…Part of the conditioning process to cause Americans to accept a NAU is the role of past and present government officials explaining the alleged economic benefits of such a union. For example, Harry Roegner in a letter titled “An economic union would be beneficial” in THE GREENVILLE (South Carolina) SUN (October 15, 2007) pointed out the large oil reserves of both Canada and Mexico that would be useful to the U.S., as well as Mexico’s excess manpower who, as immigrants, would help support U.S. and Canadian economic growth. Roegner was an adviser on foreign trade issues to the U.S. Department of Commerce from 1984 to 1994, and in his letter said: ‘A North American economic union would provide the free flow of capital and labor across national borders needed to address many of the (aforementioned) imbalances’…
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
As posted at The August Review
In order to bring about a North American Union (NAU), the public first has to be conditioned to think of themselves as North Americans. In that regard, Thomas Donohue (president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) on June 16, 2006 remarked that “for CEOs, North America is already a single market, and business decisions are no longer made with a Mexico strategy—or a Canada strategy—but, rather, with a North American strategy….I think it’s pretty clear now that it no longer makes sense to talk about U.S. competitiveness and Mexican competitiveness—or, for that matter, about the competitiveness of Canada. We are all in this together—we, as North Americans.”
Also relevant to this process is the publication of NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATION MONITOR since 2002 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies(CSIS). Very soon, CSIS also will publish (and has agreed to send me) their final document on their “North American Future 2025 Project.” The Project has “an emphasis on regional integration,” and the year 2025 A.D. was selected “on the basis of the data presently available on overall global projections.” Seven closed-door roundtable sessions have been looking at the methodology of global and North American projections, as well as labor mobility, energy, the environment, security, competitiveness, and border infrastructure and logistics.
Zbigniew Brzezinski has been a CSIS counselor, and at Mikhail Gorbachev’s first State of the World Forum in 1995, Brzezinski revealed: “We cannot leap into world government through one quick step….The precondition for eventual and genuine globalization is progressive regionalization because by that we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.” This is why the CSIS Project has “an emphasis on regional integration.” (Brzezinski also described the regions that would be formed, that Israel and the Palestinians would be part of a Middle Eastern region, how Communist China would be brought into an Asian region, and that Iran would be part of a Central Asian region which would have important oil and gas pipelines constructed.)
At this point, it is worth remembering that in Stalin’s January 1913 address in Vienna, he advocated national loyalties becoming subservient to regions. And 3 years later, Lenin in 1916 proclaimed: “The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into smaller states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them.”
You may recall that in Brzezinski’s BETWEEN TWO AGES (1970), he praised Marxism, and he claimed that “the nation-state is gradually yielding its Sovereignty.” One aspect of American sovereignty that is being yielded is ownership of American companies by Americans. In the first 9 months of 2007, 69 companies in New England alone have been sold to foreign buyers. Nationally, the French company Alcatel bought Lucent Technologies in the U.S. last year, and in September 2007 announced it will be cutting thousands of jobs.
Relevant to this, Alan Tonelson (research fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council) said foreign companies are “acquiring control over the most dynamic pieces of the American economy, and they’re acquiring control over America’s future.” Also relevant to this was the assessment by Donald Klepper-Smith (chief economist at DataCore Partners) regarding decisions made overseas and how they would effect American workers. He opined: “It raises some red flags and some real questions about our independence.”
Part of the conditioning process to cause Americans to accept a NAU is the role of past and present government officials explaining the alleged economic benefits of such a union. For example, Harry Roegner in a letter titled “An economic union would be beneficial” in THE GREENVILLE (South Carolina) SUN (October 15, 2007) pointed out the large oil reserves of both Canada and Mexico that would be useful to the U.S., as well as Mexico’s excess manpower who, as immigrants, would help support U.S. and Canadian economic growth. Roegner was an adviser on foreign trade issues to the U.S. Department of Commerce from 1984 to 1994, and in his letter said: “A North American economic union would provide the free flow of capital and labor across national borders needed to address many of the (aforementioned) imbalances.”
Often regional economic integration into some type of union is argued on the basis of free trade. However, John Fonte (who had an office next to mine at the U.S. Department of Education) of the Hudson Institute has explained that the concept of regional economic arrangements or trading blocs actually is contrary to free trade to an extent. For example, in a NAU, there would be trading arrangements among the 3 nations which would limit the ability of the U.S. to trade freely with nations outside the NAU trading bloc.
