If you
believe there should be no borders marking a
specific entity called the
United States of America, then a North
American Union will not concern you. If you believe
nationalism, meaning love and pride of country, is a
bad thing, then a North American Union will not
concern you. If you believe government control of
the market, of health care, and of energy policy is
a positive force, then a North American Union will
not concern you. If you believe anyone should be
allowed to enter our nation, even illegally, obtain
work, taxpayer-paid social programs, and owe no
allegiance to the U.S., then a North American Union
will not concern you.
On the other hand, if you believe the
United States is the most unique nation on
Earth with a government designed to protect your
natural liberties, an economic system unlike any
other --designed to create economic independence,
and a judicial system unknown to any other nation,
then a North American Union is a threat to all you
hold dear.
Those currently working on such a plan do not share
your ideals; they do not support your political
positions. They do not understand nor care about
your concerns. It's their political ideology, and
they see nothing wrong with what they are doing.
They consider your opposition to their plans to
"harmonize" the U.S. with Mexico and
Canada old-fashioned and out of date.
The question is: where do you stand?
The other side intends to marginalize your love of
country and support of limited government. In fact,
the other side doesn't want to debate the issue at
all. It just wants to force its way on you, without
discussion, without a vote, and without your
involvement. And that is why they are trying to
operate in secret.
Those of us who oppose this Union on ideological
grounds intend to force that debate and let the
American people decide how they wish to be governed.
And that is why the other side is attacking us so
viciously.
Incredibly, some of the most vicious attacks have
come from so-called spokesmen on the right --
apparently threatened by other conservatives who
question Bush Administration polices. For example,
in December of 2006, news commentator Michael Medved
fumed and spewed in a couple of blogs and on his
radio show about the "nuts" and "crazies" who
question the true purpose of the Security and
Prosperity Partnership (SPP).
The Charge:
"This paranoid and groundless frenzy has been
fomented and promoted by a shameless collection of
lunatics and losers; crooks, cranks, demagogues and
opportunists, who claim the existence of a top
secret master plan to join the U.S., Canada, and
Mexico in one big super-state and to replace the
good old Yankee dollar with a worthless new currency
called 'The Amero'." Michael Medved, December
28, 2006.
The Truth:
Mexican economist and researcher Miguel Pickard
wrote in an article, published by foreign press,
detailing the "deep integration" planned for
North America. He said there will be no
single treaty, and nothing will be submitted to
legislatures of the three countries. Instead, he
says, the plan for a "merged future" will be
implemented through "the signing of regulations not
subject to citizen review." He went on to report of
several secret meetings held in all three nations,
after which representatives signed "close to 300
regulations," installing a "Unified American Border
Action Plan."
Pickard went on to express his view that President
Bush is "vigorously pushing" the idea of a "North
American community." Pickard concluded by saying the
schedule calls for beginning with a customs union,
then a common market, then a monetary and economic
union, and finally the adoption of a single
currency.
Democrat
Congressman Barney Frank said in a letter
concerning the Security and Prosperity Partnership,
"It was done for the
United States by the President, with no
Congressional involvement. Indeed it is not even a
treaty because it has not been ratified by the
Senate."
CNN Anchorman Lou Dobbs said during a report on the
SPP, "Have our political elites gone mad?"
The Charge:
"Another delusion usually associated with these
fears involves the construction of a 'Monster
Highway' some sixteen lanes wide through
Texas and the Great Plains, connecting two
nations on either side for the borders for some
nefarious but never-explained purpose." Michael
Medved, December 28, 2006
The Truth:
In April, 2006, TxDOT released a 4,000 page
Environmental Impact Statement that described a
corridor that will be 1200 feet wide (the size of
four football fields). It will parallel Interstate
35, and be five lanes north and five lanes south (3
lanes for cars, 2 lanes for trucks). In the middle
will be pipelines and rail lines. It will also have
a 200-ft.-wide utility corridor. The corridor will
start in
Laredo, TX, and run past Austin to the
Texas-Oklahoma border. Plans ultimately call for
building some 4,000 miles of highway, with rail
lines and utility lines combined into
super-corridors throughout
Texas over the next 50 years.
"The Oklahoma-to-Mexico stretch would be just the
first link in a 4,000-mile, $184 billion network.
The corridor would be up to a quarter mile across,
consisting of as many as six lanes for cars and four
for trucks, plus railroad tracks, oil and gas
pipelines, water and other utility lines, and
broadband cables." Associated Press, July 21, 2006.
Central to the construction of the Trans Texas
Corridor is the massive taking of 584,000 acres of
private rich farm land, ranches, and homes.
Supreme-Court-approved Eminent Domain will be used
to acquire the land.
The Trans Texas Corridor is the first leg of what is
called the NAFTA Super Highway, scheduled to go
through heartland America all the way to
Canada.
The main reason for opposition (for some nefarious
but never-explained purpose) is the lack of
inspection of the trucks' cargo as they carry
containers loaded in China and off-loaded in Mexican
ports and driven straight through to an Inland port
in
Kansas City (KC SmartPort), relying only on
electronic screening for drive-through inspections.
Moreover, Mexico will control its own customs
facility in
Kansas City and therefore able to inspect its
own trucks on U.S. territory.
"This spring (2006), (KC) city officials signed off
on a 50-year lease for the Mexican facility, with an
option for 50 more years... The council earlier this
year earmarked $2.5 million in loans and $600,000 in
direct aid to SmartPort, which would build and own
the inland customs facility and sublet it to the
Mexican government through agreements with U.S.
