The North American Union and the Larger Plan

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pagePin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.

In order to bring about a North Amer­ican Union (NAU), the public first has to be con­di­tioned to think of them­selves as North Amer­i­cans. In that regard, Thomas Donohue (pres­i­dent and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Com­merce) on June 16, 2006 remarked that “for CEOs, North America is already a single market, and busi­ness deci­sions are no longer made with a Mexico strategy — or a Canada strategy — but, rather, with a North Amer­ican strategy.…I think it’s pretty clear now that it no longer makes sense to talk about U.S. com­pet­i­tive­ness and Mex­ican com­pet­i­tive­ness — or, for that matter, about the com­pet­i­tive­ness of Canada. We are all in this together — we, as North Americans.”

Also rel­e­vant to this process is the pub­li­ca­tion of NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATION MONITOR since 2002 by the Center for Strategic and Inter­na­tional Studies (CSIS). Very soon, CSIS also will pub­lish (and has agreed to send me) their final doc­u­ment on their “North Amer­ican Future 2025 Project.” The Project has “an emphasis on regional inte­gra­tion,” and the year 2025 A.D. was selected “on the basis of the data presently avail­able on overall global pro­jec­tions.” Seven closed-door round­table ses­sions have been looking at the method­ology of global and North Amer­ican pro­jec­tions, as well as labor mobility, energy, the envi­ron­ment, secu­rity, com­pet­i­tive­ness, and border infra­struc­ture and logistics.

Zbig­niew Brzezinski has been a CSIS coun­selor, and at Mikhail Gorbachev’s first State of the World Forum in 1995, Brzezinski revealed: “We cannot leap into world gov­ern­ment through one quick step.…The pre­con­di­tion for even­tual and gen­uine glob­al­iza­tion is pro­gres­sive region­al­iza­tion because by that we move toward larger, more stable, more coop­er­a­tive units.” This is why the CSIS Project has “an emphasis on regional inte­gra­tion.” (Brzezinski also described the regions that would be formed, that Israel and the Pales­tinians would be part of a Middle Eastern region, how Com­mu­nist China would be brought into an Asian region, and that Iran would be part of a Cen­tral Asian region which would have impor­tant oil and gas pipelines constructed.)

At this point, it is worth remem­bering that in Stalin’s Jan­uary 1913 address in Vienna, he advo­cated national loy­al­ties becoming sub­servient to regions. And 3 years later, Lenin in 1916 pro­claimed: “The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present divi­sion of mankind into smaller states and all-national iso­la­tion, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them.”

You may recall that in Brzezinski’s BETWEEN TWO AGES (1970), he praised Marxism, and he claimed that “the nation-state is grad­u­ally yielding its sov­er­eignty.” One aspect of Amer­ican sov­er­eignty that is being yielded is own­er­ship of Amer­ican com­pa­nies by Amer­i­cans. In the first 9 months of 2007, 69 com­pa­nies in New Eng­land alone have been sold to for­eign buyers. Nation­ally, the French com­pany Alcatel bought Lucent Tech­nolo­gies in the U.S. last year, and in Sep­tember 2007 announced it will be cut­ting thou­sands of jobs.

Rel­e­vant to this, Alan Tonelson (research fellow at the U.S. Busi­ness and Industry Council) said for­eign com­pa­nies are “acquiring con­trol over the most dynamic pieces of the Amer­ican economy, and they’re acquiring con­trol over America’s future.” Also rel­e­vant to this was the assess­ment by Donald Klepper-Smith (chief econ­o­mist at Dat­a­Core Part­ners) regarding deci­sions made over­seas and how they would effect Amer­ican workers. He opined: “It raises some red flags and some real ques­tions about our independence.”

Part of the con­di­tioning process to cause Amer­i­cans to accept a NAU is the role of past and present gov­ern­ment offi­cials explaining the alleged eco­nomic ben­e­fits of such a union. For example, Harry Roegner in a letter titled “An eco­nomic union would be ben­e­fi­cial” in THE GREENVILLE (South Car­olina) SUN (October 15, 2007) pointed out the large oil reserves of both Canada and Mexico that would be useful to the U.S., as well as Mexico’s excess man­power who, as immi­grants, would help sup­port U.S. and Cana­dian eco­nomic growth. Roegner was an adviser on for­eign trade issues to the U.S. Depart­ment of Com­merce from 1984 to 1994, and in his letter said: “A North Amer­ican eco­nomic union would pro­vide the free flow of cap­ital and labor across national bor­ders needed to address many of the (afore­men­tioned) imbalances.”

Often regional eco­nomic inte­gra­tion into some type of union is argued on the basis of free trade. How­ever, John Fonte (who had an office next to mine at the U.S. Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion) of the Hudson Insti­tute has explained that the con­cept of regional eco­nomic arrange­ments or trading blocs actu­ally is con­trary to free trade to an extent. For example, in a NAU, there would be trading arrange­ments among the 3 nations which would limit the ability of the U.S. to trade freely with nations out­side the NAU trading bloc.

But hasn’t Pres­i­dent Bush recently said all this talk about a NAU is non­sense? On August 21, 2007 at the con­cluding press con­fer­ence for the Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship (SPP) in Mon­te­bello, Quebec, Fox News reporter Bret Baier asked if the SPP is a pre­lude to a NAU sim­ilar to the Euro­pean Union (EU), and if there are plans to build some kind of super­highway con­necting all 3 coun­tries. Pres­i­dent Bush replied: “If you’ve been in pol­i­tics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of tech­nique where you lay out a con­spiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn’t exist.”

The truth, of course, is that the U.S., Canada and Mexico are being con­nected by 4 Trade Cor­ri­dors. On November 20, 2007, Lt. Gov­ernor John Har­vard of Man­i­toba deliv­ered a “Speech From The Throne,” in which he revealed: “Man­i­toba has been working with the Cana­dian gov­ern­ment and state gov­ern­ments in the U.S. to pro­tect and enhance our access to key trade mar­kets. In response to U.S. border and secu­rity mea­sures, Man­i­toba will begin offering an enhanced driver’s license as an afford­able and secure form of iden­ti­fi­ca­tion for trav­elers. The new license will be avail­able in the Fall of 2008. Man­i­toba is also taking a major role in the devel­op­ment of a Mid-Continent Trade Cor­ridor, con­necting our northern Port of Churchill with trade mar­kets throughout the cen­tral United States and Mexico. To advance the con­cept, an alliance has been built with busi­ness leaders and state and city gov­ern­ments span­ning the entire length of the Cor­ridor. When fully devel­oped, the trade route will incor­po­rate an ‘in-land port’ in Win­nipeg with pre-clearance for inter­na­tional shipping.”

The SPP is also an impor­tant part of the power elite’s plan for a techno-feudal fas­cist world gov­ern­ment because it is a “part­ner­ship.” For years, the Amer­ican people and their leaders have been con­di­tioned to accept edu­ca­tional and other part­ner­ships as solu­tions to their prob­lems. For example, city gov­ern­ments strapped for funds are approached by cor­po­ra­tions or their related pri­vate foun­da­tions with plans and funds to improve edu­ca­tion, which the city leaders are only too glad to accept. This con­di­tions the people even­tu­ally to accept government/corporate rule. This is a form of Socialism known as fas­cism, and it will be the type of world gov­ern­ment the power elite plans ulti­mately to bring about and con­trol. In this gov­ern­ment, the power elite will con­trol politi­cians who will become gov­ern­ment leaders who will pro­mul­gate laws, rules and reg­u­la­tions favor­able to cer­tain transna­tional cor­po­ra­tions (con­trolled by the power elite) and unfa­vor­able to any pos­sible com­pe­ti­tion to those select corporations.

So why did Pres­i­dent Bush ridicule Bret Baier’s ques­tion, espe­cially since there are already 47 Mex­ican Con­sulates across the U.S.? Lou Dobbs in his CNN com­men­tary “Beware the Lame Duck” (October 17, 2007) wrote: “Although many con­ser­v­a­tives refuse to accept the reality, George W. Bush is a one-world neo-liberal who drove budget and trade deficits to record heights.…President Bush has pressed hard for the Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship, the first step toward a North Amer­ican Union that will threaten our sov­er­eignty. The admin­is­tra­tion has per­mitted Amer­ican busi­nesses to hire illegal aliens, encour­aged the inva­sion of 12 mil­lion to 20 mil­lion illegal aliens and has given Mexico and cor­po­rate America dominion over our bor­ders and our immi­gra­tion policy.…The assault on our national sov­er­eignty continues.…The pres­i­dent is urging the Senate to act favor­ably on our acces­sion to the U.N. Con­ven­tion on the Law of the Sea.…The treaty will submit the United States to inter­na­tional tri­bunals largely adverse to our inter­ests, and dis­pute res­o­lu­tion mech­a­nisms are stacked against the United States.…The treaty would under­mine our national sov­er­eignty and act as a back door for global envi­ron­mental activists to direct U.S. policy.” For­tu­nately, in Con­gress, House Con­cur­rent Res­o­lu­tion 40 states: “Expressing the sense of Con­gress that the United States should not engage in the con­struc­tion of a North Amer­ican Free Trade Agree­ment (NAFTA) Super­highway System or enter into a North Amer­ican Union with Mexico and Canada.”

If I could have fol­lowed up Bret Baier’s ques­tion with one of my own, here’s what I would have asked: “So, Pres­i­dent Bush, will the mas­sive 10-lane toll road Trans­Texas Cor­ridor funded by Cintra of Spain and to be built by Zachry Con­struc­tion of Texas come to a screeching halt at Oklahoma’s border?” What are all the vehi­cles sup­posed to do — merge all of a sudden into a small road? I don’t think so ! And by the way, Cintra is legally rep­re­sented in Texas by leading Repub­lican pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Rudy Giuliani’s law firm Bracewell & Giu­liani, which also just hap­pens to have an office in Dubai (remember Dubai Ports was about to take over oper­a­tion of a number of America’s largest ports) ! Per­haps before Pres­i­dent Bush was too crit­ical of people warning about a NAU, he should have read what Mexico’s Pres­i­dent Vicente Fox said May 16, 2002 at Club 21 in Madrid: “Even­tu­ally, our long-range objec­tive is to estab­lish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of con­nec­tions and insti­tu­tions sim­ilar to those cre­ated by the Euro­pean Union” (or as Gor­bachev refers to the EU, the “Euro­pean Soviet”).

I would also have asked Pres­i­dent Bush at the press con­fer­ence why on Sep­tember 6, 2007 at 9pm did he open all U.S. high­ways to Mex­ican trucks? Ear­lier in the day, U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio said Pres­i­dent Bush was “_ _ _ _ bent” on get­ting Mex­ican trucks in the U.S. by stealth. Cur­rently, the Fed­eral Motor Car­rier Safety Admin­is­tra­tion web­site lists 10 Mex­ican car­riers that are approved to trans­port goods throughout the U.S., and nearly 40 more Mex­ican car­riers will soon join them on the list.

Will all Mex­ican truck dri­vers be stopped at the border to see if they can read road signs in Eng­lish, if they have crim­inal back­grounds, and how long they already have been dri­ving that day (U.S. law pro­hibits more than 10 con­sec­u­tive hours)? I doubt it, since no more than 2% of Mex­ican trucks entering the U.S. today are inspected ! Many of these trucks will be a danger to Amer­i­cans’ safety, and could be used for smug­gling drugs, illegal aliens, and ter­ror­ists into the U.S.

Many coun­tries delib­er­ately release their crim­inal ele­ments into the U.S., often coming across the Mex­ican border. And if the crim­i­nals are caught, our fed­eral gov­ern­ment releases them into Amer­ican society if their own coun­tries refuse to take them back. Our gov­ern­ment knows how to solve this problem (e.g., stop issuing visas to people from those coun­tries), but has refused to take such action most of the time. Ask your­self why our gov­ern­ment would release mur­derers, rapists, arson­ists, and other crim­i­nals into our society to commit vio­lent crimes against us. Think about it !

Returning to Bret Baier’s ques­tion to Pres­i­dent Bush about the SPP being a pre­lude to a NAU sim­ilar to the EU, what would we get if we became like the EU, which has cer­tain char­ac­ter­is­tics of fas­cism? Mrs. Kitty Werth­mann (a sur­vivor of Hitler’s reign and Soviet rule after­ward) recently returned to Europe and inter­viewed many senior cit­i­zens. They informed her they were told con­ver­sion to the Euro would bring pros­perity via free trade, lower prices for goods, etc. In reality, though, their money was devalued greatly, and they’re now living on wel­fare and food stamps. Unem­ploy­ment in Europe is high while guest workers are brought in, and the people are angry.

