Tag Archive | "North American Union"

Trans Texas Corridor racing ahead

Tags: , , , ,


By Terri Hall

[Editor’s note: The Free Trade cor­ridor net­work that tie Mexico, Canada and the U.S. together are a crit­ical com­po­nent of the North Amer­ican Free Trade Agree­ment (NAFTA) that was nego­ti­ated by George W. Bush and signed into law by Bill Clinton. Both Bush and Clinton were mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. Fur­ther­more, NAFTA’s chief archi­tect was U.S. Trade Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Carla Hills, also a Tri­lat­eral. The Trans Texas Cor­ridor is the first major link of this super-corridor system; if suc­cess­fully com­pleted (e.g., if Texans lose the fight to stop it again), America will be opened up like a can of sar­dines. Please see addi­tional links below for other August Review arti­cles on this topic.]

After Rick Perry’s highway depart­ment announced the Trans Texas Cor­ridor (TTC) route known as TTC-35 was “dead” in 2009, we find out post-election in 2010 that it, along with free trade, is very much alive and well. Cana­dian offi­cials have shown renewed interest in a multi-modal trade cor­ridor along I-35. Win­nipeg recently announced its inten­tion to build an inland port sim­ilar to those in San Antonio and Dallas. One such inland port in Kansas City has ceded sov­er­eign United States ter­ri­tory to Canada and Mexico with the flags of all three coun­tries flying over it. Offi­cials in Win­nipeg said it also intends to run a logis­tics and trade cor­ridor to include rail and high speed high­ways all the way to Mexico as an Asia-Pacific gateway con­necting to Toronto and Montreal.

It should sur­prise no one that former San Antonio Mayor Phil Hard­berger and tolling authority (Alamo RMA) Chairman Bill Thornton took a trip to Toronto in 2006, par­tially at tax­payer expense, to pro­mote Trans Texas Corridor-style trade con­nec­tions and to be cer­tain it includes the Port of San Antonio.

Norris Pettis, Cana­dian Consul Gen­eral in Dallas, notes in the latest San Antonio Busi­ness Journal that “of all the urban cen­ters I deal with, San Antonio is right up there in preaching free trade.” The article also said Cana­dian offi­cials observe an anti-trade sen­ti­ment in the U.S. as a whole, but see an open door in Texas, which they say doesn’t share “pro­tec­tionist policies.”

Thank you, Rick Perry.

Tullos Wells is part of the Lone Star Rail project (pushing an Austin-San Antonio com­muter rail line) and also trav­eled with Hard­berger. He also hap­pens to work for the law firm Bracewell & Giu­liani, one of the biggest players in pushing the pri­va­ti­za­tion of our public roads (and rep­re­sents Spain-based Cintra on pri­vate toll deals here in Texas) as well as pushing these multi-national trade cor­ri­dors. Read more about the Bracewell & Giu­liani con­nec­tion here. It’s not rocket sci­ence to con­clude this is why Rick Perry endorsed Rudy Giu­liani for Pres­i­dent in 2007.

The Trans Texas Cor­ridor has always been about exploiting Texas landowners and tax­payers to open up new trade cor­ri­dors to facil­i­tate the free flow of goods among the three coun­tries to ben­efit pri­vate cor­po­ra­tions. Exec­u­tive Director of the Texas Depart­ment of Trans­porta­tion (TxDOT), Amadeo Saenz, admitted in public tes­ti­mony Feb­ruary 1 (watch it here), that though TxDOT says the TTC is “dead,” it could change its mind tomorrow and still move for­ward with the Trans Texas Cor­ridor since the statu­tory authority to do so remains in the Texas Trans­porta­tion Code. This is one time we can take them at their word. They are indeed moving forward.

While most Texans have no problem with trade, many have expressed dismay with so-called “free” trade. It’d be more aptly called gov­ern­ment man­aged trade, which is heavily tilted in favor of for­eign coun­tries, fails to insist on reci­procity, and overly taxes Amer­ican goods while pro­viding tax breaks on for­eign imports. The North Amer­ican Free Trade Agree­ment (NAFTA) has done more to hurt the U.S. man­u­fac­turing sector than any other gov­ern­ment policy in recent his­tory. In fact, more than one mil­lion Amer­i­cans have lost jobs due to NAFTA. Given the grim state of the economy and high U.S. unem­ploy­ment, now more than ever, the U.S. needs to recon­sider NAFTA.

A handful of U.S. law­makers recently renewed calls to repeal NAFTA. Pres­i­dent Obama once spoke of his sup­port for rene­go­ti­ating parts of NAFTA, but seems to have reversed him­self since taking office, now bat­tling mem­bers of his own party to push for yet more “free” trade agree­ments to be signed with many other coun­tries, including Aus­tralia, New Zealand, Sin­ga­pore, Chile, Peru, Vietnam and Brunei on an Asia-Pacific regional free-trade agree­ment, South Korea, Panama, and Columbia.

Stop the freight train…

Within days of Perry win­ning the Texas pri­mary March 2, TxDOT revealed its inten­tion to extend the SH 130 toll road north­ward. SH 130 from George­town around Austin extending south to San Antonio is the first leg of the Trans Texas Cor­ridor TTC-35. So as pre­dicted, Perry, bol­stered by his pri­mary win, will con­tinue his plans to push the TTC piece by piece all the way up to the Red River.

With Win­nipeg moving a multi-modal trade cor­ridor south­ward along I-35, and the expan­sion of US 281 south of San Antonio underway (which feeds into the I-35 cor­ridor) moving the cor­ridor north­ward, it proves the TTC’s demise was mere illu­sion designed to put Texans back to sleep while politi­cians get re-elected and qui­etly build it, seg­ment by seg­ment under the radar

Har­ness the power of local government

This new TTC seg­ment from Waco to Hills­boro, fills the gaps of “free” lane I-35 expan­sion, and will also likely become some form of foreign-owned toll road, like seg­ments 5 & 6 of SH 130. The good news is, the sec­tion of I-35 where there is a 391 local gov­ern­ment sub­re­gional plan­ning com­mis­sion (TURF co-sponsored events to help spread this method to fight the Trans Texas Cor­ridor for TTC-69), I-35 will be expanded and kept toll-free (read about their suc­cess here). So a por­tion of TTC-35 will bypass the 391 commission’s jurisdiction.

One of the proven ways Texans can STOP the TTC dead in its tracks is to uti­lize this little known gold­mine of a government-to-government com­mis­sion to force TxDOT to comply with the will of Texans within its juris­dic­tion. There are a total of 10 com­mis­sions formed using the local gov­ern­ment code Chapter 391 in Texas, the majority of those formed directly to stop the TTC. To find out more about how to form one in your region, con­tact the pri­vate prop­erty rights foun­da­tion Amer­i­cans Stew­ards of Lib­erty at http://www.stewards.us.

To deliver the final knockout punch, how­ever, Texans must con­tinue to pres­sure law­makers and the Gov­ernor to repeal any and all forms of the Trans Texas Cor­ridor (now renamed “inno­v­a­tive con­nec­tivity plan”) from the trans­porta­tion code and pre­vent any fur­ther con­tracts from being signed.

Dirty little secrets sneak under the radar

The TTC-69 (planned to go from the Rio Grande Valley north­east to Texarkana and even­tu­ally up through Michigan) public pri­vate part­ner­ship (called CDA in Texas) was awarded to ACS of Spain and Zachry of San Antonio in June of 2008.

In August of 2009, Perry-appointed Texas Trans­porta­tion Com­mis­sioner Ned Holmes asked for the TTC-69 con­tract to be approved by the Texas Attorney Gen­eral, Greg Abbott. Perry wants this con­tract signed before the cit­i­zens of Texas can step-in to stop it. Perry’s son, Griffin, works for UBS (to fur­ther con­nect the dots go here), the finan­cial arm of the ACS con­sor­tium who won the devel­op­ment rights for TTC-69.

When TxDOT announced that TTC-35 was “dead,” it also clearly stated TTC-69, also given the name I-69 to make it appear more harm­less, is still moving for­ward. In fact, expan­sion of US 77 is already underway in the valley as part of the ini­tial leg of what will be known as TTC-69/I-69.

In addi­tion, Ports to Plains (to run from Mexico all the way to Alberta, Canada) and La Entrada de Paci­fico, two other active TTC cor­ri­dors, show that nothing has changed there either, except shed­ding the offi­cial con­nec­tion by name to the Trans Texas Cor­ridor. La Entrada, to tra­verse through the Big Bend area, has a dis­turbing new twist with the res­ur­rec­tion of the idea to cede Big Bend to inter­na­tional inter­ests by deeming it an “inter­na­tional” park, essen­tially to join it with Mexico’s “Big Bend” on the other side of the U.S. border.

The idea is to even­tu­ally develop future sea-port con­nec­tions with Far-East ocean ship­ping lanes. The cur­rent strategy in these two cor­ri­dors is to steer fed­eral trans­porta­tion dol­lars into sev­eral oth­er­wise useful local projects over time, and then con­nect the seg­ments into a sin­gular, iden­ti­fi­able system.