Customs and Border Protection...The Mexican
government would have no significant investment and
would occupy the customs facility operation
rent-free... SmartPort set up the deal to avoid
imposing any expenses on Mexico above its ordinary
border costs... SmartPort meanwhile is seeking a
$1.5 million grant from the U.S. Economic
Development Administration to purchase high-tech
gamma-ray screening devices for drive-through
inspections of truck cargo... Confusion and secrecy
have been hallmarks of the ambitious project. At the
outset, Gutierrez (President, KC SmartPort) and
others have said the customs facility would be
sovereign Mexican soil similar to a foreign
embassy." Posted by the Kansas City Star, 7-18-06
Another objection to the highway system is the fact
that foreign companies will operate the highways and
collect tolls.
"On a single day in June (2006), an
Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.6 billion to
lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company
bought a 99-year lease on Virginia's Pocahontas
Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a
Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll
road from Austin to Seguin for 50 years." Associated
Press, 7-15-06
"One principal player is a Spanish construction
company, which plans to build the highway and
operate it as a toll road. But don't be fooled: the
superhighway proposal is not the result of
free-market demand, but rather an extension of
government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that
benefit politically-correct interests." Texas
Congressman Ron Paul
The Charge:
"The record couldn't be more clear on the 'North
American Union' - there's no one anywhere near the
Bush administration, the Congress of the
United States, Cabinet departments, or even
major think tanks who believes it's a good idea to
merge
Canada, Mexico, and the U.S." Michael
Medved, December 28, 2006
The Truth:
"Away from the spotlight, from Sept.12 to 14 (2006),
in Banff Springs (Canada), Minister of Public Safety
Stockwell Day and Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor
met with U.S. and Mexican government officials and
business leaders to discuss North American
integration at the second North American Forum...
The focus of the event... included topics such as 'A
North American Energy Strategy,' 'Demographic and
Social Dimensions of North American Integration,'
and 'Opportunities for Security Cooperation' -- all
topics where the public interest is at odds with
that of big business elites... The public has been
kept in the dark while the business elite have
played a lead role in designing the blueprint for
this more integrated
North America." Reported by the Toronto Star,
9-20-06
Attending the Banff meeting were Secretary of
Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Trade Rep. Carla
Hills, and Assistant Secretary of State for Western
Hemisphere Dr. Thomas Shannon.
Arizona State University is teaching that
U.S., Mexico, and Canada need to be integrated into
a unified superstate, where U.S. citizens of the
future will be known as "North Americanists."
The
program openly calls for the integration of economic
issues across the continent, and in many places goes
further -- such as the call for a common North
American currency and an implied joint military.
"Reformist Mexican President Vincente Fox raises
eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or
two, NAFTA should evolve into something like the
European Union, with open borders for not only goods
and investment but also people. He can rest assured
that there is one voice north of the Rio Grand that
supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper." Robert
L. Bartley, editor, The Wall Street Journal,
editorial, July, 2, 2001.
The Charge:
"Concerning the feds, the entire horror story
about 'North American Union' is based upon the
'Security and Prosperity Partnership,' an utterly
innocuous, open, above-board, well-advertised, and
widely publicized initiative to promote
inter-governmental cooperation to fight terrorism,
the threat of Avian flu, improve and tighten border
security, and promote mutual prosperity."
Michael Medved, December 28, 2006
The Truth:
"The SPP was not created by a treaty between the
nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any
way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of
foreign consortiums and officials from several
governments." Texas
Congressman Ron Paul
Also attending the Banff meeting, according to
Canadian CBC News, was Mel Hurtig, noted Canadian
author. According to Hurtig, "We're talking about
such an important thing, we're talking about the
integration of
Canada into the United States. For them to
hold this meeting in secret and to make every effort
to avoid anybody learning it, right away you've got
to be hugely concerned."
"According to the U.S. government website dedicated
to the project (www.spp.gov),
the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement.
Rather, it is a 'dialogue' launched by the heads of
state of
Canada, Mexico, and the
United States at a summit in
Waco, Texas in March, 2005. What is a
dialogue? We don't know. What we do know, however,
is that Congressional oversight of what might be one
of the most significant developments in recent
history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at
all in this 'dialogue' that many see as a plan for a
North American Union. According to the SPP website,
this 'dialogue' will create new supra-national
organizations to 'coordinate' border security,
health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy
policy between the governments of Mexico,
Canada, and the
United States. As such, it is but an
extension of NAFTA-and CAFTA-like agreements that
have far less to do with the free movement of goods
and services than they do with government
coordination and management of international
trade..." Texas
Congressman Ron Paul, 8-30-06
If you expect to find a Bush Administration
declaration that the
United States of America will be replaced by
a North American Union, forget it. If you think such
a drastic change in our nation won't happen without
a national debate and voter referendum, think again.
A close examination of just a few facts shows that a
legal and institutional framework is indeed being
put in place that could easily be switched into a
full-fledged regional government.
Step by step, America is moving from NAFTA -- to the
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
-- and indications are the SPP will lead toward the
creation of a North American Community as a logical
precursor to a North American Union.
Tom DeWeese
is one of the nation’s leading advocates of
individual liberty, free enterprise, property rights
and back-to-basics education. For over thirty years
he has fought against government oppression.
In 1988 Tom
established the
American Policy Center (APC), an activist think
tank headquartered in Warrenton, VA. In 1992 Tom
DeWeese became passionately involved in the fight
for the preservation of American private property
rights and against intrusive environmental
regulations. He is also a recognized leader in the
fight to preserve American national sovereignty from
intrusive United Nations policies on global
governance. APC has also joined the fight to rescue
American education from federal intrusion and the
fight for American privacy rights against intrusive
government data banks, and a national identification
card.
Mr. DeWeese
makes regular appearances on radio and television
talk shows and has articles published in several
national publications.
Tom DeWeese
is the publisher/editor of
The DeWeese Report You may contact Mr. DeWeese
here.
This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with
TRA’s
Statement of Policy.