 |
 |
||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Goodbye America, Hello North American Union In a month, August 20 and 21, the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico will sit down together in Montebello, Quebec to discuss making the borders between these three nations disappear. They will discuss progress on a vast highway project passing through America to link Mexico with Canada.
This, we’re told, is not a treaty so Congress has no constitutional oversight obligation. I guess it’s more like a nice big handshake between the presidents and prime minister of these three nations who, let’s face it, just know better than the rest of us. I mean, do Canadians really think they’re in charge of Canada? Americans should have a say about programs affecting America? Or has anyone asked Mexicans if they want to be part of some "harmonized" configuration not unlike the European Union? Last time I checked, the European Union lacked a constitution because some of its member states, notably France, had rejected the one that was offered. The Constitutions of the United States, Canada and Mexico are about three sovereign states determining their own regulations and laws. So far, fourteen U.S. States have passed resolutions in their respective and sovereign legislatures directing the federal government to abandon further activities involving SPP. Part of the opposition is directed at what is generally called the NAFTA Superhighway; an exceptionally wide corridor that would include rail lines, freeways, and pipelines from Mexico to the Canadian border. The Texas legislature passed a law intended to slow down the highway project with a two-year moratorium. The vote in the Texas House was 137-2. The Texas Senate passed it with only four votes in opposition, but the Governor vetoed it in late June, thus opening the door to the seizure of the private property needed for the Trans Texas Corridor (TCC). Turns out that Texas had already signed a 50-year lease with a private Spanish company named Cintra, one that permits for no competition by way of building new government roads or improving existing ones going in the same direction. Why are we not surprised to know that SPP was kicked off in 2005 by a meeting in Crawford, Texas of the then-presidents of the three nations hosted by President George W. Bush, a former Governor of Texas? Bush has been a leading proponent of the "immigration reform" legislation that more than two-thirds of Americans polled say they do not want. Tucked into those "reforms" were provisions to advance SPP. A Teddy Kennedy amendment to S. 1348 asserts that, "It is the sense of the Congress that the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico, which will lead to reduced immigration." Oh, yeah? And here I thought the economic well being of Mexico was the job of the Mexican government. As this is written, the President and the Congress have the lowest popularity ratings ever. Perhaps it has something to do with a secretive process involving the highest levels of government and a consortium of multinational corporations who are eager for the nation-busting North American Union and the superhighway? Indeed, "secretive" is the mode of operation for SPP from the beginning. Last year, from September 12 to 14, a gathering sponsored by something called the North American Forum, brought together some very powerful people, but the media was not informed about it, nor has a list of attendees been available. One Canadian commentator has written that, "There is no better indication that these meetings and the SPP itself, constitute a parallel governing structure—unaccountable to any democratic institution or the public." This is not the way America, Canada, and presumably, Mexico, is supposed to be governed. The public outcry against the proposed immigration reform bill was enough to kill it in its present form. In his book, "The Late Great U.S.A." ($25.95, WND Books), Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., warns that, "There are movements afoot in Mexico, Canada, and the United States, similar to those in Europe that led to the formation of the European Union that, if left unchecked, will erode U.S. sovereignty and lead to a North American Union." Perhaps when Congress begins to raise our taxes, authorize a superhighway, and offer yet another amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, the American people may take notice and want to do something about it. By then, however, it will be too late. That’s what President Bush is counting on. Meanwhile, he has a big calendar counting down the days to January 20, 2009 when he can start cashing in on having sold out the rest of us. Editor’s Note: Reportedly, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Security Quebec will create a cordon around the site of the meeting, keeping protesters about 15 miles away. Both the Council of Canadians and The Coalition to Block the North American Union had planned to hold meetings near the site, but were told they could not. Any news reports to come out of the event will most likely depend entirely on what government spokesmen have to say. Patrick M. Wood, editor of The August Review, reported news of the security cordon. http://www.newswithviews.com/Wood/patrick23.htm Have you noticed that this website is free of commercial advertising? There’s a reason for that. We want to maintain our independence. That is why we depend on donations to the Center. Please join the others who have made this website and our communications program possible. Thank you! When did I realize that my earlier doubts about American military involvement in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East were mistaken? When I heard Hillary Clinton promise to abandon Iraq if elected president. When I kept hearing Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada saying that, "the war is lost." Ever since Vietnam, listening to any Democrat on the subject of