Your tax dol­lars at work

An active coali­tion pushing the devel­op­ment of the Ports to Plains trade cor­ridor just com­pleted a trade mis­sion to Alberta, as well as adver­tising the West Texas Trade Summit in San Angelo (Feb­ruary 19), where the stated goal was to pro­mote both trade and multi-national trade cor­ri­dors in Texas and Mexico. Ports to Plains Alliance will also be hosting an “Energy Summit” April 8 – 9 in Col­orado, mir­roring the efforts of other public pri­vate part­ner­ships (par­tially tax-funded) like TTC-69’s Alliance for I-69, and the big I-35 coali­tion, called the North America Super­cor­ridor Coali­tion or NASCO.

So don’t fall for the rhetoric, Texans. As Ronald Reagan used to say, “trust but verify,” and the ver­i­fi­able facts point to the Trans Texas Cor­ridor briskly moving ahead on all fronts. Remain vig­i­lant to stop the biggest land grab in Texas his­tory and to pro­tect our sov­er­eignty. Your freedom depends on it!

Make the connection…

Read more about how pri­va­tizing gov­ern­ment func­tions comes at great cost to tax­payers here.

Read Ed Wallace’s article on Perry’s cronyism regarding pri­va­tizing and tolling our public roads here.

— — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — -

Terri Hall is the founder of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (TURF), a non-profit orga­ni­za­tion that has ral­lied Texans to suc­cess­fully oppose the Trans Texas Cor­ridor, which is a crit­ical com­po­nent in the for­ma­tion of the North Amer­ican Union (or North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity). The NAU was pro­moted by former Pres­i­dent George Bush as the Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship (SPP), and called for deep inte­gra­tion between Mexico, Canada and the United States. For fur­ther information,Terri can be reached at terri@texasturf.org or 210 – 275-0640.

Addi­tional Resources on The August Review

Toward a North Amer­ican Union

The North Amer­ican Union and the Larger Plan

Con­quering Canada: The Elite Recon­fig­u­ra­tion of North America

The Plan to Dis­ap­pear Canada

North Amer­ican Union “Con­spiracy” Exposed

 

 

 

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Conquering Canada: The Elite Re-Configuration of North America

Tags: , ,


By Carl Teichrib

“The acqui­si­tion of Canada this year…will be a mere matter of marching…”
– Thomas Jefferson

Dis­be­lief was the first emo­tion. Not because I didn’t com­pre­hend the mes­sage, but because of the brazen nature of the broad­cast. After the evening news was over, I imme­di­ately placed phone calls to friends in the United States. Was it on your evening news? Did you see it?

The response was the same regard­less of which state I called. No, there’s nothing about this story here. Are you sure it exists?
{sidebar id=1}

While America appeared to have a news blackout in early 2005, flashed coast-to-coast across Canada was a report of mon­u­mental sig­nif­i­cance: a story that will impact every cit­izen of Mexico, the United States, and Canada.

The piece that caught my breath was the procla­ma­tion of an unveiling. The New York-based Council on For­eign Rela­tions would be releasing a study on inte­grating the con­ti­nent, a move that would take us well beyond NAFTA. For the obser­vant, it was clear that all three nations would have to re-configure their priorities.

Released in early 2005, the CFR doc­u­ment titled Building A North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity would even­tu­ally trigger a ground swell of crit­i­cism in the United States. Over the next two years, a variety of watchdog and cit­izen orga­ni­za­tions would voice con­cerns that con­ti­nental har­mo­niza­tion would be an affront to national sov­er­eignty, with a dozen or so states intro­ducing bills of oppo­si­tion. Adding fuel to this fire was the real­iza­tion that other inte­gra­tion pro­grams have been underway with little public knowl­edge or debate.

One such ini­tia­tive, which coin­cided with the emer­gence of the CFR report, is the Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship. Known by its acronym as SPP, this fed­er­ally gen­er­ated tri-national pact sur­faced during the March 2005 meeting between the leaders of the three NAFTA nations: Vicente Fox, George Bush, and Paul Martin.

Meant to tighten eco­nomic and secu­rity ties, SPP pushes the removal of bar­riers to energy and resource flows, and wel­comes the cre­ation of insti­tu­tions to facil­i­tate North Amer­ican inte­gra­tion. Fur­ther­more, SPP con­sul­ta­tion meet­ings and its spin-off body, the North Amer­ican Com­pet­i­tive­ness Council, are com­prised of major rep­re­sen­ta­tives from fed­eral agen­cies and key multi­na­tional cor­po­rate players. It’s a merger of sorts, not just amongst nations, but also between fed­eral author­i­ties and multi­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions – all bonding to achieve the quest of regional harmonization.

Another case in point is NASCO, a tri­lat­eral coali­tion made up of provincial/state and local gov­ern­ments, along with major busi­nesses such as Lock­heed Martin. The goal of NASCO is mam­moth: it envi­sions a super­highway run­ning from Win­nipeg, Man­i­toba through to Kansas City, San Antonio, and on to Guadala­jara and Man­zanillo, Mexico, eating up an incred­ible amount of con­crete, steel, and capital.

Unlike other roads, this cor­ridor, if real­ized, would be a com­pre­hen­sive energy and com­merce jugular vein pro­pelling tri-national inter­de­pen­dence in trans­porta­tion, trade, and strategic resources. According to two papers released by NASCO, this entire system will be mon­i­tored by a sweeping archi­tec­ture of high-tech sen­sors and tracking sys­tems, all chan­nelled into US Home­land Security.

This is not a small idea, but one with grand scope and reach. More­over, inte­gra­tion ini­tia­tives, be they found in the polit­ical or busi­ness realm, haven’t occurred in a vacuum. Con­ti­nental uni­fi­ca­tion is not an overnight phenomenon.

Eco­nomic ideas sup­porting a common North Amer­ican home have been cir­cu­lating for years. In 1991, the Dallas Fed­eral Reserve issued a working paper exam­ining the poten­tial for a single North Amer­ican cur­rency. Later in the 1990’s, Canada’s cen­tral bank released a string of doc­u­ments on the pros and cons of eco­nomic and mon­e­tary har­mo­niza­tion. And in 1999, Canada’s Fraser Insti­tute pub­lished a report openly proposing a single tri-national cur­rency as a coun­ter­bal­ance to Europe’s euro. This new North Amer­ican dollar, it was sug­gested, should be called the “amero.”

So it wasn’t a sur­prise that by the year 2000 at least one US Trea­sury offi­cial, Assis­tant Sec­re­tary for Inter­na­tional Affairs, Edwin M. Truman, can­didly sug­gested a “dramatic decline in the number of inde­pen­dent cur­ren­cies in the world.” This com­ment, made before the Fed­eral Reserve Bank of Atlanta, was directly aimed at North America’s finan­cial structure.

Later that fall, the Atlanta Fed­eral Reserve pub­lished an article in its Eco­nomic Review debating what final form a tri-national cur­rency would take. This issue not only stated “that a single cur­rency for NAFTA coun­tries is possible,” but also that “the idea of a single cur­rency for NAFTA is on the table.” After all, in July 2000, Mex­ican Pres­i­dent Vicente Fox pro­posed a North Amer­ican common market, incor­po­rating a cus­toms union, the free flow of goods and labour, and a con­ti­nental mon­e­tary policy. Addi­tion­ally, the newly inau­gu­rated US Pres­i­dent, George Bush, had ear­lier pledged to foster hemi­spheric inte­gra­tion while attending the Quebec Summit of the Americas.

Indeed, cre­ating a North Amer­ican eco­nomic space appeared to be a serious topic in fed­eral cir­cles until late summer, 2001. Only days before the 9/11 terror attacks, Fox and Bush met in Wash­ington to dis­cuss Mexico’s role as a US and con­ti­nental partner, with migrant labour issues at the fore­front. Sep­tember 11, obvi­ously, changed Washington’s focus to more dis­tant shores.

Iron­i­cally, as 9/11 shifted the eyes of the US exec­u­tive branch towards the Middle East, cor­po­rate elites embraced North Amer­ican inte­gra­tion as a lesson learned. Keep in mind that our tri-national trade is stag­gering, with Canada and the US alone con­sti­tuting the largest bi-national eco­nomic rela­tion­ship on the planet. To give a sense of this rela­tion­ship: just the yearly trade passing through one US/Canadian border crossing, the Windsor/Detroit sta­tion, is more then the total annual US trade with Japan.

Sep­tember 11 threw this essen­tial com­merce into chaos. As approx­i­mately 50 mil­lion dol­lars (US) per hour went missing due solely to the Canadian/US border clo­sures after the attack, and with sub­se­quent bot­tle­necks and slow­downs rever­ber­ating long after­wards, finan­cial and busi­ness exec­u­tives looked to con­ti­nental har­mo­niza­tion as a way of avoiding sim­ilar loss scenarios.

