Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘North American Union’ Category

Have you peed your pants yet?

North American Army created without OK by Congress
U.S., Canada military ink deal to fight domestic emergencies
Posted: February 24, 2008

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.

The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.

READ FULL

Read Full Post »

This article can be read on the CFR website, here. It can also be read on this page, in full, and explained.

Please watch the videos below, and continue to learn about this outstanding treat to American sovereignty.

Sovereignty and globalisation
Author: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations
February 17, 2006
Project SyndicatePublic enemy

The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds.

Let me translate: There are over 190 countries in the world, they “co-exist” (are in partnership) with “independent actors” such as terrorists and drug cartels, institutions (regional and global), banks and bankers. They even have an acronym for them, the “NGOs“.

The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

He says: Terrorists, drug lords, bankers, etc. have control over these many countries of the world (which isn’t entirely a bad thing). “Sovereignty… is being eroded.”

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states.

In other words, new mechanisms – not the states – are needed to govern the world.

This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.

The corporations that are members of the CFR should be the representatives of the world government.

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.

States will have to give-up their sovereignty and become subject to the new world order.

This is already taking place in the trade realm.

The new world order agenda has already begun.

Governments agree to accept the rulings of the World Trade Organisation because on balance they benefit from an international trading order, even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Governments will prefer to give-up their sovereign rights to the order of the WTO.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change.

Global climate change is being used as a “threat” to get governments to concede their sovereignty.

Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the United States, China and India, accept emission limits or adopt common standards because they recognise that they would be worse off if no country did.

The Kyoto Protocol was a success, now a successor is needed to get more and larger governments “adopt common standards”.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation.

Globalization is the end to sovereignty as we know it.

At its core, globalisation entails the increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows within and across borders of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, emails, weapons, and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction.

Eliminating borders, globalization increases the flows of everything (including viruses, weapons, pollution, drugs…); contrary to the principals of sovereignty.

Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Sovereign states fear “forces beyond their control”.

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker.

Globalisation destroys sovereignty.

States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

“Forces beyond their control” will destroy the sovereignty of states; they cannot defend themselves from globalization.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power.

The fear of terrorism can be used to overthrow government.

Similarly, America’s preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.

Iraq showed how a sovereign can be targeted against based only on presumptive (or false) evidence.

Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue correctly that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

If a government is accused of having intention to use a nuclear device, nothing could protect them.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilising refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The ‘war on terror‘ can use the excuse of government scruples to eliminate a state’s sovereignty.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

NATO is an example of violating a sovereign state under the excuse of genocide and mass killing.

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation. The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

Sovereignties must agree to principals against terrorism, WMDs, and genocide, or they will be open to attack, and remedied, [by another government].

The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

Sovereignty must be redefined for “the era of globalization”; to be better suited to an international system of world government.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens, rather than from what states do to one another.

The main challenges to Order are between global forces and states, not between states.

Read Full Post »

Watch the video responses. Show to everyone you know!

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Canada news broadcast (CTV) reveals MSNBC report.

A senior member of the Obama campaign called the Canadian government within the last month to say,

“When Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free-trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry.” The operative said, “it’s just campaign rhetoric” and “don’t take it seriously.”

Barack Obama has lied about being against NAFTA. It was just “campaign rhetoric”.

‘The Obama Show’ is based on using the buzzword “change” and the “yes we can” motto, a message of “hope”, and lots and lots of slow-moving, well-spoken rhetoric to get a crowd cheering him on.

But there’s no clear understanding of what, how, or if he even has enough experience (only four years) to run this country or solve its giant problems.

There’s not much more you need to know – he’s for “Change”.

Just words? Barack lies to Ohio about NAFTA:

The truth is, he does support NAFTA and the formation of an open-borders North American Union. That’s why he has been given millions of dollars to fund his campaign from the Fortune 500 corporations – the ones who are also part of the Council on Foreign Relations. And to help verify this association: his wife is an official member of the CFR.

NAFTA: Ten Years of Broken Promises:

Is Canada or Mexico going to be happy about this? Not a chance!

Why did Obama lie?

To avoid the already concealed issue of the NAU.

Bush Forms N. American Union with Mexico:

You weren’t supposed to know. They didn’t want you or the Congress to vote on it.

Three men: abolish our constitutions and write a new one together.

This was originally meant to happen in 2010.

Read Full Post »

This is part of a longer article about the North American Union. Click the link below to read the full article. Every American needs to know the truth about the NAU and the CFR. And it appears to be, supporters for Obama and Clinton have no idea.

The North American Union – You Could Be Voting Your Rights Away

Council on Foreign Relations

Since its inception in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has attracted men and women of power and influence. Its stated intentions are to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. The ultimate, declared aim of the CFR is to create a one-world government, and to make the U.S. a part of it. The stated intentions of the CFR are clearly treasonous to the U.S. Constitution.

The influence of the CFR is wide. Not only does it have members in the U.S. government, but its influence has also spread to other vital areas of American life. Members have run, or are running, NBC and CBS, the New York Times, and The Washington Post, and many other important newspapers. The leaders of Time, Newsweek, Fortune, Business Week, and numerous other publications are CFR members.

The organization’s members also dominate the political world. U.S. presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have been CFR members with the exception of Ronald Reagan. The organization’s members also dominate
the academic world, top corporations, unions and military. They are on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rudy Guiliani are all either members of the CFR or have close ties with it. Mike Huckabee is reportedly not a member, but following his interaction with the group in September, he has become a favored candidate in the eyes of the media. Republican Ron Paul is the only remaining significant candidate who does not have ties with the CFR. He has has voiced opposition to the NAU for several years.

Read Full Post »


The North American Union – You Could Be Voting Your Rights Away

NaturalNews.com
by Barbara L. Minton

One issue that is conspicuously absent from the rhetoric of the presidential candidates is the North American Union (NAU).NAFTA - NAU The questions of immigration and border security are frequently raised and the candidates claim to realize the need for a clear immigration policy and effort to secure the borders of the United States. Yet when you begin to understand the purposes of the North American Union and the agenda of its proponents, you will understand why this will never happen. And you may also begin to see that you are being manipulated by the major candidates.

The NAU, a goal of the Council on Foreign Relations [in which Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and most other candidates are members], follows a plan laid out by Robert Pastor. It is currently promoted by the Bush administration to expand the size and scope of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). Its goal is to effectively create a North American trading block by erasing the borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada resulting in free, unimpeded movement of people and goods across those borders. It is also a political union that would integrate the governments of the three countries. And clearly it is an economic union with the intention of equalizing the wages and standard of living of all but the ruling elitists.

Sounds a lot like the European Union, doesn’t it? There are even plans for a common currency called the amero. But there is one glaring difference. The people of the United States have never been asked if they want to become integrated with Mexico and Canada, two countries of enormously different laws, culture, economic systems, standards of living, and acceptance of the role of government.

The European Union followed years of open debate at all levels, intense coverage of the ramifications and implications in major media, and a vote of the people.

Also called for is the replacing of all three branches of the US government with a North American version effectively ending U.S. representative government.

The creation of this agreement was never submitted to Congress for discussion or decision.

In October 2006, Congressman Paul formally denounced the formation of the SPP and the plans for the North American Union and the SPP as “an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments”. Paul says that the real issue raised by the SPP is nation sovereignty. “Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.” In this speech Paul predicts that the NAU will become a sleeper issue for the 2008 election, stating that “any movement toward a NAU diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live.”

Please read the rest of this very important article.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »