* North American Union: “Tyrants and Traitors” *


Richard Moore

Original source URL:

Tyrants and Traitors: The ³Evolution by Stealth² of a North American Union

submitted by Reprehensor on wed, 08/15/2007 - 4:09pm.
Andrew G. Marshall | NAU

(While attending the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference, I had the good fortune of 
meeting Andrew Marshall, who presented a paper on "The Military Industrial 
Complex and Neo-Conservatism". We'll post that soon, but in the meantime, here 
is Marshall's thorough introduction to the North American Union and the SPP. 
This is relevant to 9/11 because of the key role that NORAD, NORTHCOM, and 
military contractors like General Electric and Lockheed Martin are playing in 
the formation of government/corporate relationships that will affect all of us. 
This is not a grassroots restructuring of the 3 countries based on the desires 
or needs of the people, but a re-engineering of the way of life of the average 
North American by corporate and military entities that have agendas far removed 
from the desires of the people on the street. In regards to 9/11 specifically, 
read David Ray Griffin's essay, 9/11 Live or Fabricated: Do the NORAD Tapes 
Verify The 9/11 Commission Report? and ask yourself if we really want to be 
giving NORAD entities more power than they already have. As Marshall's essay 
shows, things are well under way enabling exactly that... but the people of 
North America are not being asked about the NAU, and the corporate press will 
not do the asking... so it's up to us to learn about it. -rep.)

Tyrants and Traitors:
The ³Evolution by Stealth² of a North American Union

By: Andrew G. Marshall

As a young person in Canada, who wants to live in a free, democratic country, 
where I have embedded rights and freedoms, I feel that there is nothing more 
important right now than to find out and spread information regarding the 
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), which was signed 
into agreement by the Liberal government in 2005, under then Prime Minister Paul
Martin, with President Bush and then-Mexican President Vicente Fox. This 
agreement was signed shortly after the creation of the Independent Task Force on
the Future of North America. This task force is a tri-national grouping of think
tanks and interest groups, represented in the United States by the Council on 
Foreign Relations (CFR), in Mexico by the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, 
and in Canada by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) - formerly 
known as the Business Council on National Issues (BCNI).

In January of 2003, the CCCE launched the North American Security and Prosperity
Initiative, in which they propose 5 key elements:(1)

1) Reinventing borders
2) Maximizing regulatory efficiencies
3) Negotiation of a comprehensive resource security pact
4) Reinvigorating the North American defense alliance
5) Creating a new institutional framework

In November of 2003, the CCCE wrote up a short document "Paul Martin Urged to 
take the Lead in Forging a New Vision for North American Cooperation".(2) In 
this paper they literally say, "all of the CCCE's 150 member CEOs are involved 
in this ambitious two-year initiative". This document referred to statements and
suggestions made by the President and CEO of the CCCE, Thomas D'Aquino, in 

"He urged that Mr. Martin champion the idea of a yearly summit of the leaders of
Canada, Mexico and the United States in order to give common economic, social 
and security issues the priority they deserve in a continental, hemispheric and 
global context."

This document was written up before Martin became the Prime Minister, as is also
evident by what is listed at the bottom of this same document in naming who the 
Executive Committee, Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the CCCE are, among them, 
"David L. Emerson".

Clearly, it is evident that Paul Martin was taking the advice of the CCCE, as he
appointed Emerson to be his Minister of Energy. After this two-year initiative 
by the CCCE ended, the "Independent Task Force on the Future of North America" 
was formed with the CFR in the United States.

A March 14, 2005 statement was released by this task force, titled "Trinational 
Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010".(3)

The task force included Canadian Co-Chairmen former Deputy Prime Minister and 
Minister of Finance John P. Manley, as well as Thomas D'Aquino, (the President 
and CEO of the CCCE). One of the American Co-Chairmen from the CFR is Robert 
Pastor, who also in 2001 wrote a book titled "Toward a North American Community"
in which he called for new institutions and "North American policies", drawing 
on the successes of the European Union (which was created on the basis of the 
European Economic Community, later known as the European Community). As well as 
this, Pastor recommended that our "North American policies" include the areas of
"infrastructure and transportation, immigration and customs," and "a unified 

In Canada, the top think tanks such as the Fraser Institute and the C.D. Howe 
Institute are also fully on board for this agenda and process, which they term 
"deep integration" with the United States and Mexico. The Fraser Institute drew 
upon this concept that Pastor raised in his book about a "single currency", in 
which they published a document titled "The Case for the Amero: The Economics 
and Politics of a North American Monetary Union".(5)

The ³Amero² would be the equivalent to the European Union¹s ³Euro², and its 
creation and control would be given to a North American ³institution², as 
opposed to Canadians having control over their own currency. Even the Governor 
of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, on May 21, 2007, as reported by the Globe 
and Mail, had suggested that, ³North America could one day embrace a euro-style 
single currency².(6)(7)

This is not the first time David Dodge has made this suggestion. On the website 
of the Bank of Canada, comments made by Dodge to the Couchiching Institute on 
Public Affairs in August of 2003, discussed ³Economic Integration of North 
America², in which he stated, ³If there was a political decision in Canada to 
adopt policies of deeper North American integration, would it still make sense 
for us to keep our own currency? Or should we be thinking about adopting the 
U.S. dollar as our currency?²(8) He further stated, ³suppose we were well on our
way to achieving a true single market for goods and services, labour, and 
capital. Then it would be sensible to consider a common currency².

Well, a mere 4 years later, we are well on our way into deep integration, at 
which time, according to the Globe and Mail, Dodge is again suggesting this 
single currency is possible.

The Independent Task Force on the Future of North America¹s ³Trinational Call 
for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010² document made a 
list of recommendations, including:

* ³Build a North American economic and security community by 2010², of which was
stated ³the chairs propose a community defined by a common external tariff and 
an outer security perimeter².

* ³Create the institutions necessary for a North American community², of which 
they stated, ³The chairs propose annual summit meetings among the three 
countries and the creation of a North American Advisory Council to prepare for 
and implement the decisions made at the summits².

* ³Enhance North American competitiveness with a common external tariff², after 
which they stated, ³the chairs recommend that the three governments negotiate a 
common external tariff on a sector-by-sector basis at the lowest rate consistent
with multilateral obligations².

* ³Develop a border pass for North Americans², where they state, ³The chairs 
propose a border pass, with biometric indicators, which would allow expedited 
passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout North 
America². (Also known as a continental ID Card).

* ³Adopt a unified Border Action Plan², where they state, ³First steps should 
include: harmonized visa and asylum regulations; joint inspection of container 
traffic entering North American ports; and synchronized screening and tracking 
of people, goods, and vessels, including integrated "watch" lists. Security 
cooperation should extend to counterterrorism and law enforcement, and could 
include the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence center and joint 
training for law enforcement officials².

(This correlates with a story that was written by CBC, in which they revealed 
that, ³A Vancouver man has won an out-of-court settlement from the RCMP after an
incident in which he says he was illegally searched by an American police 
officer², it continued, ³Last spring, David Laing was driving on a highway near 
Hope, B.C., when he was pulled over by a man with a heavy Texas accent,² and 
that, ³The American was a Texas state trooper working with a member of the Hope 
detachment of the RCMP². Furthermore, ³Seconds later, Laing says a different 
RCMP officer and Texas trooper stopped his car, decided he was driving under the
influence of marijuana, and searched his vehicle and two-year-old son². It was 
revealed that, ³The Texas state troopers were in B.C. as part of an exchange 
program with the RCMP².(9)

There is another interesting incident, in which ³Public Safety Minister 
Stockwell Day acknowledged Thursday that U.S. agents conduct investigations in 
Canada², and that, ³Day was responding to a report regarding an internal FBI 
audit that shows U.S. agents are carrying out investigations without the 
approval of the Canadian government², continuing, ³It says the FBI has given 
agents in its Buffalo field office clearance to conduct "routine investigations"
up to 50 miles into Canadian territory². Furthermore, ³Day said Canadian 
security forces work with Canada's allies, including the U.S, and have 
agreements in terms of information sharing² and the article further revealed 
that, ³The most recent audit by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's inspector 
general, done in 2004, documents the growth of FBI operations in Canada since 
2001², not to mention, ³The inspector general's report documents 135 unapproved 
FBI crossings and says there is no sign the crossings will stop,² and that 
³Canadian officials say they have made no protest to the U.S. government about 
FBI agents operating without permission on Canadian soil.² )(10)

Back to the recommendations of the Independent Task Force, they continue by 
suggesting to:

* ³Develop a North American energy and natural resource security strategy², 
under which they state, ³Canada and Mexico are the two largest oil exporters to 
the United States; Canada alone supplies the United States with over 95% of its 
imported natural gas and 100% of its imported electricity. The three governments
should expand and protect energy infrastructure, fully exploit continental 

* ³Deepen educational ties², under which they state, ³the chairs recommend 
expanding scholarship and exchange programs, developing Centers for North 
American Studies in all three countries, and cross-border training programs for 
school teachers².

Just 9 days after the publication of this document, Bush, Martin and Fox signed 
the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), and released a 
joint statement, in which they stated their efforts in the Œagreement¹ would:

* ³Implement common border security and bioprotection strategies²;

* ³Enhance critical infrastructure protection, and implement a common approach 
to emergency response²;

* ³Implement improvements in aviation and maritime security, combat 
transnational threats, and enhance intelligence partnerships²;

* ³Implement a border facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve the 
legitimate flow of people and cargo at our shared borders²;

* ³Improve productivity through regulatory cooperation²;

* ³Promote sectoral collaboration in energy, transportation, financial services,
technology, and other areas to facilitate business²;

* ³Reduce the costs of trade through the efficient movement of goods and 

* ³Enhance the stewardship of our environment, create a safer and more reliable 
food supply while facilitating agricultural trade, and protect our people from 

Furthermore, they stated:

* ³We will establish Ministerial-led working groups that will consult with 
stakeholders in our respective countries. These working groups will respond to 
the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, 
measurable, and achievable goals. They will identify concrete steps that our 
governments can take to meet these goals, and set implementation dates that will
permit a rolling harvest of accomplishments².(11)

It all kind of sounds like a copy-and-paste of what the Independent Task Force 

Oddly enough, the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America released
a document 2 months after the SPP summit, in May of 2005, titled, ³Building a 
North American Community².(12)

Canadian Task Force members include Thomas D¹Aquino, President and CEO of the 
CCCE; Wendy Dobson, Professor at University of Toronto and former President of 
the C.D. Howe Institute, who is also a director of several corporations; Allan 
Gotlieb, former Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Chairman of the CCCE, 
as well, a board member of several Canadian and US corporations; Michael Hart, 
former official in Canada¹s Department of Foreign Affairs and International 
Trade, currently an official at Carleton University; Pierre Marc Johnson, former
Premier of Quebec, current law professor at McGill University and also serves on
Canadian and European corporate boards; John Manley, former Deputy Prime 
Minister of Canada and Minister of Finance.(13)

The report put forth a series of recommendations:

* ³Establish a common security perimeter by 2010², under which they suggest, 
³The governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States should articulate as 
their long-term goal a common security perimeter for North America².

* ³Develop a North American Border Pass², again suggesting that, ³The three 
countries should develop a secure North American Border Pass with biometric 
identifiers² and that ³The program would be modeled on the U.S.-Canadian ³NEXUS²
and the U.S.-Mexican ³SENTRI² programs, which provide ³smart cards² to allow 
swifter passage to those who pose no risk² (emphasis added). Further, ³The pass 
would be accepted at all border points within North America as a complement to, 
but not a replacement for, national identity documents or passports².

* ³Develop a unified North American border action plan², their recommendations 
aim to:

- ³Harmonize visa and asylum regulations, including convergence of the list of 
Œvisa waiver¹ countries²;

- ³Harmonize entry screening and tracking procedures for people, goods, and 
vessels (including integration of name-based and biometric watch lists)² 
(emphasis added);

- ³Harmonize exit and export tracking procedures²;

- ³Fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals²; and

- ³Jointly inspect container traffic entering North American ports².