In America, the US Chamber of Com­merce jumped on the band­wagon, becoming an impor­tant sup­porter of the Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship. This backing was evi­dent when Thomas Donohue, the Pres­i­dent and CEO of the US Chamber of Com­merce, made these com­ments while speaking at a lun­cheon in Wash­ington DC on June 16, 2006, “…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 by now that it no longer makes sense to talk about US com­pet­i­tive­ness and Mex­ican com­pet­i­tive­ness – or, for that matter, about the com­pet­i­tive­ness of Canada. We are all in this together – we, as North Americans.”

Cana­dian busi­ness elites hold to a sim­ilar view. The Cana­dian Council of Chief Exec­u­tives, Canada’s fore­most club of top CEOs, launched the North Amer­ican Secu­rity and Pros­perity Ini­tia­tive in Jan­uary 2003. While down­playing the Euro­pean model of uni­fi­ca­tion, the CCCE did pro­pose North Amer­ican iden­ti­fi­ca­tion cards and the stream­lining of cross-border finan­cial reg­u­la­tions, including opening Canada’s own­er­ship restric­tions and granting US com­pa­nies access to acquiring even more busi­nesses and resources north of the border. The CCCE also advised that Mexico, the US, and Canada estab­lish new com­mis­sions that could coor­di­nate inte­gra­tion, and that North Amer­ican defence be tackled in a way that demon­strates a con­ti­nental reality.

Being sen­si­tive to poten­tial crit­i­cism that the CCCE is selling-out their country, the orga­ni­za­tion released a Q&A styled paper explaining that their ideas did not rep­re­sent a merger, but merely a new part­ner­ship. Sov­er­eignty, the doc­u­ment implied, wasn’t in jeopardy.

How­ever, in a report pre­sented to the CCCE by a part­nering Cana­dian for­eign policy insti­tute, admit­tance was made that any time a country agrees to be bound by an inter­na­tional treaty, it auto­mat­i­cally involves “the sur­render of some degree of national sov­er­eignty in exchange for larger purposes.”

The Canadian/US Free Trade Agree­ment of the late 1980s amply demon­strated this fact. Writing for the Saska­toon StarPhoenix in June, 2007, polit­ical com­men­ta­tors Bill Loewen and David Orchard reminded Cana­dians about the eco­nomic sur­render that accom­pa­nied Free Trade treaty oblig­a­tions. “More than 12,000 Cana­dian com­pa­nies have been taken over since the 1989 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agree­ment. Since Jan­uary 2006, for­eign takeovers of some $156 bil­lion have been consummated…There only are a handful of widely held Cana­dian com­pa­nies now listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange – surely an abnormal sit­u­a­tion for a sov­er­eign nation.”

Sov­er­eignty is not insignif­i­cant. For the mil­lions of cit­i­zens who place their trust in appointed polit­ical leaders, it is expected that the require­ments and inter­ests of their par­tic­ular country will be upheld and safe­guarded. Nev­er­the­less, what the gen­eral public assumes and what inter­na­tional finan­cial players deem impor­tant are not always the same. And when national elites work to per­ma­nently change the direc­tion of a nation, the public’s knowl­edge, input, and debate should be more than expected. In a democ­racy, any­thing less smacks of coercion.

Inte­gra­tion, as a Cana­dian, is espe­cially trou­bling. Our place in North America as the energy bread­basket is a strategic posi­tion. Rec­og­nized for its out­standing resource base, Canada sup­plies America with almost 100% of its elec­tricity imports and pipelined nat­ural gas, and more petro­leum then any other nation on earth – including Saudi Arabia. Energy is not just another box-store con­sumer item like so many trin­kets floating in the global mar­ket­place; it’s the lifeblood of a country.

Cur­rently the energy flowing into and out of the US via Canada is remark­ably effi­cient under the free market system. Could this be made better? Cer­tainly. Does this imply nation­al­iza­tion? Not at all: the last thing working free mar­kets need is more con­trols imposed by bloated bureau­cra­cies, including a pos­sible North Amer­ican man­age­ment regime.

What Canada does need, how­ever, is to develop a com­pre­hen­sive energy strategy of its own, including the cre­ation of an east-west grid instead of the cur­rent, almost exclu­sive north-south energy transfer system. Such a strategy would help Canadian’s solidify and safe­guard their energy require­ments, while putting nec­es­sary exports into their proper con­text. Con­versely, widely opening Canada’s resources for sell-off into for­eign hands, as the CCCE sug­gests, increases our vul­ner­a­bility to inter­na­tional market shocks and ensures depen­dence on out­side enti­ties. In the end our sov­er­eignty suffers.

But energy isn’t the only area up for grabs in this con­ti­nental re-alignment. The Center for Strategic and Inter­na­tional Studies, one of the most influ­en­tial policy groups in Wash­ington, has qui­etly launched a pro­gram titled the North Amer­ican Future 2025 Project. Working in coop­er­a­tion with the Con­fer­ence Board of Canada, CSIS envi­sions the tri-national inte­gra­tion of agri­cul­ture, health ser­vices, trans­porta­tion, and telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions. Banking and the finan­cial world are fin­gered too, a move that sur­prises no one, as is Cana­dian fresh water access – a sore point for many north of the border.

Canada holds approx­i­mately 20% of the world’s fresh water, and this supply has been at the epi­centre of a sim­mering bi-national struggle between US inter­ests and Cana­dians. In fact, this tug-of-war goes back to the 1960s and the indus­trial giant Ralph M. Par­sons Com­pany (now the Par­sons Cor­po­ra­tion), which pro­posed the North Amer­ican Water and Power Alliance and the diver­sion of Cana­dian river sys­tems to the south. Now, over forty years later, CSIS is advo­cating that the US and Mexico gain access to this supply, with sug­ges­tions of “water trans­fers” and the “artificial diver­sion of fresh water.”

Obvi­ously, as a country with some of the most to lose or gain in tri-national trade, one would think that Cana­dian voters would be seri­ously debating the pros and cons of a North Amer­ican merger. But nothing of the sort has been evi­dent. This despite the fact that in early 2002, Robert Pastor – a con­sul­tant to the US National Secu­rity Council and Vice Chair of the CFR task force on North Amer­ican inte­gra­tion – gave tes­ti­mony to the Cana­dian House of Com­mons, proposing a North Amer­ican Par­lia­men­tary Group, a North Amer­ican Devel­op­ment Fund, a North Amer­ican cus­toms union, and the imple­men­ta­tion of a single mon­e­tary unit for the con­ti­nent. Pastor also encour­aged the Cana­dian gov­ern­ment to help its cit­i­zens think as “North Americans,” with the impli­ca­tion that nation­alism must be replaced by a broader mindset.

Robert Pastor also gave a sim­ilar pre­sen­ta­tion to the Toronto meeting of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion (TC) in the fall of 2002. After all, the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion was pur­suing region­alism as a stepping-stone to glob­al­iza­tion ten years before, and has an his­tor­ical link into the Euro­pean Union (see Vladimir Bukovsky’s speech tran­script posted at The August Review). Other Tri­lat­eral con­nec­tions exist, including crossovers between the TC, the CFR Task Force, and CSIS.

One example is Wendy Dobson, a CFR Task Force member who along with Pastor dis­cussed the North Amer­ican union at the Toronto Tri­lat­eral meeting. Other Trilateral/CFR Task Force mem­bers include Allan Gotlieb, Carlos Heredia, Luis Rubio, and Carla A. Hills. Not only is Hills a member of the CFR North Amer­ican group and the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, she’s also the co-chair of the CSIS Advi­sory Board. Inci­den­tally, one of the co-founders of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, Zbig­niew Brzezinski, is a Coun­sellor at CSIS, which has been pub­lishing the North Amer­ican Inte­gra­tion Mon­itor since 2002.

If all of this seems like a cozy little club, that’s because it is a cozy little club. In fact, the CFR report Building A North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity sug­gests the estab­lish­ment of “private bodies that would meet reg­u­larly or annu­ally to but­tress North Amer­ican rela­tion­ships, along the lines of the Bilderberg…conferences.”

The Bilder­berg con­fer­ences are renowned for their pri­vate, elite set­tings. So too, North Amer­ican uni­fi­ca­tion events are inten­tion­ally locked behind secured doors, such as the closed North Amer­ican Forum at Banff, Alberta in 2006, and the mul­tiple CSIS round­ta­bles that started in Wash­ington DC and ended on April 27, 2007 in Cal­gary, Alberta. By the way, in the fall of 2007, CSIS will be dis­trib­uting their final North Amer­ican Future 2025 report to all three gov­ern­ments in a bid to advance integration.

Through all of this, Cana­dian politi­cians have been strangely silent, with the excep­tion of the National Demo­c­ratic Party. Iron­i­cally, while the NDP opposes a North Amer­ican Union, it’s a staunch sup­porter of global gov­er­nance as espoused by the Socialist Inter­na­tional, the largest body of socialist leaders on the planet, and one that the NDP holds a full mem­ber­ship in.