But hasn’t President Bush recently said all this talk about a NAU is nonsense? On August 21, 2007 at the concluding press conference for the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) in Montebello, Quebec, Fox News reporter Bret Baier asked if the SPP is a prelude to a NAU similar to the European Union (EU), and if there are plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all 3 countries. President Bush replied: “If you’ve been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn’t exist.”
The truth, of course, is that the U.S., Canada and Mexico are being connected by 4 Trade Corridors. On November 20, 2007, Lt. Governor John Harvard of Manitoba delivered a “Speech From The Throne,” in which he revealed: “Manitoba has been working with the Canadian government and state governments in the U.S. to protect and enhance our access to key trade markets. In response to U.S. border and security measures, Manitoba will begin offering an enhanced driver’s license as an affordable and secure form of identification for travelers. The new license will be available in the Fall of 2008. Manitoba is also taking a major role in the development of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor, connecting our northern Port of Churchill with trade markets throughout the central United States and Mexico. To advance the concept, an alliance has been built with business leaders and state and city governments spanning the entire length of the Corridor. When fully developed, the trade route will incorporate an ‘in-land port’ in Winnipeg with pre-clearance for international shipping.”
The SPP is also an important part of the power elite’s plan for a techno-feudal fascist world government because it is a “partnership.” For years, the American people and their leaders have been conditioned to accept educational and other partnerships as solutions to their problems. For example, city governments strapped for funds are approached by corporations or their related private foundations with plans and funds to improve education, which the city leaders are only too glad to accept. This conditions the people eventually to accept government/corporate rule. This is a form of Socialism known as fascism, and it will be the type of world government the power elite plans ultimately to bring about and control. In this government, the power elite will control politicians who will become government leaders who will promulgate laws, rules and regulations favorable to certain transnational corporations (controlled by the power elite) and unfavorable to any possible competition to those select corporations.
So why did President Bush ridicule Bret Baier’s question, especially since there are already 47 Mexican Consulates across the U.S.? Lou Dobbs in his CNN commentary “Beware the Lame Duck” (October 17, 2007) wrote: “Although many conservatives refuse to accept the reality, George W. Bush is a one-world neo-liberal who drove budget and trade deficits to record heights….President Bush has pressed hard for the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the first step toward a North American Union that will threaten our sovereignty. The administration has permitted American businesses to hire illegal aliens, encouraged the invasion of 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and has given Mexico and corporate America dominion over our borders and our immigration policy….The assault on our national sovereignty continues….The president is urging the Senate to act favorably on our accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea….The treaty will submit the United States to international tribunals largely adverse to our interests, and dispute resolution mechanisms are stacked against the United States….The treaty would undermine our national sovereignty and act as a back door for global environmental activists to direct U.S. policy.” Fortunately, in Congress, House Concurrent Resolution 40 states: “Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.”
If I could have followed up Bret Baier’s question with one of my own, here’s what I would have asked: “So, President Bush, will the massive 10-lane toll road TransTexas Corridor funded by Cintra of Spain and to be built by Zachry Construction of Texas come to a screeching halt at Oklahoma’s border?” What are all the vehicles supposed to do—merge all of a sudden into a small road? I don’t think so ! And by the way, Cintra is legally represented in Texas by leading Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani’s law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, which also just happens to have an office in Dubai (remember Dubai Ports was about to take over operation of a number of America’s largest ports) ! Perhaps before President Bush was too critical of people warning about a NAU, he should have read what Mexico’s President Vicente Fox said May 16, 2002 at Club 21 in Madrid: “Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union” (or as Gorbachev refers to the EU, the “European Soviet”).
I would also have asked President Bush at the press conference why on September 6, 2007 at 9pm did he open all U.S. highways to Mexican trucks? Earlier in the day, U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio said President Bush was “_ _ _ _ bent” on getting Mexican trucks in the U.S. by stealth. Currently, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration website lists 10 Mexican carriers that are approved to transport goods throughout the U.S., and nearly 40 more Mexican carriers will soon join them on the list.