* ³Expand border infrastructure², stating, ³The three governments should examine
the options for additional border facilities and expedite their construction. In
addition to allowing for continued growth in the volume of transborder traffic, 
such investments must incorporate the latest technology, and include facilities 
and procedures that move as much processing as possible away from the border².

* ³Expand NORAD into a multiservice Defense Command², continuing, ³As 
recommended in a report of the Canadian-U.S. Joint Planning Group, NORAD should 
evolve into a multiservice Defense Command that would expand the principle of 
Canadian-U.S. joint command to land and naval as well as air forces engaged in 
defending the approaches to North America².

* ³Increase information and intelligence-sharing at the local and national 
levels in both law enforcement and military organizations², under which they 
state, ³Law enforcement cooperation should be expanded from its current levels 
through the exchange of liaison teams and better use of automated systems for 
tracking, storing, and disseminating timely intelligence², and that ³Training 
and exercises should be developed to increase the cooperation and 
interoperability among and between the law enforcement agencies and militaries².

* ³Establish a North American investment fund for infrastructure and human 
capital², where they suggest, ³The United States and Canada should establish a 
North American Investment Fund to encourage private capital flow into Mexico².

* ³Enhance the capacity of the North American Development Bank², suggesting to 
³expand NADBank¹s mandate to include other infrastructure sectors, particularly 

* ³Develop a North American energy strategy², which includes, ³the expansion and
protection of the North American energy infrastructure; development 
opportunities and regulatory barriers².

* ³Fully develop Mexican energy resources², where they state, ³Although the 
inclination of Mexico to retain full ownership of its strategic resources is 
understandable, expanded and more efficient development of these resources is 
needed to accelerate Mexico¹s economic growth².

* ³Conclude a North American resource accord², saying, ³the three governments 
need to conclude an accord that recognizes the balance between security of 
supply and security of access and includes rules about resource pricing that 
will reduce the friction that has given rise to some of the most persistent and 
difficult bilateral irritants² (i.e. softwood lumber dispute).

* ³Adopt a common external tariff², again stating, ³We recommend that the three 
governments harmonize external tariffs on a sector-by-sector basis, to the 
lowest prevailing rate consistent with multilateral obligations².

* ³Review those sectors of NAFTA that were excluded or those aspects that have 
not been fully implemented², suggesting ³to make the coverage of NAFTA more 

* ³Establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution², where 
they recommend, ³As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade 
Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage 
faster, more consistent, and more predictable resolution of disputes². (For 
those that aren¹t aware, the World Trade Organization tribunals are all done in 

* ³Ensure rapid implementation of the North American regulatory action plan², 
under which they state, ³Businesses and other stakeholders must work closely 
with governments in all three countries to identify opportunities for early 
action in individual sectors and longer-term process issues whose resolution 
could have a major impact in improving North American competitiveness².

* ³Open skies and open roads², where they suggest, ³governments should consider 
the benefits of allowing North American transportation firms unlimited access to
each others¹ territory².

* ³ŒTested once¹ for biotechnology and pharmaceuticals², in which they explain, 
³regulatory cooperation in the areas of human and veterinary drugs, medical 
devices, pest control, and chemicals would raise the value of sales in these 
sectors by more than 10 percent, profits by 8 percent, and the rate of return on
new products by an average of 4.8 percent,² and suggest to, ³adopt a Œtested 
once¹ principle by which a product tested in one country would meet the 
standards set by another, or to establish a North America testing center with 
personnel from each country².

* ³Integrating protection of food, health, and the environment², where they 
suggest there is a great ³need to ensure that regulatory processes are as 
integrated as their relevant markets².

* ³Expand temporary migrant worker programs², where they explain, ³Canada and 
the United States should expand programs for temporary labor migration from 
Mexico. For instance, Canada¹s successful model for managing seasonal migration 
in the agricultural sector should be expanded to other sectors where Canadian 
producers face a shortage of workers and Mexico may have a surplus of workers 
with appropriate skills².

* ³Create a major scholarship fund for undergraduate and graduate students to 
study in the other North American countries and to learn the region¹s three 
languages², and they explain, ³Cross-border educational study within North 
America by Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans should expand to reflect the 
degree of our commercial exchanges².

* ³Develop a network of centers for North American studies², and they start by 
stating, ³The European Union provides substantial funding for EU centers in 
fifteen universities in the United States, as well as twelve Jean Monnet Chairs.
The U.S. Department of Education provides similar grants to support language and
international studies outside North America, but not within North America. That 
should change², which is a clear indication that this is a move towards a North 
American Union, whether or not they call it that, and they further recommend, 
³that the three governments open a competition and provide grants to 
universities in each of the three countries to promote courses, education, and 
research on North America and assist elementary and secondary schools in 
teaching about North America², and that ³a student summit should be held 
periodically in each of the three countries².

* ³Develop teacher exchange and training programs for elementary and secondary 
school teachers², where they suggest, ³This would assist in removing language 
barriers and give some students a greater sense of a North American identity. 
Greater efforts should also be made to recruit Mexican language teachers to 
teach Spanish in the United States and Canada².

* ³An annual North American Summit meeting², where they state, ³There is no more
succinct or forceful way to demonstrate to the people of all three countries the
importance of the North American partnership than to have the Mexican and 
American presidents and the Canadian prime minister meet at least once a year.²

* ³Strengthen government structures², and suggest, ³strengthening links between 
governments, as the three leaders did at their March meeting in Texas, by 
establishing minister-led working groups that will be required to report back 
within ninety days, and to meet regularly².

* ³A North American Advisory Council², here they suggest that the North American
governments ³should appoint an independent body of advisers. This body should be
composed of eminent persons from outside government, appointed to staggered 
multiyear terms to ensure their independence². This means people in the 
corporate world, however, their mandate would be to ³provide a public voice for 
North America². So, essentially, it would be corporate representatives speaking 
for ALL the people of North America. They continue, ³A complementary approach 
would be to establish private bodies that would meet regularly or annually to 
buttress North American relationships, along the lines of the Bilderberg².

* ³A North American Inter-Parliamentary Group², where they state, ³The Task 
Force recommends that the bilateral meetings occur every other year and that the
three North American partners form a trinational interparliamentary group to 
meet in the alternating year. The North American Advisory Council could provide 
an agenda and support for these meetings².

In 2002, the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) was formed, which is 
described on its website as ³a non-profit organization based in Montreal², and 
³aims to address the issues raised by North American integration as well as 
identify new ideas and strategies to reinforce the North American region². It 
continues, ³Over the first two years of its existence, NAFI organized 
conferences which brought together government and academic figures as well as 
business people², the first conference was held in Montreal in March 2003, the 
second one was held in April 2004 in Mexico, and states that ³About 200 
participants and conference speakers took part in the conference, among which 
the former Energy Minister, Mr. Felipe Calderon², who is now the President of 
Mexico. It then states that, ³In the following years, NAFI organized an annual 
North American mock parliament, called the Triumvirate², and that ³This 
innovative event allows a hundred Canadian, American and Mexican university 
students to better understand the North American dynamic as well as the 
challenges faced by NAFTA partners². It continues, ³A first edition took place 
in the Canadian Senate in May 2005, under the presidency of ex-Ambassador Mr. 
Raymond Chrétien², who also happens to be the son of former Canadian Prime 
Minister Jean Chrétien. Further, ³The second edition took place in the Mexican 
Senate in May 2006².(15)

It declares it¹s main three objectives to be:

* ³Making the academic world, the public and decision-makers aware of the 
challenges posed by integration between the three NAFTA countries;

* Identifying the elements of the North American agenda which would allow the 
consolidation and reinforcement of the North American region;

* Favouring the creation of North American networks to set the basis for a 
trilateral dialogue.²

The Universities across North America that are involved in the mock North 
American parliaments are American University, Carleton University, McGill 
University, Roosevelt University, Simon Fraser University, Tecnológico de 
Monterrey, Universidad de Monterrey, Université Laval, Université de Montréal, 
Université du Québec à Montréal and University of Arizona.(16)

