Smoky Mountains Sunrise
Showing posts with label North American Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North American Union. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

North American Union on the Run

By Tom DeWeese

Take a look at this important article by Jerome Corsi on the effect our efforts are having in the fight to stop the North American Union.
Efforts by thousands around the nation are getting the message out about the North American Union. The perpetrators of this treason did not want the general public to know of their plans. They wanted to operate in secret.

But we have blown the whistle on them. We have alerted Americans. And we are throwing a massive monkey wrench into their well laid plans. And it is having an effect. They started with denials and escalated to calling us names – lunatic fringe; liars; scare mongers. They refuse to debate the issue. They hide behind a curtain of secrecy. But it’s not working. And that fact is having an effect on their plans. There is a feeling of despair growing in the ranks of the SPP.

Back in January, Jerome Corsi reported on an article written by a reporter for the Canadian newspaper, The Globe and Mail. The reporter, John Ibbitson was actually participating in an SPP meeting, presenting a paper. So he was on the inside.

He was basically shocked by the attitudes of the participants. Here are the people who seem to have everything under control. The people you and I fear the most. Yet, he found them exhibiting an overwhelming feeling of despair that their well-laid plans for a North American Union were in trouble. Said Ibbitson, “public exposure has stalled SPP efforts.” He concluded that the Security and Prosperity Partnership is “DEAD.”

Other SPP leaders, while disagreeing with Ibbitson about that, admit that the “public awareness” of the SPP and some of its features will trigger changes. Stuart Trew, a researcher and writer for the Council of Canadians wrote “The opposition in all three countries has exposed the SPP North American Integration agenda.”

Several other attendees to an SPP meeting in Mexico confirmed that public exposure has been a hindrance to the progress of the SPP program.

Ibbitson hinted that Bush and Canadian Prime Minster Harper were reluctant to spend any more political capital in the SPP effort. And that was one reason why the SPP meeting in New Orleans in April was more about public relations than substance. They are trying to regain ground that they’ve lost to us.

Now, I don’t believe for a second that this fight is anywhere near over. But, I tell you this because I want you to understand that your fight is having an effect. Notice how many times they used the word “exposure.”

The fact is this. We do not live in a vacuum. Things don’t just happen. Actions have consequences. Our actions have an effect. Now is the time to keep the pressure on the SPP efforts. Go to the American Policy Center’s website and sign our petitions against the NAU and print out our NAU Fact Sheet to pass around to friends and neighbors so all Americans can know the facts. WE can finally kill this horrible policy and take America back!

For over 31 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of property and individual freedom.

Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report. Founder of and the President of the American Policy Center , a activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, Virginia.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Canada, U. S. Agree to Share Troops in Civil Emergencies

Here's an interesting item from the Canadian press -- another Bush executive fiat, without the knowledge or consent of the United States Congress. Of course, we are supposed to believe that the Security and Prosperity Partnership (aka North American Union) is about nothing more than the uniform production, distribution, and sale of jelly beans.

From the National Post
David Pugliese, Canwest News Service

Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military's Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.

"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites," said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.

Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.

"Are we going to see [U.S.] troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?" he asked.

Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. "We don't know the answers because the government doesn't want to even announce the plan," he said.

But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used.

He said the agreement is "benign" and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.

"But there's no agreement to allow troops to come in," he said. "It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The ‘allow' piece is entirely up to the two governments."

If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.

News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.

On right-wing blogs in the U.S., it is being used as evidence of a plan for a "North American union" where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.

"Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!" notes one Web site. "The next time your town has a ‘national emergency,' don't be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember -- Canadian military aren't bound by posse comitatus."

Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.

Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet.

Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn't been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added.

Monday, February 11, 2008

SPP: A Canadian Perspective

Hassan Yousseff (left), Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress, and NDP Trade Critic Peter Julian address the crowd at the London (Ontario) forum.
Photo by Ross McDermott,

From: London Topic

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was a hot topic at London's (Ontario) Wolf Performance Hall, Friday (Feb. 8), where NDP Trade Critic Peter Julian told those in attendance that the controversial agenda is about much more then just "jelly beans," as stated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and if continued, could become a threat to Canadian sovereignty.

About 90 people turned up at the London forum to hear the reasons the federal NDP are vehemently opposed to the SPP, which was thrown into the spotlight last summer when violence broke out as police clashed with protesters during the annual trilateral meeting of the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the U.S., at the Montebello Summit in Quebec.

In one instance, Quebec police officers disguised themselves as protesters and, according to the Council of Canadians, attempted to incite a riot during what was a peaceful demonstration (see video below).