But what does the average cit­izen think? Besides the fact that most are wholly unaware, a CFR poll shows Cana­dians sup­port deeper inte­gra­tion. How­ever, as someone living on the Cana­dian prairies, I’ve been con­ducting my own poll of sorts: I’ve been asking friends and neigh­bours where they stand on this issue. Granted, this may not be the most sci­en­tific method, but it did elicit inter­esting responses.

One friend who’s a grain buyer sees a US-Canadian amal­ga­ma­tion as inevitable, and remarked that we’re owned by American-led multi­na­tionals already. Farmers had mixed opin­ions, but the majority believed they would simply be pawns in a game of high finances and gov­ern­ment dic­tates; views that are not groundless.

Another friend looks for­ward to a union, hoping Cana­dian socialism dies in the process, but is equally fearful that the out­come will be some­thing worse. Others have been hor­ri­fied by the thought of a blended con­ti­nent, and had hoped that the present Cana­dian Con­ser­v­a­tive gov­ern­ment wouldn’t be bent so easily by big dollar politics.

No matter whom I dis­cussed this with, pro or con, all seemed leery. Few believed that a merger would deliver on the altru­istic promises of “Security and Prosperity,” espe­cially without shred­ding national inde­pen­dence. Little insti­tu­tional trust exists, at least in the rural areas of the Great Plains.

Iron­i­cally, I’m a “NAFTA product.” My great-grandparents on both sides immi­grated and emi­grated back-and-forth between all three coun­ties, and for some of my kin this was done mul­tiple times, switching nations as they bought and sold land and farms. But bureau­cracy was min­imal then, and gov­ern­ments and com­mu­ni­ties wel­comed anyone willing to work and add to the progress of society. Now bureau­cracy is stran­gling, with gov­ern­ments over­bur­dened by hefty enti­tle­ment pro­grams, mas­sive debt loads, and a bewil­dering maze of regulations.

A dif­ferent breed, how­ever, stalks today’s North Amer­ican land­scape. As it stands, con­ti­nental uni­fi­ca­tion is being driven by tri­lat­eral elites tightly bound to the world of banking and multi­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions, and by gov­ern­ment leaders who typ­i­cally flirt between a life of public admin­is­tra­tion and priv­i­leged finan­cial and cor­po­rate board­rooms. It’s a land­scape of inter­twined big power and money interests.

This raises some serious ques­tions. Will another layer of man­age­ment, this time at a regional level, fix our insti­tu­tional defi­cien­cies? Or will it add more bureau­cracy and less account­ability? And who stands to win or lose in this game of inte­gra­tion; the tri­lat­eral movers of North America, the sov­er­eignty of each indi­vidual nation, or the common cit­izen bliss­fully unaware of the coming con­ti­nental shift?

Let me guess where you’re placing your amero-dollar bets.

Carl Teichrib is a Senior Fellow with The August Review [www.augustreview.com], and Chief Editor of Forcing Change [www.forcingchange.org].

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Toward a North American Union

Tags: , , , , , , , ,


By: Patrick Wood

Good evening, every­body. Tonight, an aston­ishing pro­posal to expand our bor­ders to incor­po­rate Mexico and Canada and simul­ta­ne­ously fur­ther diminish U.S. sov­er­eignty. Have our polit­ical elites gone mad?
Lou Dobbs on Lou Dobbs Tonight, June 9, 2005

Intro­duc­tion

The global elite, through the direct oper­a­tions of Pres­i­dent George Bush and his Admin­is­tra­tion, are cre­ating a North Amer­ican Union that will com­bine Canada, Mexico and the U.S. into a super­state called the North Amer­ican Union (NAU). The NAU is roughly pat­terned after the Euro­pean Union (EU). There is no polit­ical or eco­nomic man­date for cre­ating the NAU, and unof­fi­cial polls of a cross-section of Amer­i­cans indi­cate that they are over­whelm­ingly against this end-run around national sovereignty.

To answer Lou Dobbs, “No, the polit­ical elites have not gone mad”, they just want you to think that they have.

The reality over appear­ance is easily cleared up with a proper his­tor­ical per­spec­tive of the last 35 years of polit­ical and eco­nomic manip­u­la­tion by the same elite who now bring us the NAU.

This paper will explore this his­tory in order to give the reader a com­plete pic­ture of the NAU, how it is made pos­sible, who are the insti­ga­tors of it, and where it is headed.

It is impor­tant to first under­stand that the impending birth of the NAU is a ges­ta­tion of the Exec­u­tive Branch of the U.S. gov­ern­ment, not the Con­gress. This is the topic of the first dis­cus­sion below.

The next topic will examine the global elite’s strategy of sub­verting the power to nego­tiate trade treaties and inter­na­tional law with for­eign coun­tries from the Con­gress to the Pres­i­dent. Without this power, NAFTA and the NAU would never have been possible.

After this, we will show that the North Amer­ican Free Trade Agree­ment (NAFTA) is the imme­diate genetic and nec­es­sary ancestor of the NAU.

Lastly, throughout this report the NAU per­pe­tra­tors and their tac­tics will be brought into the lime­light so as to affix blame where it prop­erly belongs. The reader will be struck with the fact that the same people are at the center of each of these subjects.

The Best Gov­ern­ment that Money Can Buy

Modern day glob­al­iza­tion was launched with the cre­ation of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in 1973 by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski. Its mem­ber­ship con­sisted of just over 300 pow­erful elit­ists from North America, Europe and Japan. The clearly stated goal of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion was to foster a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” that would sup­plant the his­tor­ical eco­nomic order.

In spite of its non-political rhetoric, The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion nonethe­less estab­lished a head­lock on the Exec­u­tive Branch of the U.S. gov­ern­ment with the elec­tion of James Earl Carter in 1976. Hand-picked as a pres­i­den­tial can­di­date by Brzezinski, Carter was per­son­ally tutored in glob­alist phi­los­ophy and for­eign policy by Brzezinski him­self. Sub­se­quently, when Carter was sworn in as Pres­i­dent, he appointed no less than one-third of the U.S. mem­bers of the Com­mis­sion to his Cab­inet and other high-level posts in his Admin­is­tra­tion. Such was the gen­esis of the Tri­lat­eral Commission’s dom­i­na­tion of the Exec­u­tive Branch that con­tinues to the present day.

With the elec­tion of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion member George H.W. Bush was intro­duced to the White House as vice-president. Through Bush’s influ­ence, Reagan con­tinued to select key appoint­ments from the ranks of the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush began his four-year term as Pres­i­dent. He was fol­lowed by fellow Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion member William Jef­ferson Clinton, who served for 8 years as Pres­i­dent and appointed four­teen fellow Tri­lat­eral mem­bers to his Administration.

The elec­tion of George W. Bush in 2000 should be no sur­prise. Although Bush was not a member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, his vice-president Dick Cheney is. In addi­tion, Dick Cheney’s wife, Lynne, is also a member of the Com­mis­sion in her own right.

The hege­mony of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion over the Exec­u­tive Branch of the U.S. gov­ern­ment is unmis­tak­able. Critics argue that this sce­nario is merely cir­cum­stan­tial, that the most qual­i­fied polit­ical “talent” quite nat­u­rally tends to belong to groups like the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in the first place. Under exam­i­na­tion, such expla­na­tions are quite hollow.

Why would the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion seek to dom­i­nate the Exec­u­tive Branch? Quite simply — Power! That is, power to get things done directly which would have been impos­sible to accom­plish through the only mod­er­ately suc­cessful lob­bying efforts of the past; power to use the gov­ern­ment as a bully plat­form to modify polit­ical behavior throughout the world.

Of course, the obvious corol­lary to this hege­mony is that the influ­ence and impact of the cit­i­zenry is vir­tu­ally eliminated.

Modern Day “World Order” Strategy

After its founding in 1973, Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers wasted no time in launching their glob­alist strategy. But, what was that strategy?

Richard Gardner was an orig­inal member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, and one of the promi­nent archi­tects of the New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order. In 1974, his article “The Hard Road to World Order” appeared in For­eign Affairs mag­a­zine, pub­lished by the Council on For­eign Rela­tions. With obvious dis­dain for anyone holding nation­al­istic polit­ical views, Gardner proclaimed,

“In short, the ‘house of world order’ would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from 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.1 [emphasis added]

In Gardner’s view, using treaties and trade agree­ments (such as Gen­eral Agree­ment on Trade and Tar­iffs or GATT) would bind and supercede con­sti­tu­tional law piece by piece, which is exactly what has hap­pened. In addi­tion, Gardner highly esteemed the role of the United Nations as a third-party legal body that could be used to erode the national sov­er­eignty of indi­vidual nations.

Gardner con­cluded that “the case-by-case approach can pro­duce some remark­able con­ces­sions of ‘sov­er­eignty’ that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis“2

Thus, the end result of such a process is that the U.S. would even­tu­ally capit­u­late its sov­er­eignty to the newly pro­posed world order. It is not specif­i­cally men­tioned who would con­trol this new order, but it is quite obvious that the only ‘players’ around are Gardner and his Tri­lat­eral cronies.

It should again be noted that the for­ma­tion of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion by Rock­e­feller and Brzezinski was a response to the gen­eral frus­tra­tion that glob­alism was going nowhere with the status quo prior to 1973. The “frontal assault ” had failed, and a new approach was needed. It is a typ­ical mindset of the global elite to view any road­block as an oppor­tu­nity to stage an “end-run” to get around it. Gardner con­firms this frustration:

“Cer­tainly the gap has never loomed larger between the objec­tives and the capac­i­ties of the inter­na­tional orga­ni­za­tions that were sup­posed to get mankind on the road to world order. We are wit­nessing an out­break of short­sighted nation­alism that seems obliv­ious to the eco­nomic, polit­ical and moral impli­ca­tions of inter­de­pen­dence. Yet never has there been such wide­spread recog­ni­tion by the world’s intel­lec­tual lead­er­ship of the neces­sity for coop­er­a­tion and plan­ning on a truly global basis, beyond country, beyond region, espe­cially beyond social system.“3

The “world’s intel­lec­tual lead­er­ship” appar­ently refers to aca­d­e­mics such as Gardner and Brzezinski. Out­side of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion and the CFR, the vast majority of aca­d­emic thought at the time was opposed to such notions as men­tioned above.

Laying the Ground­work: Fast Track Authority

In Article 1, Sec­tion 8 of the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion, authority is granted to Con­gress “To reg­u­late com­merce with for­eign nations.” An end-run around this insur­mount­able obstacle would be to con­vince Con­gress to vol­un­tarily turn over this power to the Pres­i­dent. With such authority in hand, the Pres­i­dent could freely nego­tiate treaties and other trade agree­ments with for­eign nations, and then simply present them to Con­gress for a straight up or down vote, with no amend­ments pos­sible. This again points out elite dis­dain for a Con­gress that is elected to be rep­re­sen­ta­tive “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

So, the first “Fast Track” leg­is­la­tion was passed by Con­gress in 1974, just one year after the founding of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. It was the same year that Nelson Rock­e­feller was con­firmed as Vice Pres­i­dent under Pres­i­dent Gerald Ford, nei­ther of whom were elected by the U.S. public. As Vice-President, Rock­e­feller was seated as the pres­i­dent of the U.S. Senate.

According to Public Cit­izen, the bottom line of Fast Track is that…

“…the White House signs and enters into trade deals before Con­gress ever votes on them. Fast Track also sets the para­me­ters for con­gres­sional debate on any trade mea­sure the Pres­i­dent sub­mits, requiring a vote within a cer­tain time with no amend­ments and only 20 hours of debate.“4

When an agree­ment is about to be given to Con­gress, high-powered lob­by­ists and polit­ical hammer-heads are called in to manip­u­late con­gres­sional hold-outs into voting for the leg­is­la­tion. (*See CAFTA Lob­bying Efforts) With only 20 hours of debate allowed, there is little oppor­tu­nity for public involvement.

Con­gress clearly under­stood the risk of giving up this power to the Pres­i­dent, as evi­denced by the fact that they put an auto­matic expi­ra­tion date on it. Since the expi­ra­tion of the orig­inal Fast Track, there been a very con­tentious trail of Fast Track renewal efforts. In 1996, Pres­i­dent Clinton utterly failed to re-secure Fast Track after a bitter debate in Con­gress. After another con­tentious struggle in 2001/2002, Pres­i­dent Bush was able to renew Fast Track for him­self in the Trade Act of 2002, just in time to nego­tiate the Cen­tral Amer­ican Free Trade Agree­ment (CAFTA) and insure its pas­sage in 2005.

It is star­tling to realize that since 1974, Fast Track has not been used in the majority of trade agree­ments. Under the Clinton pres­i­dency, for instance, some 300 sep­a­rate trade agree­ments were nego­ti­ated and passed nor­mally by Con­gress, but only two of them were sub­mitted under Fast Track: NAFTA and the GATT Uruguay Round. In fact, from 1974 to 1992, there were only three instances of Fast Track in action: GATT Tokyo Round, U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agree­ment and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agree­ment. Thus, NAFTA was only the fourth invo­ca­tion of Fast Track.

Why the selec­tivity? Does it sug­gest a very narrow agenda? Most cer­tainly. These trade and legal bam­boo­zles didn’t stand a ghost of a chance to be passed without it, and the global elite knew it. Fast Track was cre­ated as a very spe­cific leg­isla­tive tool to accom­plish a very spe­cific exec­u­tive task — namely, to “fast track” the cre­ation of the “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” envi­sioned by the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in 1973!

Article Six of the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion states that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Con­sti­tu­tion or Laws of any State to the Con­trary notwith­standing.” Because inter­na­tional treaties super­sede national law, Fast Track has allowed an enor­mous restruc­turing of U.S. law without resorting to a Con­sti­tu­tional con­ven­tion (Ed. note: Both Henry Kissinger and Zbig­niew Brzezinski called for a con­sti­tu­tional con­ven­tion as early as 1972, which could clearly be viewed as a failed “frontal assault”). As a result, national sov­er­eignty of the United States has been severely com­pro­mised — even if some Con­gressmen and Sen­a­tors are aware of this, the gen­eral public is still gen­er­ally ignorant.

North Amer­ican Free Trade Agreement

NAFTA was nego­ti­ated under the exec­u­tive lead­er­ship of Repub­lican Pres­i­dent George H.W. Bush. Carla Hills is widely cred­ited as being the pri­mary archi­tect and nego­tiator of NAFTA. Both Bush and Hills were mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Commission!

NAFTA Initialling

NAFTA “Ini­tialing” Cer­e­mony: From left to right (standing)
Pres­i­dent Salinas, Pres­i­dent Bush, Prime Min­ister Mul­roney
(Seated) Jaime Serra Puche, Carla Hills, Michael Wilson.

With Bush’s first pres­i­den­tial term drawing to a close and Bush desiring polit­ical credit for NAFTA, an “ini­tialing” cer­e­mony of NAFTA was staged (so Bush could take credit for NAFTA) in October, 1992. Although very offi­cial looking, most Amer­i­cans did not under­stand the dif­fer­ence between ini­tialing and signing; at the time, Fast Track was not imple­mented and Bush did not have the authority to actu­ally sign such a trade agreement.

Bush sub­se­quently lost a pub­licly con­tentious pres­i­den­tial race to demo­crat William Jef­ferson Clinton, but they were hardly polar oppo­sites on the issue of Free Trade and NAFTA: The reason? Clinton was also a sea­soned member of the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

Imme­di­ately after inau­gu­ra­tion, Clinton became the cham­pion of NAFTA and orches­trated its pas­sage with a mas­sive Exec­u­tive Branch effort.

Some Unex­pected Resis­tance to NAFTA

Prior to the 1992 elec­tion, there was a fly in the elite’s oint­ment — namely, pres­i­den­tial can­di­date and bil­lion­aire Ross Perot, founder and chairman of Elec­tronic Data Sys­tems (EDS). Perot was polit­i­cally inde­pen­dent, vehe­mently anti-NAFTA and chose to make it a major cam­paign issue in 1991. In the end, the global elite would have to spend huge sums of money to over­come the neg­a­tive pub­licity that Perot gave to NAFTA.

At the time, some polit­ical ana­lysts believed that Perot, being a bil­lion­aire, was somehow put up to this task by the same elit­ists who were pushing NAFTA. Pre­sum­ably, it would accu­mu­late all the anti-globalists in one tidy group, thus allowing the elit­ists to deter­mine who their true ene­mies really were. It’s moot today whether he was sin­cere or not, but it did have that out­come, and Perot became a light­ning rod for the whole issue of free trade.

Perot hit the nail squarely on the head in one of his nation­ally tele­vised cam­paign speeches:

“If you’re paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for fac­tory workers and you can move your fac­tory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, hire young — let’s assume you’ve been in busi­ness for a long time and you’ve got a mature work­force — pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health care — that’s the most expen­sive single ele­ment in making a car — have no envi­ron­mental con­trols, no pol­lu­tion con­trols, and no retire­ment, and you didn’t care about any­thing but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south…“5 [emphasis added]

Perot’s mes­sage struck a nerve with mil­lions of Amer­i­cans, but it was unfor­tu­nately cut short when he entered into public cam­paign debates with fellow can­di­date Al Gore. Simply put, Gore ate Perot’s lunch, not so much on the issues them­selves, but on having supe­rior debating skills. As orga­nized as Perot was, he was no match for a polit­i­cally and glob­ally sea­soned politi­cian like Al Gore.

The Spin Machine gears up

To counter the public rela­tions damage done by Perot, all the stops were pulled out as the NAFTA vote drew near. As proxy for the global elite, the Pres­i­dent unleashed the biggest and most expen­sive spin machine the country had ever seen.