In terms of what is planned for Amer­i­cans rel­e­vant to the EU and the Euro, Vicente Fox on CNN’s “Larry King Live” show October 8, 2007 explained that what he and Pres­i­dent Bush agreed to “is a trade union for all the Amer­icas,” and he sug­gested that even­tu­ally there would be a regional cur­rency. He made sim­ilar com­ments on the “Daily Show” the same day. Ear­lier in 2007, Boli­vian Pres­i­dent Evo Morales pro­posed a single cur­rency for all South Amer­ican nations.

Con­cerning North Amer­ican nations, in June 1991, Dallas Fed­eral Reserve pub­li­ca­tion no. 9115, “Free Trade and the Peso” by Darryl McLeod and John Welch, ana­lyzed the poten­tial for a single North Amer­ican cur­rency. In 1999, former Cana­dian par­lia­ment member Her­bert Grubel pub­lished “The Case for the Amero: The Eco­nomics and Pol­i­tics of a North Amer­ican Union,” giving 2010 as the pos­sible date for intro­ducing the “amero” as the new North Amer­ican cur­rency. And in the Atlanta Fed­eral Reserve’s ECONOMIC REVIEW (4th quarter, 2000), Michael Chriszt (director of the Reserve’s Latin America Research Group) wrote “Per­spec­tives on a Poten­tial North Amer­ican Mon­e­tary Union” in which one reads that “the idea of a single cur­rency for NAFTA is on the table.” In July 2000, Vicente Fox had already pro­posed a North Amer­ican common market with a con­ti­nental mon­e­tary policy.

More recently, David Dodge, Gov­ernor of the Bank of Canada, in May 2007 said that a common cur­rency with the U.S. is def­i­nitely pos­sible. What will happen is the power elite will cause the dollar to be devalued to the point where Amer­i­cans reluc­tantly will accept the amero. As Bob Chapman in his December 2006 newsletter, INTERNATIONAL FORECASTER, said: “(The amero) will be pre­sented to the Amer­ican public as the administration’s solu­tion for dollar recovery.”

On June 14, 2007 told their clients that in the next 10 – 20 years, as the global economy moves toward regional trading blocs, the amero or “North Amer­ican Mon­e­tary Unit” (NAMU) will be intro­duced. The power elite’s plan is to form regional unions with their own cur­ren­cies and then link them into a world gov­ern­ment with one global cur­rency. Rel­e­vant to this, Reuters reporter Emmanuel Jarry on October 23, 2007 wrote “Sarkozy (French Pres­i­dent) Calls for Mediter­ranean Union Launch in 2008.” And the African Union’s African Cen­tral Bank plans to mint the “Gold Man­dela” as a single African cur­rency by 2010 (the date the NAU is sup­posed to form).

If you look at the top of the web­site for the Single Global Cur­rency Asso­ci­a­tion (SGCA), there is a quote by former Fed­eral Reserve chairman Paul Vol­cker, saying: “A global economy requires a global cur­rency.” The SGCA “is ded­i­cated to the goal of imple­menting a single global cur­rency by 2025…managed by a single inter­na­tional cen­tral bank.” I have already indi­cated that on the cover of THE ECONOMIST (June 9, 1988) is a pic­ture of “The Phoenix,” a global cur­rency sug­gested for imple­men­ta­tion in 2018.

What­ever the date of the global currency’s intro­duc­tion, it will be adver­tised as facil­i­tating world trade, which the power elite will con­trol. This will be like in the days of Solomon when he for­ti­fied Gezer, Hazor and Megiddo (the Har, or Mount, of Megiddo would be called Armageddon). Through this for­ti­fi­ca­tion, he con­trolled the Via Maris and world trade, thereby con­trol­ling the world of his day. The power elite today plans to do like­wise, but in a Bib­lical sense their plan will lead to the Battle of Armageddon.

© 2007 Dennis Cuddy — All Rights Reserved, Reprinted with Permission

, ,

Comments are closed.

Powered by Patriot's Web