Julian was hosted by London-Fanshawe MP Irene Mathyssen, and was joined by Eduardo Sousa from the Council of Canadians and Hassan Yousseff, Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress. The two-hour forum provided information that could be viewed by some as a threat to Canadian sovereignty.

The SPP began in Canada as a Prime Minister Paul Martin, Liberal government initiative in March, 2005, to boost co-operation on security, trade and public-health issues between Canada, the United States and Mexico. However, staunch criticism of what some see as a closed-door agenda has raised concerns among people on all sides of the Mexico, U.S. and Canada borders.

"We are essentially giving up our ability to function independently as a nation, and essentially that is what is at stake with the SPP," said Julian.

For the most part, guidance in relation to decisions being made within the SPP is provided by a group called the North American Competitive Council (NACC). Officially launched in June of 2006, the NACC was comprised of the 30 senior, private-sector representatives, 10 from each of the three countries, with Canada's 10 including Dominic D'Alessandro (Manulife Financial); Paul Desmarais, Jr. (Power Corporation of Canada); David Ganong (Ganong Bros. Limited); Richard George (Suncor Energy Inc.); Hunter Harrison (CN); Linda Hasenfratz (Linamar Corporation); Michael Sabia (Bell Canada Enterprises); Jim Shepherd (Canfor Corporation); Annette Verschuren (The Home Depot); and Rick Waugh (Scotiabank).

Julian told those in attendance that the NDP have compiled 10-top reasons why they are opposed to the SPP.

"It's anti-democratic by design," he said, adding the SPP discussions are being held behind closed doors.

There are 19 working groups involved with the SPP, all operating behind closed doors, and over a two-year period the NDP, through access to information requests, managed to procure documents in relation to these closed-door, working group sessions. "We finally managed to get the documents…hundreds and hundreds of pages…" Julian said, holding up pages marred heavily in thick, black lines – most, if not all of the information vetted out. "Courtesy of the Government of Canada," he said.

This veil of "profound secrecy" began with Martin and the Liberals, and in a "seamless transition," is being carried on today by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government.

However, Julian continued, within those documents the party was able to determine that there were more than 300 areas of safety and protection, "important to Canadians," he said, adding the SPP contains a "deep and wide agenda." He said the SPP has been called the next logical step to follow NAFTA. But noted Canadians rejected NAFTA in two national elections, and though the majority of individuals in this country suffer economically under that agreement, with the SPP things will only get worse.

Julian talked about hazardous wastes and said during the Montebello Summit, the way Canada handles its hazardous wastes was handed over to the U.S. "While Canada's system was not perfect, in the United States there is no tracking of hazardous chemicals," Julian said.

Last spring Harper announced the harmonization of allowable pesticide residue on food to match American levels – levels much higher than those previously upheld in Canada. This is detrimental to the health of Canadians and unfair to Canadian producers, Julian said.

A major threat related to the SPP concerns natural resources such as water, oil, and natural gas, he said.

"Water stewardship is fundamental in Canada. We know that despite the fact that we have 20 per cent of the world's fresh water supply, only six per cent of the world's renewable water is found in Canada," Julian said.

The export of bulk water is not permitted under NAFTA, unless one province or jurisdiction approves such activity. At that point any company can apply for bulk water exports and if Canada does not comply, those companies can sue for compensation under the controversial Chapter 11.

"Water diversion is on the agenda of the SPP," Julian said. "Though we haven't seen any concrete plans yet there is no doubt that there is a huge appetite in the United States to simply divert Canadian water."

In relation to oil and natural gas, Canada has already given up more sovereignty in the area of energy than any other country in the world. Under NAFTA Canada is obliged to share 60 per cent of its oil and 60 per cent of its natural gas with the United States, even in the event of a major supply shortage.

"Mexico said 'No' to the same arrangement – it's crazy," Julian said, adding "Under the SPP the negotiations are going even further. Essentially our energy resources will be considered part of the strategic energy resources of the United States."

The issues surrounding softwood lumber, he continued, is just the beginning. Though Canada has seen more than 10,000 job losses in the lumber industry, and Washington having a veto over any changes to Canada's forestry policy, thanks, once again to NAFTA, "Under the SPP that veto will extend across the economic spectrum and other industries will be treated the same way."

Julian touched upon what he called "the slippery slope of civil rights," noting that already Canada has mirrored its southern neighbour – implementing a no fly list. In the area of military he said Canada's capacity is now based on "working with the U.S. military," and the tradition of Canada being thought of as a peace-keeping country, "a Canadian invention," he said, is swiftly becoming a thing of the past.