NAFTA emblem

NAFTA/NAU Emblem

Former Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca was enlisted for a multi-million dollar nation­wide ad cam­paign that praised the ben­e­fits of NAFTA. The mantra, car­ried con­sis­tently throughout the many spin events: “Exports. Better Jobs. Better Wages”, all of which have turned out to be empty promises

Bill Clinton invited three former pres­i­dents to the White House to stand with him in praise and affir­ma­tion NAFTA. This was the first time in U.S. his­tory that four pres­i­dents had ever appeared together. Of the four, three were mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion: Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Gerald Ford was not a Com­mis­sioner, but was nev­er­the­less a con­firmed glob­alist insider. After Ford’s acces­sion to the pres­i­dency in 1974, he promptly nom­i­nated Nelson Rock­e­feller (David Rockefeller’s oldest brother) to fill the Vice Pres­i­dency that Ford had just vacated.

The aca­d­emic com­mu­nity was enlisted when, according to Harper’s Mag­a­zine pub­lisher John MacArthur,

…there was a pro-NAFTA peti­tion, orga­nized and written my MIT’s Rudiger Dorn­busch, addressed to Pres­i­dent Clinton and signed by all twelve living Nobel lau­re­ates in eco­nomics, and exer­cise in aca­d­emic logrolling that was expertly con­verted by Bill Daley and the A-Team into PR gold on the front page of The New York Times on Sep­tember 14. ‘Dear Mr. Pres­i­dent,’ wrote the 283 sig­na­to­ries…“6

Lastly, promi­nent Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers them­selves took to the press to pro­mote NAFTA. For instance, on May 13, 1993, Com­mis­sioners Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance wrote a joint op-ed that stated:

“[NAFTA] would be the most con­struc­tive mea­sure the United States would have under­taken in our hemi­sphere in this cen­tury.“7

Two months later, Kissinger went further,

“It will rep­re­sent the most cre­ative step toward a new world order taken by any group of coun­tries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemi­sphere.” [NAFTA] is not a con­ven­tional trade agree­ment, but the archi­tec­ture of a new inter­na­tional system.8 [emphasis added]

It is hardly fan­ciful to think that Kissinger’s hype sounds quite sim­ilar to the Tri­lat­eral Commission’s orig­inal goal of cre­ating a New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order.

NAFTA Signing

Pres­i­dent Clinton signing NAFTA

On Jan­uary 1, 1994, NAFTA became law: Under Fast Track pro­ce­dures, the house had passed it by 234 – 200 (132 Repub­li­cans and 102 Democ­rats voting in favor) and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61 – 38.

That Giant Sucking Sound Going South

To under­stand the poten­tial impact of the North Amer­ican Union, one must under­stand the impact of NAFTA.

NAFTA promised greater exports, better jobs and better wages. Since 1994, just the oppo­site has occurred. The U.S. trade deficit soared and now approaches $1 tril­lion dol­lars per year; the U.S. has lost some 1.5 mil­lion jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen significantly.

Patrick Buchanan offered a simple example of NAFTA’s dele­te­rious effect on the U.S. economy:

“When NAFTA passed in 1993, we imported some 225,000 cars and trucks from Mexico, but exported about 500,000 vehi­cles to the world. In 2005, our exports to the world were still a shade under 500,000 vehi­cles, but our auto and truck imports from Mexico had tripled to 700,000 vehicles.

“As McMil­lion writes, Mexico now exports more cars and trucks to the United States than the United States exports to the whole world. A fine end, is it not, to the United States as “Auto Cap­ital of the World”?

“What hap­pened? Post-NAFTA, the Big Three just picked up a huge slice of our auto industry and moved it, and the jobs, to Mexico.9

Of course, this only rep­re­sents the auto industry, but the same effect has been seen in many other indus­tries as well. Buchanan cor­rectly noted that NAFTA was never just a trade deal: Rather, it was an “enabling act — to enable U.S. cor­po­ra­tions to dump their Amer­ican workers and move their fac­to­ries to Mexico.” Indeed, this is the very spirit of all out­sourcing of U.S. jobs and man­u­fac­turing facil­i­ties to over­seas locations.

Respected econ­o­mist Alan Tonelson, author of The Race to the Bottom, notes the smoke and mir­rors that cloud what has really hap­pened with exports:

“Most U.S. exports to Mexico before, during and since the (1994) peso crisis have been pro­ducer goods — in par­tic­ular, parts and com­po­nents sent by U.S. multi­na­tionals to their Mex­ican fac­to­ries for assembly or for fur­ther pro­cessing. The vast majority of these, more­over, are reex­ported, and most get shipped right back to the United States for final sale. In fact, by most esti­mates, the United States buys 80 to 90 per­cent of all of Mexico’s exports.“10

Tonelson con­cludes that “the vast majority of Amer­ican workers have expe­ri­enced declining living stan­dards, not just a handful of losers.”

Mex­ican econ­o­mist and scholar Miguel Pickard sums up Mexico’s sup­posed ben­e­fits from NAFTA:

“Much praise has been heard for the few ‘win­ners’ that NAFTA has cre­ated, but little men­tion is made of the fact that the Mex­ican people are the deal’s big ‘losers.’ Mex­i­cans now face greater unem­ploy­ment, poverty, and inequality than before the agree­ment began in 1994.“11

In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to the cit­i­zenry of the United States or Mexico. Still, this is the back­drop against which the North Amer­ican Union is being acted out. The glob­al­iza­tion players and their promises have remained pretty much the same, both just as disin­gen­uous as ever.

Pre­lude to the North Amer­ican Union

Soon after NAFTA was passed in 1994, Dr. Robert A. Pastor began to push for a “deep inte­gra­tion” which NAFTA could not pro­vide by itself. His dream was summed up in his book, Toward a North Amer­ican Union, pub­lished in 2001. Unfor­tu­nately for Pastor, the book was released just a few days prior to the 9/11 ter­rorist attacks in New York and thus received little atten­tion from any sector.

How­ever, Pastor had the right con­nec­tions. He was invited to appear before the ple­nary ses­sion (held in Ontario, Canada) of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion on November 1 – 2, 2002, to deliver a paper drawing directly on his book. His paper, “A Modest Pro­posal To the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion”, made sev­eral recommendations:

  • “… the three gov­ern­ments should estab­lish a North Amer­ican Com­mis­sion (NAC) to define an agenda for Summit meet­ings by the three leaders and to mon­itor the imple­men­ta­tion of the deci­sions and plans.
  • A second insti­tu­tion should emerge from com­bining two bilat­eral leg­isla­tive groups into a North Amer­ican Par­lia­men­tary Group.
  • “The third insti­tu­tion should be a Per­ma­nent Court on Trade and Investment
  • “The three leaders should estab­lish a North Amer­ican Devel­op­ment Fund, whose pri­ority would be to con­nect the U.S.-Mexican border region to cen­tral and southern Mexico.
  • The North Amer­ican Com­mis­sion should develop an inte­grated con­ti­nental plan for trans­porta­tion and infrastructure.
  • “…nego­tiate a Cus­toms Union and a Common External Tariff
  • Our three gov­ern­ments should sponsor Cen­ters for North Amer­ican Studies in each of our coun­tries to help the people of all three under­stand the prob­lems and the poten­tial of North America and begin to think of them­selves as North Amer­i­cans12 [emphasis added]

Pastor’s choice of the words “Modest Pro­posal” are almost com­ical con­sid­ering that he intends to reor­ga­nize the entire North Amer­ican continent.

Nev­er­the­less, the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion bought Pastor’s pro­posals hook, line and sinker. Sub­se­quently, it was Pastor who emerged as the U.S. vice-chairman of the CFR task force that was announced on October 15, 2004:

“The Council has launched an inde­pen­dent task force on the future of North America to examine regional inte­gra­tion since the imple­men­ta­tion of the North Amer­ican Free Trade Agree­ment ten years ago… The task force will review five spheres of policy in which greater coop­er­a­tion may be needed. They are: deep­ening eco­nomic inte­gra­tion; reducing the devel­op­ment gap; har­mo­nizing reg­u­la­tory policy; enhancing secu­rity; and devising better insti­tu­tions to manage con­flicts that inevitably arise from inte­gra­tion and exploit oppor­tu­ni­ties for col­lab­o­ra­tion.“13

Inde­pen­dent task force, indeed! A total of twenty-three mem­bers were chosen from the three coun­tries. Each country was rep­re­sented by a member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion: Carla A. Hills (U.S.), Luis Rubio (Mexico) and Wendy K. Dobson (Canada). Robert Pastor served as the U.S. vice-chairman.

