, even after NAFTA, U.S. policy has been
> too
>> nationalistic. "Instead of trying to fashion a North American approach to
>> continental problems, we continue to pursue problems on a dual-bilateral
>> basis, taking one issue at a time," Pastor said in testimony to the 
>> Senate
>> Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere on
> June
>> 9, 2005. "But incremental steps will no longer solve the security 
>> problem,
>> or allow us to grasp economic opportunities. What we need to do now is
> forge
>> a North American Community," Pastor stated.
>>
>> This, in fact, has been a major goal of the Bush administration and of 
>> the
>> Mexican administration of Vicente Fox. In a paper entitled *Closing the
>> Development Gap: A Proposal for a North American Investment Fund*, Pastor
>> and coauthors Samuel Morley and Sherman Robinson point out that Mexican
>> President Vicente Fox has long advocated a North American common market.
>> "Soon after he won Mexico's presidential election on July 2, 2000, 
>> Vicente
>> Fox proposed a Common Market to replace the free-trade area," Pastor,
>> Morley, and Robinson wrote. "He invited President George W. Bush to his
> home
>> in February 2001 and persuaded him to endorse 'The Guanajuato Proposal.'"
>> President Bush quickly signed on to the plan. In a joint statement with
> Fox
>> released by the White House on February 16, 2001, Bush described the
> outcome
>> of the meeting. "After consultation with our Canadian partners, we will
>> strive to consolidate a North American economic community whose benefits
>> reach the lesser-developed areas of the region and extend to the most
>> vulnerable social groups in our countries," said the Bush/Fox statement
>> announcing a new "partnership for prosperity."
>>
>> A Deepening Union
>>
>> With the announcement on March 23, 2005 of the Security and Prosperity
>> Partnership, the Bush administration, along with the governments of 
>> Mexico
>> and Canada, has taken the next step toward a European Union-style
> superstate
>> in North America. The SPP features a wide range of initiatives on matters
>> related to security and commerce. These include:
>>
>>    - Create a proto-parliament called the North American Competitiveness
>>    Council. According to official SPP documents, this body will "address
>> issues
>>    of immediate importance" and provide "strategic" advice. It will also
>>    "provide input on the compatibility of our security and prosperity
>> agendas."
>>
>>    - Under the purported threat of an avian flu pandemic, the parties to
>>    the SPP will harmonize plans for continuity of government in the event
> of
>> a
>>    crisis.
>>
>>    - Begin harmonizing security organs by creating a "common approach to
>>    critical infrastructure protection," and "develop and implement joint
>> plans
>>    for cooperation for incident response, as well as conduct coordinated
>>    training and exercises in emergency response."
>>
>>    - Create a single energy policy for North America by "improving
>>    transparency and regulatory compatibility."
>>
>> The SPP also has tremendous implications for immigration. As NAFTA erased
>> most remaining barriers hampering the flow of capital between Canada,
>> Mexico, and the United States, the SPP will look for ways to eliminate
>> bottlenecks hampering the flow of people. According to the official SPP
>> agenda, the new international body will work to "identify measures to
>> facilitate further the movement of business persons."
>>
>> Specific policies likely to be followed by the SPP can be found in the 
>> CFR
>> report entitled *Building a North American Community* that was released
> just
>> after the March 23, 2005 SPP meeting in Waco, Texas. In its
> recommendations,
>> the CFR report suggests, "The three governments should commit themselves
> to
>> the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current
>> intensity of the governments' physical control of cross-border traffic,
>> travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North
>> American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from
>> third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the
>> elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these
> travelers
>> within North America." This goes a long way toward explaining the
> maddening
>> lack of urgency that is apparent in Washington concerning the issue of
>> illegal immigration from Mexico. If the SPP follows the CFR template — a
>> virtual certainty — there will no longer be a border to cross illegally.
>>
>> Moving Fast
>>
>> Perhaps the most important difference between the formation of the
> European
>> Union and the effort to build a North American Union is the speed at 
>> which
>> the North American version is moving ahead. In Europe, union took 
>> decades,
>> with efforts starting just after World War II and culminating in the
> 1990s.
>> In North America, issues related to union first began only in 1965.
>> According to economist Glen Atkinson, "NAFTA has evolved over several
> stages
>> beginning with the Canadian-U.S. automobile pact of 1965 and the
>> Canadian-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1989." Now, little more than a
> decade
>> after NAFTA comes the SPP.
>>
>> A measure of the rapidity with which this drive for a North American 
>> Union
>> can affect the lives of citizens is the planned super highway linking the
>> U.S.'s northern and southern borders. The plan for this highway is
>> breathtaking. It includes plans to start construction in 2007 on the
>> so-called Trans Texas Corridor, to be built in large part by a Spanish
>> construction company.
>>
>> According to the magazine *International Construction Review*, the 
>> project
>> "would be part of the 'super-highway' spanning the United States from the
>> Mexican border at Laredo, making its way through Texas, Kansas and
> Oklahoma
>> and connecting with the Canadian highway system north of Duluth,
> Minnesota.
>> Because it would provide a connection all the way between Canada and
> Mexico,
>> the project is also described as the North American Free Trade Area
> (NAFTA)
>> super highway."
>>
>> A further measure of the speed with which a North American Union is 
>> likely
>> to develop is found within the CFR's recommendations for the SPP. That
>> organization, which so often drafts the foreign-policy blueprints 
>> followed
>> by the federal government, calls for "the creation by 2010 of a North
>> American community.... 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."
>>
>> It is incredible, but just four years from now — if the CFR template is
>> followed — the United States may cease to exist as an independent
> political
>> entity. Its laws, rules, and regulations — including all freedoms
> guaranteed
>> by the Constitution — will be subject to review and nullification by the
>> North American Union's governing body. Sure, the United States will still
> be
>> here in name. American soldiers will still fight, mostly, under the U.S.
>> flag. There will be a U.S. president and both houses of Congress will
>> continue to meet and pass legislation. Nevertheless, in very important
> ways,
>> the United States will become nothing more than a province — albeit an
>> important one — in the emergent North American superstate.
>>
>