In addition, he noted, the latest foreign policy report from 2007, "specifically referred to Canada relating its foreign policy to American priorities."

Julian urged the public to speak out against the SPP, in order to stop the "deep, wide-ranging agenda."

Hassan Yousseff, Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress, said engaging the public will be a challenge.

"It's hard to get the public to engage in regulatory issues in their own country, never mind what's happening at three national levels… and that is the tremendous challenge which we face."

Yousseff said one of the biggest conspiracies related to the SPP is the lack of coverage coming from the national media. Pointing to the Montebello Summit, he noted that the trilateral meeting received very little press.

"It was only when police were exposed disguising themselves as protesters – and that was the story. The bigger story of what the three leaders were doing in Montebello, of course, never got the debate that was required – never got reported," he said.

He too echoed the need for Canadians not only to speak out against the SPP, but to demand information regarding the three-country discussions that take place every year.

"I wish it were about jelly beans, then I would stop worrying," Yousseff said. "It's critical we understand the debate because if we don't understand the debate we might put the same bastards back in power."

Eduardo Sousa with the Council of Canadians said 9-11 provided a vehicle for the powers that be to propagate the SPP under the guise of security. He urged the public to visit the Council of Canadians website to view a chronological timeline (see link) outlining the events that have happened since 9-11, all directly related to Canadian sovereignty and the SPP.

"We're giving away sovereignty over our energy – sovereignty over our water – our ability to determine what is safe and what is good in more than 300 regulatory areas – to determine what is good and safe for our environment – our collective ability to decide, as Canadians, what kind of society we want to create," Julian said, adding, "What is left?"

BEYOND THE ONIONS: Time for Canadians to stand up and stop the SPP
WEB: Council of Canadians -- SPP Timeline
WEB: Government of Canada -- Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

Tuesday, January 15, 2008


From WorldNetDaily

By Tom Kovach

Voters and pundits alike are claiming that a potential Fred Thompson run for the White House could "save" the conservative movement that has been betrayed by President George W. Bush. Such a claim defies the facts, because Thompson's political pedigree includes Bush-like globalist credentials.

This column was prompted by near-record e-mail responses, the vast majority of which asserted that a previous WND column on this topic did not go far enough. Some of the material supporting this follow-up was provided by those WND readers, some of whom claimed to write from Lawrenceburg, Tenn. (Thompson's hometown).

Just as the favorite Republican non-candidate gets near-constant news coverage, even for saying nothing, many of Thompson's policies are revealed more by what he does not say than by what he does say. Even before the 9-11 attacks, President Bush was already trying to downplay even the word "amnesty." Similarly, the public statements of Fred Thompson do not reject amnesty for illegal aliens. Revelations about the design of the premeditated merger of the United States with Mexico and Canada prove that Bush and his Republican insiders harbored a long-time globalist agenda. Just who were those globalist insiders? Is Thompson one of them?

Tennessee's globalist connections

The core values of the average voter in Tennessee are very conservative. This fact has produced Democrats that voted overwhelmingly for Ronald Reagan. But, out of misguided local loyalty, the conservative voters in Tennessee have also repeatedly elected homegrown globalists. Among them are prominent United States Sens. Howard Baker, Bill Frist, Lamar Alexander, and – yes – Fred Thompson.

All four of those Republican senators from Tennessee were members of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations during their tenure in the United States Senate. (And, a Democratic senator from Tennessee – Al Gore, who became vice-president – was also a CFR member.) Baker, who mentored Thompson into politics in 1972, was part of the "Panama Canal giveaway team" during the administration of President Jimmy Carter – another CFR member. (Note that the linked CNN commentary was written by Robert A. Pastor, another CFR globalist. Pastor recently wrote a column for WorldNetDaily, claiming to distance his North American Community plan from an assault upon American sovereignty.

The "lamestream" news media treats the CFR as merely some advisory think tank. But, the Council on Foreign Relations is much more than that. Going back almost a hundred years, the CFR mission is to establish a one-world government. Because of our historic role as a beacon of freedom, the United States is an obstacle to global domination. Therefore, CFR members must work – some openly, and some secretly – to steadily undermine American sovereignty. The recent news about the North American Union is only one phase of an unrelenting effort toward global government. To solidify elitist power, that effort includes a concurrent effort toward global currency. That effort toward a one-world money system is, in turn, linked to an effort to use RFID chips in commerce and marketing. Many people believe that the use of such chips is the "Mark of the Beast," as predicted in the Holy Bible. (And, the president of the company that makes the chips is another Republican CFR member, presidential candidate Tommy Thompson. (Is anyone surprised?)

