The North American Union is Really a Debate Over Political Ideology
March 21, 2007
By Tom DeWeese

If you believe there should be no borders marking a specific entity called the United States of America, then a North American Union will not concern you. If you believe nationalism, meaning love and pride of country, is a bad thing, then a North American Union will not concern you. If you believe government control of the market, of health care, and of energy policy is a positive force, then a North American Union will not concern you. If you believe anyone should be allowed to enter our nation, even illegally, obtain work, taxpayer-paid social programs, and owe no allegiance to the U.S., then a North American Union will not concern you.

On the other hand, if you believe the United States is the most unique nation on Earth with a government designed to protect your natural liberties, an economic system unlike any other -- designed to create economic independence, and a judicial system unknown to any other nation, then a North American Union is a threat to all you hold dear.
Those currently working on such a plan do not share your ideals; they do not support your political positions. They do not understand nor care about your concerns. It's their political ideology and they see nothing wrong with what they are doing. They consider your opposition to their plans to "harmonize" the U.S. with Mexico and Canada old fashioned and out of date.
The question is where do you stand?
The other side intends to marginalize your love of country and support of limited government. In fact, the other side doesn't want to debate the issue at all. It just wants to force its way on you, without discussion, without a vote, and without your involvement. And that is why they are trying to operate in secret.
Those of us who oppose this Union on ideological grounds intend to force that debate and let the American people decide how they wish to be governed. And that is why the other side is attacking us so viciously.
Incredibly, some of the most vicious attacks have come from so-called spokesman on the right – apparently threatened by other conservatives who question Bush Administration polices. For example, In December of 2006, news commentator Michael Medved fumed and spewed in a couple of blogs and on his radio show about the "nuts" and "crazies" who question the true purpose of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).
The Charge:
"This paranoid and groundless frenzy has been fomented and promoted by a shameless collection of lunatics and losers; crooks, cranks, demagogues and opportunists, who claim the existence of a top secret master plan to join the U.S. , Canada and Mexico in one big super-state and to replace the good old Yankee dollar with a worthless new currency called 'The Amero.'" Michael Medved, December 28, 2006.
The Truth:
Mexican economist and researcher Miguel Pickard wrote in an article, published by foreign press, detailing the "deep integration" planned for North America. He said there will be no single treaty and nothing will be submitted to legislatures of the three countries. Instead, he says, the plan for a "merged future" will be implemented through "the signing of regulations not subject to citizen review." He went on to report of several secret meetings held in all three nations, after which representatives signed "close to 300 regulations" installing a "Unified American Border Action Plan."
Pickard went on to express his view that President Bush is "vigorously pushing" the idea of a "North American community." Pickard concluded by saying the schedule calls for beginning with a customs union, then a common market, then a monetary and economic union, and finally the adoption of a single currency.
Democrat Congressman Barney Frank said in a letter concerning the Security and Prosperity Partnership, "It was done for the United States by the President, with no Congressional involvement. Indeed it is not even a treaty because it has not been ratified by the Senate."
CNN Anchorman Lou Dobbs said during a report on the SPP, "Have our political elites gone mad?"

The Charge:
"Another delusion usually associated with these fears involves the construction of a 'Monster Highway' some sixteen lanes wide through Texas and the Great Plains, connecting two nations on either side for the borders for some nefarious but never-explained purpose." Michael Medved, December 28, 2006
The Truth:
In April, 2006, TxDOT released a 4,000 page Environmental Impact Statement that described a corridor that will be 1200 feet wide (the size of four football fields). It will parallel Interstate 35, and be five lanes north and five lanes south (3 lanes for cars, 2 lanes for trucks). In the middle will be pipelines and rail lines. It will also have a 200 ft wide utility corridor. The corridor will start in Laredo, TX, run past Austin to the Texas-Oklahoma border. Plans ultimately call for building some 4,000 miles of highway with –rail lines and utility lines combined into super-corridors throughout Texas over the next 50 years.
"The Oklahoma-to-Mexico stretch would be just the first link in a 4,000 mile, $184 billion network. The corridor would be up to a quarter mile across, consisting of as many as six lanes for cars and four for trucks, plus railroad tracks, oil and gas pipelines, water and other utility lines, and broadband cables." Associated Press, July 21, 2006.
Central to the construction of the Trans Texas Corridor is the massive taking of 584,000 acres of private rich farm land, ranches and homes. Supreme Court--approved Eminent Domain will be used to acquire the land.
The Trans Texas Corridor is the first leg of what is called the NAFTA Super Highway scheduled to go through heartland America all the way to Canada.