Will all Mexican truck drivers be stopped at the border to see if they can read road signs in English, if they have criminal backgrounds, and how long they already have been driving that day (U.S. law prohibits more than 10 consecutive hours)? I doubt it, since no more than 2% of Mexican trucks entering the U.S. today are inspected ! Many of these trucks will be a danger to Americans’ safety, and could be used for smuggling drugs, illegal aliens, and terrorists into the U.S.
Many countries deliberately release their criminal elements into the U.S., often coming across the Mexican border. And if the criminals are caught, our federal government releases them into American society if their own countries refuse to take them back. Our government knows how to solve this problem (e.g., stop issuing visas to people from those countries), but has refused to take such action most of the time. Ask yourself why our government would release murderers, rapists, arsonists, and other criminals into our society to commit violent crimes against us. Think about it !
Returning to Bret Baier’s question to President Bush about the SPP being a prelude to a NAU similar to the EU, what would we get if we became like the EU, which has certain characteristics of fascism? Mrs. Kitty Werthmann (a survivor of Hitler’s reign and Soviet rule afterward) recently returned to Europe and interviewed many senior citizens. They informed her they were told conversion to the Euro would bring prosperity via free trade, lower prices for goods, etc. In reality, though, their money was devalued greatly, and they’re now living on welfare and food stamps. Unemployment in Europe is high while guest workers are brought in, and the people are angry.
In terms of what is planned for Americans relevant to the EU and the Euro, Vicente Fox on CNN’s “Larry King Live” show October 8, 2007 explained that what he and President Bush agreed to “is a trade union for all the Americas,” and he suggested that eventually there would be a regional currency. He made similar comments on the “Daily Show” the same day. Earlier in 2007, Bolivian President Evo Morales proposed a single currency for all South American nations.
Concerning North American nations, in June 1991, Dallas Federal Reserve publication no. 9115, “Free Trade and the Peso” by Darryl McLeod and John Welch, analyzed the potential for a single North American currency. In 1999, former Canadian parliament member Herbert Grubel published “The Case for the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Union,” giving 2010 as the possible date for introducing the “amero” as the new North American currency. And in the Atlanta Federal Reserve’s ECONOMIC REVIEW (4th quarter, 2000), Michael Chriszt (director of the Reserve’s Latin America Research Group) wrote “Perspectives on a Potential North American Monetary Union” in which one reads that “the idea of a single currency for NAFTA is on the table.” In July 2000, Vicente Fox had already proposed a North American common market with a continental monetary policy.
More recently, David Dodge, Governor of the Bank of Canada, in May 2007 said that a common currency with the U.S. is definitely possible. What will happen is the power elite will cause the dollar to be devalued to the point where Americans reluctantly will accept the amero. As Bob Chapman in his December 2006 newsletter, INTERNATIONAL FORECASTER, said: “(The amero) will be presented to the American public as the administration’s solution for dollar recovery.”
On June 14, 2007 BankIntroductions.com told their clients that in the next 10-20 years, as the global economy moves toward regional trading blocs, the amero or “North American Monetary Unit” (NAMU) will be introduced. The power elite’s plan is to form regional unions with their own currencies and then link them into a world government with one global currency. Relevant to this, Reuters reporter Emmanuel Jarry on October 23, 2007 wrote “Sarkozy (French President) Calls for Mediterranean Union Launch in 2008.” And the African Union’s African Central Bank plans to mint the “Gold Mandela” as a single African currency by 2010 (the date the NAU is supposed to form).
If you look at the top of the website for the Single Global Currency Association (SGCA), there is a quote by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, saying: “A global economy requires a global currency.” The SGCA “is dedicated to the goal of implementing a single global currency by 2025…managed by a single international central bank.” I have already indicated that on the cover of THE ECONOMIST (June 9, 1988) is a picture of “The Phoenix,” a global currency suggested for implementation in 2018.
Whatever the date of the global currency’s introduction, it will be advertised as facilitating world trade, which the power elite will control. This will be like in the days of Solomon when he fortified Gezer, Hazor and Megiddo (the Har, or Mount, of Megiddo would be called Armageddon). Through this fortification, he controlled the Via Maris and world trade, thereby controlling the world of his day. The power elite today plans to do likewise, but in a Biblical sense their plan will lead to the Battle of Armageddon.
© 2007 Dennis Cuddy – All Rights Reserved, Reprinted with Permission