So, CFR member Lamar Alexander used to work for CFR member Howard Baker, who mentored CFR member Fred Thompson. And, Thompson was elected to the Senate in 1994, the same year CFR member Bill Frist was elected to the United States Senate from Tennessee. Both Frist and Thompson joined the CFR in 2002. So, with several years of experience on Capitol Hill at the time they both joined, there is no way either of them could reasonably deny knowledge of the agenda and influence of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations. ("What did Thompson know, and when did he know it?")

Is there any further Tennessee connection to a globalist organization and agenda? Let's see. The junior senator from Tennessee is Bob Corker, who was mentored by CFR members Frist and Alexander. (This writer personally spoke with Alexander at a fund-raiser for Corker.) Upon his inauguration, Corker was sworn in by CFR member Vice President Dick Cheney. There certainly seems to be a pattern.

By the way, during a 2002 speech at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in D.C. to his fellow CFR members, Vice President Cheney joked about getting elected by downplaying his membership in that globalist organization:

"I see a lot of old friends in the room. And it's good to be back at the Council on Foreign Relations. As Pete mentioned, I have been a member for a long time, and was actually director for some period of time. I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for re-election back home in Wyoming – (laughter) – but it stood me in good stead." It seems that having something of a country-boy image is helpful to concealing a globalist agenda – whether in Wyoming or in Tennessee.

Will the new junior senator from Tennessee join the ranks of globalist CFR members? Frist and Thompson did not join the CFR until several years after they were in office. Both had already proven their globalist credentials by that time, having voted in favor of relaxed immigration and border security rules. Corker is already on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as were CFR members Baker, Gore, Thompson and Frist. What did these gentlemen from Tennessee – elected by conservatives – do while they were in office?

Baker helped to give away the Panama Canal. Gore's committee on aviation security eschewed probable terrorist connections to the downing of TWA Flight 800. Thompson voted to expand NAFTA, and to relax limits on migrant farm workers. Frist (as majority leader) refused to push a tough border-security bill through the Senate, even though H.R. 4437 – the "Wall Bill" – had passed in the House overwhelmingly.

Bob Corker talked tough on border security during his campaign, but couldn't quite shake allegations that his construction company had hired illegal aliens and had ignored warnings from INS officials. (Those allegations, by the way, came from Republican primary opponents, as well as his Democratic general election opponent.) So, it would appear Corker would be "encouraged" by globalist mentors such as Thompson to lean toward the CFR position on border security and alien workers.

And, with a political bloodline of CFR globalism behind him, doesn't it seem likely that Bob Corker would be the next CFR member senator from Tennessee? And wouldn't that scenario be far more likely if there was a President Fred Thompson to sponsor his membership? There is no doubt Thompson has a globalist pedigree. And, if he becomes a candidate for the White House, the pattern is already established for Thompson and his CFR-elite cronies to continue weakening the security of America's borders, turning a blind eye toward terrorist threats, and giving away America's strategic advantages. Regardless of his amiable personal qualities, can the United States really afford to elect a "Bush-button" globalist president such as Fred Thompson?

Tom Kovach lives near Nashville, is a former USAF Blue Beret, and has written for several online publications. He recently published his first book. Kovach is also an inventor, a horse wrangler, a certified paralegal and a former talk-radio host. To learn more, visit:

Saturday, December 29, 2007


As the British people come to recognize that they have little in common culturally, socially, and historically with the continental peoples comprising the artificial alliance known as the EU, and Americans begin to realize that the President of the United States, at the behest of multi-national corporations, has stealthily moved them by executive fiat toward a North American Union, an old idea is beginning to reemerge.  It is the idea that there is a natural, organic unity of the English-speaking peoples throughout the world based on their history, language and culture. They share a belief in "fair play," a dedication to individualism, have a strong sense of justice, and a willingness to stand up for the "little guy" and those who have been unfairly treated. These cultural qualities are the foundation for the great hallmarks of the English-speaking world -- Magna Carta, habeas corpus, trial by jury, freedom of speech, common law and America's own Bill of Rights.

In the nineteenth century, England's Poet Laureate, Lord Tennyson, recognized the common bonds in a poem entitled England and America in 1782:

O Thou, that sendest out the man
To rule by land and sea,
Strong mother of a Lion-line,
Be proud of those strong sons of thine
Who wrench'd their rights from thee!

What wonder, if in noble heat
Those men thine arms withstood,
Retaught the lesson thou hadst taught,
And in thy spirit with thee fought--
Who sprang from English blood!