The main reason for opposition (for some nefarious but never-explained purpose)
is the lack of inspection of the truck's cargo as they carry containers loaded in China and off loaded in Mexican ports and driven straight through to an Inland port in Kansas City (KC SmartPort), relying only on electronic screening for drive-through inspections. Moreover, Mexico will control its own customs facility in Kansas City and therefore able to inspect their own trucks on U.S. territory.
"This spring (2006), (KC) city officials signed off on a 50-year lease for the Mexican facility, with an option for 50 more years…The council earlier this year earmarked $2.5 million in loans and $600,000 in direct aid to SmartPort, which would build and own the inland customs facility and sublet it to the Mexican government through agreements with U.S. Customs and Border Protection…The Mexican government would have no significant investment and would occupy the customs facility operation rent free…SmartPort set up the deal to avoid imposing any expenses on Mexico above its ordinary border costs…SmartPort meanwhile is seeking a $1.5 million grant from the U.S. Economic Development Administration to purchase high-tech gamma-ray screening devices for drive-through inspections of truck cargo…Confusion and secrecy have been hallmarks of the ambitious project. At the outset, Gutierrez (President, KC SmartPort) and others have said the customs facility would be sovereign Mexican soil similar to a foreign embassy." Posted by the Kansas City Star, 7-18-06
Another objection to the highway system is the fact that foreign companies will operate the highways and collect tolls.
"On a single day in June (2006), an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.6 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99-year lease on Virginia's Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road from Austin to Seguin for 50 years."
Associated Press, 7-15-06
"One principle player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don't be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-correct interests."
Texas Congressman Ron Paul
The Charge:
"The record couldn't be more clear on the 'North American Union' -- there's no one anywhere near the Bush administration, the Congress of the United States, Cabinet departments or even major think tanks who believes it's a good idea to merge Canada, Mexico and the U.S." Michael Medved, December28, 2006

The Truth:
"Away from the spotlight, from Sept.12 to 14 (2006), in Banff Springs (Canada), Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day and Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor met with U.S. and Mexican government officials and business leaders to discuss North American integration at the second North American Forum…The focus of the event…included topics such as 'A North American Energy Strategy,' 'Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration,' and Opportunities for Security Cooperation' – all topics where the public interest is at odds with that of big business elites…The public has been kept in the dark while the business elite have played a lead role in designing the blueprint for this more integrated North America." Reported by the Toronto Star, 9-20-06
Attending the Banff meeting were Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Trade Rep. Carla Hills, and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Dr. Thomas Shannon.
Arizona State University is teaching that the U.S., Mexico and Canada need to be integrated into a unified superstate, where U.S. citizens of the future will be known as "North Americanists." The program openly calls for the integration of economic issues across the continent, and in many places goes further – such as the call for a common North American currency and an implied joint military.
"Reformist Mexican President Vincente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grand that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper." Robert L. Bartley, editor, The Wall Street Journal, editorial, July, 2, 2001.
The Charge:
"Concerning the feds, the entire horror story about 'North American Union' is based upon the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership,' an utterly innocuous, open, above-board, well-advertised and widely publicized initiative to promote inter-governmental cooperation to fight terrorism, the threat of Avian flu, improve and tighten border security, and promote mutual prosperity." Michael Medved, December 28, 2006
The Truth:
"The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments."
Texas Congressman Ron Paul
Also attending the Banff meeting, according to Canadian CBC News, was Mel Hurtig, noted Canadian author. According to Hurtig, "We're talking about such an important thing, we're talking about the integration of Canada into the United States. For them to hold this meeting in secret and to make every effort to avoid anybody learning it, right away you've got to be hugely concerned."
"According to the U.S. government website dedicated to the project (www.spp.gov), the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a 'dialogue' launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005. What is a dialogue? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in this 'dialogue' that many see as a plan for a North American union. According to the SPP website, this 'dialogue' will create new supra-national organizations to 'coordinate' border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA-and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade…" Texas Congressman Ron Paul, 8-30-06
If you expect to find a Bush Administration declaration that the United States of America will be replaced by a North American Union, forget it. If you think such a drastic change in our nation won't happen without a national debate and voter referendum – think again.
A close examination of just a few facts shows that a legal and institutional framework is indeed being put in place that could easily be switched into a full-fledged regional government.
Step by step, America is moving from NAFTA -- to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America – and indications are the SPP will lead toward the creation of a North American Community as a logical precursor to a North American Union.