war is a guaranteed message of surrender and defeat. That’s the only thing they learned from that conflict and their assumption is that whatever war we’re in, America is wrong and we should get out. Now I will be the first to say that the Middle East is an exotic, mysterious, and troublesome place. Dictatorships thrive there. It is an utterly corrupt and a criminal culture by almost any definition. This has been the learning curve that American efforts in Iraq have had to learn. While we are accustomed to assuming a man’s word is his bond, promises and allegiances in the Middle East change with the wind. They don’t trust each other. They don’t know how to trust us and, if we leave before imposing some modern form of government, some connectedness to the rest of the world, they will never learn to function in this new, global universe of trade and commerce. Instead, they will continue to do what they do best. Make war. Spread terror. Pray five times a day to Allah. Civilization as we know it began there, but unfortunately, in the seventh century, so did Islam, a religion for desert brigands, raiders of caravans and small cities who found the message of Christianity too gentle and thus incomprehensible, and who envied the wealth of the Jewish enclaves among them on the Arabian sands. Before Medina was a "sacred city", it was home to Jewish clans that Mohammed robbed and then killed. It would be nice to imagine what the Middle East would have been without Islam, but reality requires us to understand that all the problems to be found in that backward, violence-prone, utterly deceitful region can be laid at the feet of Islam, a "religion" of war and domination. Ask yourself, what other religion deliberately blows up the each other’s mosques? What other religion destroys, as the Taliban did in Afghanistan, priceless ancient statues carved by Buddhists? What other religion lays claim to Jerusalem despite having not existed in the time of Moses, David, or Jesus? The schism in Islam that led to the Sunni and Shiite sects provided ample excuse for Muslims to make war on each other when not out plundering from North Africa to India. Its caliphs grew rich on booty and tribute. Indeed, the early Muslims were not so much eager to convert the conquered than to keep them as dhimmi, second-class citizens, from whom taxes could be extracted. Since the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland and the resurrection of Israel sixty years ago, the Muslims who outnumber them by hundreds of millions and occupy vast stretches of land beyond the tiny area of Israel, have been unwilling and unable to accept them in their midst. This has not kept them from blaming all the ills of their society—the dictators that rule them, the oppression of women, the lack of modern education, the diversion of money into military forces, industry and businesses that operate within a culture of corruption—all this and more is blamed on external enemies, on conspiracies. It is always the fault of the Jews, the Americans, and the British. The West are "the Crusaders" and Israel "the Zionists." But the West has not sent a crusade to Jerusalem since the 1200s. The Zionists were a small group of Europeans, tired of the endemic anti-Semitism of Europe, who moved to Palestine in the early part of the last century, began to buy land and to farm it in anticipation of someday creating a nation where Jews could live within their own religion and culture. It took the Holocaust of World War II to send a tidal wave of Jewish survivors to Israel and, in 1947, see a Jewish nation reborn. The region has seethed with anger and warfare ever since. The region saw the rise, first of Abdel Nasser who was the author of Egypt’s defeat in the 1967 Six Day War, of Syria’s Hafez al-Assad whose son is its dictator, and whose various "kingdoms" are run by "royal" sheikdoms distinguished by a total lack of democracy. Saddam Hussein who came to power in the 1950s was a special case. He was a butcher of thousands of Iraqis who spent eight years in the 1980s attacking Iran to no avail and then invaded Kuwait. The United States is now in Iraq and must now prevail, not grow weak in our resolve, not run away in defeat. The Middle East must either be dragged into the twenty-first century or it will drag us all back to the seventh century. If we let Iraq fall to the forces of radical Islam, our children and grandchildren will pay the price. Emboldened, they will bring the war to America and elsewhere throughout the world. If we set benchmarks, set deadlines, and fail to fund our military, we shall only be putting in motion all the most evil instincts that the Middle East represents. In my lifetime, the United States tried to ignore the Nazis in Germany when they had conquered most of Europe and the Japanese who had invaded China, until they made the fatal mistake of attacking us in Pearl Harbor; then and only then did America declare war. We would defeat them both and we would stay on for many years following that defeat to insure they learned to become peaceful, democratic nations. We sacrificed hundreds of thousands of the lives of our military and millions to equip them. Then we fought a Cold War with the Soviet Union from 1945 to 1991. We must do no less than that "greatest generation" or we shall fail them. They did not say, "the war is lost" despite defeats and setbacks. We dare not do so at this critical moment in history. Tell a friend about this website and invite them to visit weekly as we clarify the many complex events that impact everyone’s life, no matter where they are on planet Earth.
©
2007 Alan Caruba. |
||||||||||||||||||||
So far, no one has asked the citizens of these three nations whether they want todo this. It is not up for a vote in Congress and, indeed, Congress has no supervision over the gnomes in the U.S. Department of Commerce who are busily "harmonizing" the laws under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).