In the twentieth century, the greatest proponent of an alliance of the English-speaking peoples was Sir Winston Churchill. His official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, explores in his recent book, Churchill and America, Churchill's belief in the ideal of an Anglo-American "fraternal association." Churchill expressed the idea in many of his writings. In one speech he spoke of it as follows:
"I therefore preach continually the doctrine of the fraternal association of our two peoples, not for any purpose of gaining invidious material advantages for either of them, nor for territorial aggrandizement or the vain pomp of earthly domination, but for the sake of service to mankind and for the honour that comes to those who faithfully serve great causes".
On another occassion he expressed the ideal this way:
"I have never asked for an Anglo—American military alliance or a treaty. I asked for something different and in a sense I have asked for something more. I asked for fraternal association, free, voluntary fraternal association. I have no doubt that it will come to pass, as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow and that nothing can obscure the fact that, in their harmonious companionship, lies the main hope of a world instrument for maintaining peace on earth and goodwill to all men".
Despite some recent fraying, that special relationship between Britain and America, as well as that among the whole "family of nations" comprising the English-speaking world or "Anglosphere," remains strong. It will likely remain so, long after vain attempts to create artificial "unions" in Europe and North America have been abandoned.

In the following column from today's Telegraph, John O'Sullivan shows us how prophetic Churchill was, as he reflects on the collaboration among military and intelligence officers throughout the English-speaking world.

A British-led Anglosphere in world politics?
By John O'Sullivan

This week Greg Sheridan, the foreign editor of the Australian, used his column to give a slightly embarrassed account of a successful coup.

He was embarrassed because the coup was his own work, political activism rather than reporting, and possibly involved more than one breach of confidence.

It began with his research for a book, The Partnership, on the US-Australian military and intelligence relationship, which is close and growing closer.

The more Sheridan examined this relationship, the more he was struck by something else: namely, "the astonishing, continuing, political, military, and intelligence closeness between Australia and Britain".

Even though Australia has little at stake in Europe and Britain only limited interests in the Pacific, everywhere Sheridan went in the US-Australia alliance, he found the Brits there, too: "Our special forces train with theirs, as we do with the Americans. Our troops on exchange with the Brits can deploy into military operations with them, an extremely rare practice, but something we also do with the Yanks.

"Australian liaison officers attend the most sensitive British intelligence meetings and vice versa, in arrangements of such intimacy that they are equalled only in our relationship with the US."
Sheridan was uneasy, however, because there was no formal alliance structure to give top-level political guidance to this effective but relaxed co-operation.

Events came to his aid: he was invited to a UK-Australia Dialogue in Canberra, attended by Tony Blair on a flying visit. At the reception, Sheridan buttonholed Blair, Australia's PM John Howard, foreign minister Alexander Downer, and almost anyone else who would listen to preach the necessity of a new UK-Australia security structure. He sensed they were unimpressed.

As he later discovered, however, at a cabinet meeting attended by Blair the next day, Downer proposed a new annual meeting of Australian and British foreign and defence ministers on the lines of their AUSMIN meetings with Washington. Blair responded enthusiastically - and AUKMIN now meets annually.

Well, an interesting little story, you may think, but hardly earthshaking. And if AUKMIN were an isolated incident, that would be a sensible response.

As Sheridan's account makes plain, however, AUKMIN merely brass-hatted an existing system of military and intelligence co-operation between Britain, Australia, and the US that was unusually intimate and extensive.

But the story rang several bells. I had recently been reading a Heritage Foundation study by the American writer James C. Bennett, in which he argued that such forms of developing co-operation were especially characteristic of English-speaking, common law countries such as, well, Britain, Australia and America.

There is a definite pattern to them. Citizens, voluntary bodies, companies, lower levels of government form their own networks of useful co-operation for practical purposes across national boundaries.
Over time, these networks become denser, more complementary, more useful, and more self-conscious, creating what Bennett calls a "network civilisation". In time, governments see the value of these networks and underpin them with new links - trade deals, military pacts, immigration agreements - creating what he calls a "network commonwealth".

Such network commonwealths may end up being more integrated - psychologically and socially, as well as economically - than consciously designed entities such as the EU.

If you want to know which countries the British feel really close to, check which ones they telephone on Christmas Day (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, America... but you knew that). Network commonwealths don't demand surrender of sovereignty, either.

Bennett calls the English-speaking network civilisation "the Anglosphere". This term, unknown in political circles a few years ago, now yields 39,700 entries on Google. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out in a recent article in the American City Journal, the idea is certainly in the air - and in respectable circles, too.