This CFR task force was unique in that it focused on eco­nomic and polit­ical poli­cies for all three coun­tries, not just the U.S. The Task Force stated pur­pose was to

“… iden­tify inad­e­qua­cies in the cur­rent arrange­ments and sug­gest oppor­tu­ni­ties for deeper coop­er­a­tion on areas of common interest. Unlike other Council-sponsored task forces, which focus pri­marily on U.S. policy, this ini­tia­tive includes par­tic­i­pants from Canada and Mexico, as well as the United States, and will make policy rec­om­men­da­tions for all three coun­tries.14 [Emphasis added]

Richard Haass, chairman of the CFR and long-time member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, point­edly made the link between NAFTA and inte­gra­tion of Mexico, Canada and the U.S.:

“Ten years after NAFTA, it is obvious that the secu­rity and eco­nomic futures of Canada, Mexico, and the United States are inti­mately bound. But there is pre­cious little thinking avail­able as to where the three coun­tries need to be in another ten years and how to get there. I am excited about the poten­tial of this task force to help fill this void,“15

Haass’ state­ment “there is pre­cious little thinking avail­able” under­scores a repeat­edly used elitist tech­nique. That is, first decide what you want to do, and sec­ondly, assign a flock of aca­d­e­mics to jus­tify your intended actions. (This is the crux of aca­d­emic funding by NGO’s such as Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion, Ford Foun­da­tion, Carnegie-Mellon, etc.) After the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion process is com­plete, the same elites that sug­gested it in the first place allow them­selves to be drawn in as if they had no other log­ical choice but to play along with the “sound thinking” of the experts.

The task force met three times, once in each country. When the process was com­pleted, it issued its results in May, 2005, in a paper titled “Building a North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity” and sub­ti­tled “Report of the Inde­pen­dent Task Force on the Future of North America.” Even the sub-title sug­gests that the “future of North America” is a fait accompli decided behind closed doors.

Some of the rec­om­men­da­tions of the task force are:

  • Adopt a common external tariff.”
  • “Adopt a North Amer­ican Approach to Regulation”
  • “Estab­lish a common secu­rity perimeter by 2010.”
  • “Estab­lish a North Amer­ican invest­ment fund for infra­struc­ture and human capital.”
  • “Estab­lish a per­ma­nent tri­bunal for North Amer­ican dis­pute resolution.”
  • “An annual North Amer­ican Summit meeting” that would bring the heads-of-state together for the sake of public dis­play of confidence.
  • “Estab­lish minister-led working groups that will be required to report back within 90 days, and to meet regularly.”
  • Create a “North Amer­ican Advi­sory Council”
  • Create a “North Amer­ican Inter-Parliamentary Group.“16

Sound familiar? It should: Many of the rec­om­men­da­tions are ver­batim from Pastor’s “modest” pre­sen­ta­tion to the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion men­tioned above, or from his ear­lier book, Toward a North Amer­ican Union.

SPP Summit

2006 SPP Summit in Cancun

Shortly after the task force report was issued, the heads of all three coun­tries did indeed meet together for a summit in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The spe­cific result of the summit was the cre­ation of the Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship of North America (SPPNA). The joint press release stated

“We, the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, have met in Texas to announce the estab­lish­ment of the Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship of North America.

“We will estab­lish working par­ties led by our min­is­ters and sec­re­taries that will con­sult with stake­holders in our respec­tive coun­tries. These working par­ties will respond to the pri­or­i­ties of our people and our busi­nesses, and will set spe­cific, mea­sur­able, and achiev­able goals. They will out­line con­crete steps that our gov­ern­ments can take to meet these goals, and set dates that will ensure the con­tin­uous achieve­ment of results.

“Within 90 days, min­is­ters will present their ini­tial report after which, the working par­ties will submit six-monthly reports. Because the Part­ner­ship will be an ongoing process of coop­er­a­tion, new items will be added to the work agenda by mutual agree­ment as cir­cum­stances war­rant.17

Once again, we see Pastor’s North Amer­ican Union ide­ology being con­tinued, but this time as an out­come of a summit meeting of three heads-of-states. The ques­tion must be raised, “Who is really in charge of this process?”

Indeed, the three pre­miers returned to their respec­tive coun­tries and started their “working par­ties” to “con­sult with stake­holders.” In the U.S., the “spe­cific, mea­sur­able, and achiev­able goals” were only seen indi­rectly by the cre­ation of a gov­ern­ment web­site billed as “Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­net­ship of North America.” (www.spp.gov) The stake­holders are not men­tioned by name, but it is clear that they are not the public of either of the three coun­tries; most likely, they are the cor­po­rate inter­ests rep­re­sented by the mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Commission!

The second annual summit meeting took place on March 30 – 31, 2006, in Cancun, Mexico between Bush, Fox and Cana­dian prime min­ister Stephen Harper. The Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship agenda was summed up in a state­ment from Mex­ican pres­i­dent Vicente Fox:

“We touched upon fun­da­mental items in that meeting. First of all, we car­ried out an eval­u­a­tion meeting. Then we got infor­ma­tion about the devel­op­ment of pro­grams. And then we gave the nec­es­sary instruc­tions for the works that should be car­ried out in the next period of work… We are not rene­go­ti­ating what has been suc­cessful or open the Free Trade Agree­ment. It’s going beyond the agree­ment, both for pros­perity and secu­rity.18 [emphasis added]

Reg­u­la­tions instead of Treaties

It may not have occurred to the reader that the two SPP sum­mits resulted in no signed agree­ments. This is not acci­dental nor a failure of the summit process. The so-called “deeper inte­gra­tion” of the three coun­tries is being accom­plished through a series of reg­u­la­tions and exec­u­tive decrees that avoid cit­izen watch­dogs and leg­isla­tive over­sight.19

In the U.S., the 2005 Cancun summit spawned some 20 dif­ferent working groups that would deal with issues from immi­gra­tion to secu­rity to har­mo­niza­tion of reg­u­la­tions, all under the aus­pices of the Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship (www.spp.gov). The SPP in the U.S. is offi­cially placed under the Depart­ment of Com­merce, headed by Sec­re­tary Carlos M. Gutierrez, but other Exec­u­tive Branch agen­cies also have SPP com­po­nents that report to Commerce.

After two years of mas­sive effort, the names of the SPP working group mem­bers have not been released. The result of their work have also not been released. There is no con­gres­sional leg­is­la­tion or over­sight of the SPP process.

The director of SPP, Geri Word, was con­tacted to ask why a cloud of secrecy is hanging over SPP. According to inves­tiga­tive jour­nalist Jerome Corsi, Word replied

“We did not want to get the con­tact people of the working groups dis­tracted by calls from the public.” 20

This pater­nal­istic atti­tude is a typ­ical elitist men­tality Their work (what­ever they have dreamed up on their own) is too impor­tant to be dis­tracted by the likes of pesky cit­i­zens or their elected legislators.

This elite change of tac­tics must not be under­stated: Reg­u­la­tions and Exec­u­tive Orders have replaced Con­gres­sional leg­is­la­tion and public debate. There is no pre­tense of either. This is another Gardner-style “end-run around national sov­er­eignty, eroding it piece by piece.”

Appar­ently, the Trilateral-dominated Bush admin­is­tra­tion believes that it has accu­mu­lated suf­fi­cient power to ram the NAU down the throat of the Amer­ican People, whether they protest or not.

Robert A. Pastor: A Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion Operative

As men­tioned ear­lier, Pastor is hailed as the father of the North Amer­ican Union, having written more papers about it, deliv­ered more tes­ti­monies before Con­gress, and headed up task forces to study it, than any other single U.S. aca­d­emic figure. He would seem a tire­less archi­tect and advo­cate of the NAU.

Although he might seem to be a fresh, new name to in the glob­al­iza­tion busi­ness, Pastor has a long his­tory with Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers and the global elite.

He is the same Robert Pastor who was the exec­u­tive director of the 1974 CFR task force ( funded by the Rock­e­feller and Ford Foun­da­tions) called the Com­mis­sion on US-Latin Amer­ican Rela­tions — aka the Linowitz Com­mis­sion. The Linowitz Com­mis­sion, chaired by an orig­inal Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sioner Sol Linowitz, was sin­gu­larly cred­ited with the give­away of the Panama Canal in 1976 under the Carter pres­i­dency. ALL of the Linowitz Com­mis­sion mem­bers were mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion save one, Albert Fishlow; other mem­bers were W. Michael Blu­men­thal, Samuel Hunt­ington, Peter G. Peterson, Elliot Richardson and David Rockefeller.

One of Carter’s first actions as Pres­i­dent in 1977 was to appoint Zbig­niew Brzezinski to the post of National Secu­rity Advisor. In turn, one of Brzezinski’s first acts was to appoint his pro­tege, Dr. Robert A. Pastor, as director of the Office of Latin Amer­ican and Caribbean Affairs. Pastor then became the Tri­lat­eral Commission’s point-man to lobby for the Canal giveaway.

To actu­ally nego­tiate the Carter-Torrijos Treaty, Carter sent none other than Sol Linowitz to Panama as tem­po­rary ambas­sador. The 6-month tem­po­rary appoint­ment avoided the require­ment for Senate con­fir­ma­tion. Thus, the very same people who cre­ated the policy became respon­sible for exe­cuting it.

The Tri­lat­eral Commission’s role in the Carter Admin­is­tra­tion is con­firmed by Pastor him­self in his 1992 paper The Carter Admin­is­tra­tion and Latin America: A Test of Principle:

“In con­verting its pre­dis­po­si­tion into a policy, the new admin­is­tra­tion had the ben­efit of the research done by two pri­vate com­mis­sions. Carter, Vance, and Brzezinski were mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, which pro­vided a con­cep­tual frame­work for col­lab­o­ra­tion among the indus­tri­al­ized coun­tries in approaching the full gamut of inter­na­tional issues. With regard to set­ting an agenda and an approach to Latin America, the most impor­tant source of influ­ence on the Carter admin­is­tra­tion was the Com­mis­sion on U.S.-Latin Amer­ican Rela­tions, chaired by Sol M. Linowitz.21

As to the final Linowitz Com­mis­sion reports on Latin America, most of which were authored by Pastor him­self, he states:

“The reports helped the admin­is­tra­tion define a new rela­tion­ship with Latin America, and 27 of the 28 spe­cific rec­om­men­da­tions in the second report became U.S. policy.“22

Pastor’s deep involve­ment with Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers and poli­cies is irrefutable, and it con­tinues into the present.

In 1996, when Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sioner Bill Clinton nom­i­nated Pastor as Ambas­sador to Panama, his con­fir­ma­tion was force­fully knocked down by Sen­ator Jesse Helms (R-NC), who held a deep grudge against Pastor for his cen­tral role in the give­away of the Panama Canal in 1976.

The set­back obvi­ously did not phase Pastor in the slightest.

Where from here?

The stated target for full imple­men­ta­tion of the North Amer­ican Union is 2010.

“The Task Force pro­poses the cre­ation by 2010 of a North Amer­ican com­mu­nity to enhance secu­rity, pros­perity, and oppor­tu­nity. We pro­pose a com­mu­nity based on the prin­ciple affirmed in the March 2005 Joint State­ment of the three leaders
that ‘our secu­rity and pros­perity are mutu­ally depen­dent and com­ple­men­tary.’ 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.”
23

Don’t under­es­ti­mate the global elite’s ability to meet their own deadlines!

Con­clu­sion

This paper does not pre­tend to give thor­ough or even com­plete cov­erage to such impor­tant and wide-ranging topics as dis­cussed above. We have shown that the restruc­turing of the United States has been accom­plished by a very small group of pow­erful global elit­ists as rep­re­sented by mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion plainly stated that it intended to create a New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order. We have fol­lowed their mem­bers from 1973 to the present, only to find that they are at the dead center of every crit­ical policy and action that seeks to restruc­ture the U.S.

Some critics will undoubt­edly argue that involve­ment by mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion is merely inci­dental. How­ever, the odds for their involve­ment at random is too large to be even remotely under­stand­able; it would be like win­ning the lot­tery jackpot five times in a row, with the same numbers!

The credo of The August Review is “Follow the money, follow the power.” In this view, the United States has lit­er­ally been hijacked by less than 300 greedy and self-serving global elit­ists who have little more than con­tempt for the cit­i­zens of the coun­tries they would seek to dom­i­nate. According to Tri­lat­er­alist Richard Gardner’s view­point, this incre­mental takeover (rather than a frontal approach) has been wildly successful.

To again answer Lou Dobbs ques­tion, “Have our polit­ical elites gone mad?” — No Lou, they are not “mad”, nor are they igno­rant. To look into the face of these global elites is to look into the face of unmit­i­gated greed, avarice and treachery.

Foot­notes:

  1. Gardner, Richard, The Hard Road to World Order, (For­eign Affairs, 1974) p. 558
  2. ibid, p. 563
  3. ibid. p. 556
  4. Fast Track Talking Points, Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen
  5. Excerpts From Pres­i­den­tial Debates, Ross Perot, 1992
  6. MacArthur, The Selling of Free Trade, (Univ. of Cal. Press, 2001) p. 228
  7. Wash­ington Post, op-ed, Kissinger & Vance, May 13, 1993
  8. Los Angeles Times, op-ed, Kissinger, July 18, 1993
  9. The Fruits of NAFTA, Patrick Buchanan, The Con­ser­v­a­tive Voice, March 10, 2006
  10. Tonelson, The Race to the Bottom (West­view Press, 2002) p. 89
  11. Tri­na­tional Elites Map North Amer­ican Future in “NAFTA Plus”, Miguel Pickard, IRC Amer­icas website
  12. A Modest Pro­posal To the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, Pre­sen­ta­tion by Dr. Robert A. Pastor, 2002
  13. Council Joins Leading Cana­dians and Mex­i­cans to Launch Inde­pen­dent Task Force on the Future of America, Press Release, CFR Website
  14. ibid.
  15. ibid.
  16. Building a North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity, Council on For­eign Rela­tions, 2005
  17. North Amer­ican Leaders Unveil Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship, Inter­na­tional Infor­ma­tion Pro­grams, U.S. Govt. Website
  18. Con­cluding Press Con­fer­ence at Cancun Summit, Vicente Fox, March 31, 2006
  19. Tra­di­tional Elites Map North Amer­ican Future in “NAFTA Plus”, Miguel Pickard, p. 1, IRC Website
  20. Bush sneaking North Amer­ican super-state without over­sight?, Jerome Corsi,WorldNetDaily, June 12, 2006.
  21. The Carter Admin­is­tra­tion and Latin America: A Test of Prin­ciple, Robert A. Pastor, The Carter Center, July 1992, p. 9
  22. ibid. p. 10
  23. Building a North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity, Council on For­eign Rela­tions, 2005, p. 2

Fur­ther Reading

Meet Robert Pastor: Father of the North Amer­ican Union, Human Events, Jerome R. Corsi, July 25, 2006
Robert A. Pastor Resume, Amer­ican Uni­ver­sity, 2005
North America’s Super Cor­ridor Coali­tion, Inc. Website

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Premium Subscriber Access

Email:
Password:
Remember   

Forgot Password

People want to know…

faq

What is Globalization?

It is the col­lective effect of pur­poseful and amoral manip­u­la­tion that seeks to cen­tralize eco­nomic, polit­ical, tech­no­log­ical and soci­etal forces in order to accrue max­imum profit and polit­ical power to global banks, global cor­po­ra­tions and the elit­ists who run them. It is rapidly moving toward an full and final imple­men­ta­tion of Technocracy.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is the Tri­lat­eral Commission?

Founded in 1973 by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski, the Com­mis­sion set out to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order”, namely, Tech­noc­racy. The orig­inal mem­ber­ship con­sisted of elit­ists (bankers, politi­cians, aca­d­e­mics, indus­tri­al­ists) from Japan, North America and Europe. Col­lec­tively, they have dom­i­nated and con­trolled trade and eco­nomic policy in their respec­tive coun­tries since at least 1974.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Technocracy?

Tech­noc­racy is a move­ment started in the 1930’s by engi­neers, sci­en­tists and tech­ni­cians that pro­posed the replace­ment of cap­i­talism with an energy-based economy. Orig­i­nally envi­sioned for North America only, it is now being applied on a global basis. Authors Aldous Huxley and George Orwell believed that Tech­noc­racy would result in a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship, as reflected in their books, “Brave New World” and “1984″.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Smart Grid?

Smart Grid is the national and global imple­men­ta­tion of dig­ital and Wi-fi enabled power meters that enable com­mu­ni­ca­tion between the appli­ances in your home or busi­ness, with the power provider. This pro­vides con­trol over your appli­ances and your usage of elec­tricity, gas and water.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is M. King Hubbert?

Hub­bert was a geo-physicist who co-founded Tech­noc­racy, Inc. in 1932 and authored its Tech­noc­racy Study Course. In 1954, he became the cre­ator of the “Peak Oil Theory”, or “Hubbert’s Peak” which the­o­rized that the world was rapidly run­ning out of carbon-based fuels. Hub­bert is widely con­sid­ered as a “founding father” of the global warming and green movements.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is R. Buck­min­ster Fuller?

A pio­neer in global eco­log­ical theory, Fuller (1895 – 1984) was the first to sug­gest the devel­op­ment of a Global Energy Grid that is today known as the Global Smart Grid. Fuller is widely con­sid­ered to be a “founding father” of the global green move­ment, including global warming, Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment, Agenda 21, etc.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Is the Venus Project like Technocracy?

The Venus Project, founded by Jacque Fresco, is a utopian, modern-day iter­a­tion of Tech­noc­racy. Like Tech­noc­racy, it scraps cap­i­talism and pro­poses that “a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common her­itage of all of Earth’s people, thus even­tu­ally out­growing the need for the arti­fi­cial bound­aries that sep­a­rate people.” The appli­ca­tion of tech­nology is the answer to all of the world’s prob­lems, including war, famine and poverty.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)