Its academic foundations are rooted in work demonstrating that England always had a more individualist culture than continental Europe, that the "civil society" tools of this culture were transmitted to the colonies settled from England, and that those countries have since not only prospered unusually, but also established a world civilisation rooted in liberalism.

Bennett in The Anglosphere Challenge makes unmistakably clear that it is English cultural traits - individualism, rule of law, honouring contracts, and the elevation of freedom - rather than English genes that explain this success.

These traits enable a society to pull off the difficult trick of combining trust with openness. Nations with different genetic backgrounds that adopt such traits seem to prosper more than their similar neighbours. Hence the Anglosphere includes India and the West Indies, as well as the "old Commonwealth".

The idea, lagging well behind the reality, is now seeping into politics. Last year Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, delivered an eloquent speech to the Australian parliament that praised the common British heritage linking both nations.

Even more significantly India's PM, Manmohan Singh, gave a speech at Oxford in 2005 that neatly stole the entire concept for New Delhi: "If there is one phenomenon on which the sun cannot set, it is the world of the English-speaking peoples, in which the people of Indian origin are the largest single component."

That raises a painful question. If Australians, Indians, Canadians, and even Americans can recognise the Anglosphere as a new factor in world politics, why is it something from which the Brits themselves shy?

To the best of my knowledge, the only politician to have embraced the idea is Lord Crickhowell, formerly David Howell, who held several ministries under Margaret Thatcher and who, from his City experience, knows that Britain's prosperity lies with the growing markets of Asia and North America.

Our fading Anglosphere ties give us an advantage over Europeans and other competitors there. If we were to pursue a deliberate strategy of strengthening such ties, we would discover a better "grand strategy" than the present muddled shuttling back and forth between Washington and Brussels, feeling a "poodle" to both.

Is our reluctance because we fear to touch anything that smacks of the empire? No such timidity restrained Singh.

Are we nervous that anything "English-speaking" might be thought incompatible with multiculturalism? Well, the first multicultural identity was the British one; today the Anglosphere spans every continent.

Is it politically dangerous as an alternative to Europe? That would only be true insofar as "Europe" failed to meet our needs - in which case we would need an alternative.

Or is it, as I suspect, that the Anglosphere offers us the prospect of national adventure that in our cultural funk we find too exciting - preferring to go back to the sleep of the subsidised?

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Phyllis Schlafly Shining A Light On Treason

When President Bush was sent by his transnationalist bosses to Montebello, Canada last month to advance the interests of a North American Union, there was much joking about how the Security and Prosperity Partnership was nothing more than standardizing the production, distribution and sale of jelly beans. One might ask why the American leader, with two wars on his hands, an invasion underway on his southern border, the threat of terror and chaos looming, a devalued dollar and a stagnant economy is concerning himself with the manufacture of jelly beans.

Principled conservatives don't buy it and will fight for the Constitution as long as the Clinton-Bushies push that traitorous agenda. There is no patriot in the fight more valiant than Phyllis Schlafly. Here she is again shining a light on treason:

Self-Government Is In Peril From The SPP

by Phyllis Schlafly

It's now leaking out that there was more going on than met the eye at the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Summit in Montebello, Canada in August. The three amigos, Bush, Harper and Calderon, finalized and released the "North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza."

The "Plan" (that's what they call it, with a capital P) is to use the excuse of a major flu epidemic to shift powers from U.S. legislatures to unelected, unaccountable "North American" bureaucrats.

This idea was launched on September 14, 2005 when Bush announced the "International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza." He was then speaking to the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

We might have thought that idea had some merit because the Influenza Partnership called for "transparency in reporting of influenza cases in humans and in animals" and the "sharing of epidemiological data and samples." That's very different from the SPP, where transparency has always been conspicuously avoided like the plague.

This year's SPP summit in Canada morphed the Influenza Partnership into the North American Plan. Now we discover that the Plan is not only about combating a flu epidemic but is far-reaching in seeking control over U.S. citizens and public policy during an epidemic.

The Plan repeatedly features the favorite Bush word "comprehensive"; it calls for a "comprehensive, coordinated North American approach." The Plan would give authority to international bureaucrats "beyond the health sector to include a coordinated approach to critical infrastructure protection," including "border and transportation issues."

The Plan is a wordy 44-page document, much of which sounds innocuous. It is helpful to exchange information about disease and take precautions against letting foreign diseases enter the United States.

However, self-government and sovereignty are at risk when control over these matters is turned over to a newly created North American body headed by the representative of another country. It's an additional problem when the entire Plan is a spin-off of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, an arrangement created in secret solely by White House press releases, without Congressional approval or even oversight.

The 2007 Plan acknowledges that it is based not only on the Influenza Partnership, but also on the guidelines, standards and rules of the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The Plan sets up a "senior level Coordinating Body to facilitate the effective planning and preparedness within North America for a possible outbreak of avian and/or human pandemic influenza under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)." The Plan identifies this SPP Coordinating Body as "decision-makers."

The Plan then (ungrammatically) states: "The chair of the SPP Coordinating Body will rotate between each national authority on a yearly basis." Thus, a foreigner will be the "decision-maker" for Americans in two out of every three years.

What powers will this foreign-headed Coordinating Body exercise? The Plan suggests that these include "the use of antivirals and vaccines; ... social distancing measures, including school closures and the prohibition of community gatherings; ... isolation and quarantine."

Will this foreign-headed Coordinating Body respect the First Amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble"? Or will the rules of the Plan, SPP, WHO, OIE, WTO, and NAFTA take precedence?

In evaluating the Plan, it is instructive to recall the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (EHPA), an anti-epidemic plan launched by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on October 23, 2001. Designed to be passed by all state legislatures, the model bill was primarily written by Lawrence O. Gostin, a former member of Hillary Clinton's discredited Task Force on Health Care Reform, and was promoted by the Bush Administration during its first year.

The proposed EHPA would have given each governor sole discretion to declare a public health emergency and grant himself extraordinary powers. He would have been able to restrict or prohibit firearms, seize private property and destroy it in many circumstances, and impose price controls and rationing.

Governors would have been given the power to order people out of their homes and into dangerous quarantines. Children could have been taken from their parents and put into public quarantines.

Governors could even have demanded that physicians administer certain drugs despite individuals' religious or other objections. EHPA was based on the undemocratic concept that decision-making by authoritarian bosses and unelected bureaucrats is the way to go in time of crisis.

EHPA roused a nationwide storm of protest because it was an unprecedented assault on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, as well as on our principles of limited government, and so it never passed anywhere in its original text. Will similar totalitarian notions now bypass legislatures and be forced upon us by SPP press releases?

Further reading:
North American Union

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

The Traitorous Troika

The "Tranzies" (transnationalists "who believe the world of nation-states is too disorderly for efficient global commerce") are meeting again, this time in Montebello, Canada, to discuss progress being made on the "harmonization" of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Frank J. Gaffney reflects in today's Washington Times on the Eroding Sovereignty of the United States.

Where is the United States Congress when we need them?

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Plans For Economic Integration

by Phyllis Schlafly

August 8, 2007

Canada in the summer and Mexico in the spring offer good weather for planning international policies. Nervousness about the political weather, however, is putting the third Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit on August 20-21 at a site where the uninvited can be easily excluded: the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello resort about 50 miles outside of Quebec.

The cheering gallery for SPP is hysterically chanting that its goal is NOT a North American "union" modeled on the European Union (and that anyone who thinks otherwise must be peddling conspiracy fears). But the SPPers candidly admit they want North American "integration," which may be a distinction without a difference.

President Bush started down this trail back on April 22, 2001 when he signed the Declaration of Quebec City in which he made a "commitment to hemispheric integration." After Communist Hugo Chavez took over Venezuela, "hemispheric" was quietly scaled down to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of just NORTH America.

The lobbyists for integration are bringing heavy-artillery reinforcements to their cause: a pro-integration report written by a prestigious think tank, the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS). The report is now being translated into Spanish and French so it can be presented to all three governments in September.

The importance of CSIS comes from the political influence of its
Trustees. They are longtime internationalists and architects of some of the worst foreign and defense policies of the last 50 years.

A 25-page advance peek at the report has been released under the caption "North American Future 2025 Project." The core of the plan for America's future is North American "economic integration" and "labor mobility," key words that are repeated again and again in this report.

The threat to good American jobs is obvious from the redundancy of demands to import cheap labor without limits: "international migration of labor," "international movement not only of goods and capital, but also of people," "mobile labor supply," "North American labor mobility," "flows of labor migration," and "free flow of people across national borders."

The CSIS report explains that "border infrastructure" means the "efficient flow of labor across North American borders" so we can "pool the human capital necessary to source a competitive North American workforce." It's unlikely that U.S. workers want to "pool" their jobs with Mexico where the median minimum wage is $5 a day.

Slyly revealing the plan to integrate governments as well as economies, the report states: "to remain competitive in the global economy, policymakers must devise forward-looking, collaborative policies that integrate governments."

In an attack on the unique American patent system and fountainhead of our innovation superiority, the report calls for "harmonizing legislation" with other countries in the area of intellectual property rights. The report also calls on us to "harmonize" our regulations of all kinds by adopting "unified North American regulatory standards."

No wonder the CSIS admits that its report was developed in "seven closed-door roundtable sessions." Let's call the roll of the trustees of this influential think tank.

Henry Kissinger, the architect of the Nixon-Ford policies repudiated by Ronald Reagan. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense for Nixon and Ford. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Trilateralist who was Jimmy Carter's chief foreign policy adviser. William Cohen, Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense. Harold Brown, who was Secretary of the Air Force carrying out Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's disarmament policies in the 1960s. Brent Scowcroft, former vice chairman of Kissinger Associates and national security adviser to the first President Bush.

The front man for this galaxy of globalists is former Senator Sam Nunn. One more household name is Richard Armitage, the man who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press.

The favorite business authority Peter F. Drucker wrote in his 1993 book
Post-Capitalist Society that the European Union "triggered the attempt to create a North American economic community, built around the United States but integrating both Canada and Mexico into a common market."

He gleefully added, "So far this attempt is purely economic in its goal, but it can hardly remain so in the long run. ... The economic integration of the three countries into one region is proceeding so fast that it will make little difference whether the marriage is sanctified legally or not."

Now that the game plan is laid out, we can connect the dots: NAFTA, the admission of Mexican trucks onto our highways, the contract to build the TransTexas Corridor and the plans to extend it into a NAFTA Super Highway, making Kansas City an international "port," the "totalization" of illegal aliens into our Social Security system, and the recently defeated Senate amnesty bill. That bill would have integrated 20 million illegal aliens into our labor force, locked us (by Section 413) into the SPP, and spent massive foreign aid to "improve the standard of living in Mexico."

Further reading:
North American Union

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Time to Call It Treason

Many Americans are bewildered by President Bush’s refusal to secure America’s borders, enforce our laws regarding illegal entry and employment, and his willingness to provide lawbreakers blanket amnesty. However, they can find an explanation in a document that Human Events has called “a bureaucratic coup d’etat,” and CNN’s Lou Dobbs has termed “treason.”

Entitled the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the agreement is the mechanism by which the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Presidents of Mexico and the United States are dissolving national sovereignty to create a new entity called the North American Union. The document has never been submitted to Congress.

Operating “below the radar,” this ambitious plan enjoys the support of multi-national business elites. It is being implemented through working groups and regulations promulgated by the Secretaries of State, Commerce and Homeland Security. Even the U. S. Department of Education is playing a role in the President’s globalist agenda.

At a summit meeting in Waco, Texas in 2005, President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin jointly called for

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 complimentary.’ 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.

A Mexican government website has described the process as “a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America.”

Its model, obviously, is that of the European Union which started life as merely a Common Market, but now has a parliament, a judiciary, a common currency and a massive bureaucracy that oversees every aspect of European life. It is even preparing for a European President and Foreign Minister.

Given its massive incursion into the running of schools in the United States, one would think that the U. S. Department of Education would not have time to assist with plans to abrogate the Constitution and national sovereignty, but even they are facilitating the North American Union. The Department is offering discretionary grants under a program called North American Mobility in Higher Education. According to the Department’s website, funded projects are intended to:

  • Encourage cooperation and exchange among higher education institutions in the United States, Mexico, and Canada;
  • Increase the knowledge of the languages, cultures, and institutions of these three countries;
  • Increase the quality of human resources development in the three countries;
  • Explore ways to prepare students to work throughout North America; and
  • Augment student mobility, through mutual recognition and portability of credits and by developing joint curricula and degrees.

Perhaps no American has sounded the alarm more clearly as to what is afoot than the indefatigable Phyllis Schlafly, and her Eagle Forum has dedicated a website to the North American Union. Some Canadians have also begun to recognize what is at stake. Vive le Canada, a liberal Canadian advocacy organization states:

This plan goes by various names and euphemisms, such as "deep integration", "NAFTA-plus", "harmonization", the "Big Idea", the "Grand Bargain", and the "North American Security and Prosperity Initiative". Regardless of which name you prefer, the end goal of all of these plans is to create a new political and economic entity that would supercede the existing countries.

This summer the American people spoke clearly and thunderously that they want our borders secured, our laws enforced, and our national sovereignty, culture and institutions protected. Yet our President, with historically low poll numbers, has come to believe he is free from the restraints of public opinion because he has nothing left to lose. He persists in a plan to subvert what our founding fathers crafted in Philadelphia and what patriots have secured with blood down to the present day. It is time to call this process by its proper name – treason. It is also time for the Congress to end it.