The Board of the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) includes the 
Chairman M. Stephen Blank, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, who is 
the Director of the North American Center for Transborder Studies at Arizona 
State University, and Director Dr. Robert A. Pastor, Professor and Director of 
the Center for North American Studies at American University, author of the 
book, ³Toward a North American Community², member of the Council on Foreign 
Relations and a Vice Chair of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North 
America which produced the document ³Building a North American Community², which
essentially set the agenda for the SPP agreement.(17)

In June of 2005, the Security and Prosperity Ministers of all three countries 
submitted a Report to Leaders on progress, and the Canadian ministers include 
Minister of Industry and former Vice-Chair of the CCCE, David Emerson, Deputy 
Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Anne 
McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew. American 
Ministers included Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security 
Director Michael Chertoff, as well as the Commerce Secretary Carlos 

In March of 2006, the leaders of the three countries again held a summit meeting
for the Security and Prosperity Partnership, this time with Fox, Bush and newly 
elected Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.(18)

At this summit meeting, the three leaders announced the formation of a North 
American Advisory Council, called the North American Competitiveness Council 
(NACC), which was discussed in the ³Security and Prosperity Partnership of North
America Report to Leaders August 2006².(19)

In this report, written by the three countries¹ respective SPP ministers within 
government, stated, ³we are pleased to inform you that on June 15, Ministers 
officially launched the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) that you 
announced in Cancun². They continue, ³Our three governments recognize that 
private sector involvement is key to enhancing North America's competitive 
position in global markets and is the driving force behind innovation and 
growth. As such, the creation of the NACC provides a voice and a formal role for
the private sector. The regular meetings between ministers, senior officials, 
and the NACC, complemented by ongoing consultations with other interested 
stakeholders, will help ensure that the SPP remains a cornerstone of North 
American cooperation². This means that corporate representatives meet regularly 
with our elected government officials. The Security and Prosperity Ministers who
signed this report were the same American Ministers who signed the previous one,
namely, Michael Chertoff and Condoleezza Rice, and on the Canadian side, with 
the newly elected Canadian Conservative government, the Minister of Public 
Safety and Emergency Preparedness Stockwell Day, Minister of Industry Maxine 
Mernier and Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay. Meanwhile, former Industry 
Minister in the Liberal government, David Emerson, (from the Canadian Council of
Chief Executives), was asked by Prime Minister Harper to cross the aisle and 
join the Conservative cabinet, where he now sits as Minister of International 
Trade, where his main first priority was resolving the softwood lumber issue, 
which the Task Force report clearly indicated was a sour spot for them. On 
resolving the softwood lumber issue, Emerson stated that those who opposed his 
proposition were ³anti-American².(20) I¹m also sure that it was simply a 
coincidence that while at the CCCE and before going into Ministerial Positions 
in the Canadian government, David Emerson was President and CEO of Canfor 
Corporation, Canada¹s largest manufacturer of softwood lumber.(21)

The North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) is run out of the US Chamber 
of Commerce.(22) It is made up of corporate representatives of all three 
countries, and the Canadian representatives include the CEOs of Manulife 
Financial, Power Corporation of Canada, Ganong Bros. Limited, Suncor Energy, 
Canadian National Railway Company, Linamar Corporation, Bell Canada Enterprises,
Canfor Corporation (the company David Emerson used to be CEO of before going 
into government), The Home Depot Company and the Bank of Nova Scotia. The 
American NACC members include top representatives from the Campbell Soup 
Company, Chevron Corporation, Ford Motor Company, FedEx Corporation, General 
Electric Company, General Motors Corporation, Kansas City Southern, Lockheed 
Martin Corporation, Merck & Co., Inc., Mittal Steel USA, New York Life Insurance
Company, The Procter & Gamble Company, UPS, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Whirlpool 
Corporation. These are some of the biggest corporations, not just in the United 
States, but in the world, literally advising our elected representatives on how 
to properly ³integrate² our countries to form the North American ³Community² 
(Union) by 2010.

In August of 2006, a list of priorities was made both in the areas of Security 
and Prosperity through the SPP agreement, which is fully available for viewing 
on the Canadian governments SPP website.(23) Under the Security Priorities, they
have three columns; ³Initiative², ³Key Milestones², and ³Status², where it lists
whether or not the initiative is ³On Track², ³Partially Completed², ³Completed²,
³Ongoing², or ³Delayed². I won¹t go through the exhaustive list,(24) but will go
to one key point due to some recent developments in that sector in Canada. Under
³Aviation Security², it states, ³Develop and implement a strategy to establish 
equivalent approaches to aviation security for North America², the initiative it
made was, ³Develop, test, evaluate and implement a plan to establish comparable 
aviation passenger screening, and the screening of baggage and air cargo². Under
³Key Milestones², it states, ³For aviation security purposes, each country has 
developed, is developing or may develop its own passenger assessment (no-fly) 
program for use on flights within, to or from that country to ensure that 
persons who pose a threat to aviation are monitored or denied boarding, within 
24 months (June 2007)².

Now this is a very important point to note, because it states that this is to be
done by June 2007, now, in Canada, we recently heard about a news item in our 
media, as the CBC reported on June 18, 2007 that ³Transportation experts and 
privacy advocates warned of potential abuses as Canada's no-fly list, which 
checks the names of domestic airline passengers against a list of people deemed 
to be threats, went into effect on Monday².(25) The article continues, ³Fewer 
than 1,000 names are believed to be on Transport Canada's Specified Persons 
list, unlike its U.S. counterpart, which has grown to contain more than 44,000. 
The list will not be available to the public, which means those on it will only 
find out when they try to travel². It also mentioned that, ³Critics also point 
to the ordeal of Canadian Maher Arar, who was sent by U.S. officials to Syria, 
where he was detained and tortured for more than a year. Despite being 
exonerated by federal inquiry in Canada, Arar remains on a U.S. watch list². The
article even further reported that, ³In May, the federal government announced 
that as another part of the Passenger Protect program, all travellers 12 and 
older on flights within Canada, from Canada and destined for Canada would have 
to show valid photo identification or two pieces of additional ID, one of which 
shows date of birth, name and gender, before they will be issued a boarding 
pass². However, what the article makes no mention of is the Security and 
Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), which is the ³agreement² that 
this was implemented under. It states simply that Canada decided to do this, 
which further suggests that this SPP agreement is largely secretive and out of 
the public view.

How it works is that the agendas and initiatives under the SPP, which literally 
cover every aspect of our society, from integration of trade laws, economies, 
defense, (and with that foreign policy), emergency response, education, 
transportation, immigration, health and environmental regulations, resources, 
energy, law enforcement, intelligence, ID cards and a single currency, all these
initiatives are not listed as being under a ³treaty², because a treaty would 
have to go through the three countries¹ respective Parliaments and Congressional
bodies, and therefore be subjected to examination and debate, and thus, become 
public. So, the participants call SPP a ³dialogue², and in actuality work 
through merging the bureaucracies of our three countries, working through the 
different branches of government where they propose different initiatives, 
which, in turn, the Executive branch (Prime Minister¹s Office and Cabinet/ White
House and Presidential Administration) pushes and approves, stating that they 
are ³Canadian², or ³American² initiatives, but in reality are ³harmonizing² all 
the changes to be integrated with all three North American countries, to more 
easily merge us into a North American Union, secretly and without the public 
being aware. The idea is that they want to move this process of integration so 
far along without public knowledge that by the time the public becomes aware, 
remember they state that we must be in this ³North American Community² (Union), 
by 2010, at which time it will be far too late for the public to oppose it, as 
it will have already become a reality. The ŒNo-fly¹ list is just an example of 
this process.

Another short example is that on May 8, 2007, it was reported in the Montreal 
Gazette that, ³Canada is set to raise its limits on pesticide residues on fruit 
and vegetables for hundreds of products. The move is part of an effort to 
harmonize Canadian pesticide rules with those of the United States, which allows
higher residue levels for 40 per cent of the pesticides it regulates.² This 
article actually mentioned that it was about ³harmonizing² our pesticide residue
levels with that of the United States, and it continued, ³Differences in residue
limits, which apply both to domestic and imported food, pose a potential Œtrade 
irritant,¹ said Richard Aucoin, chief registrar of the Pest Management 
Regulatory Agency, which sets Canada's pesticide rules.² What this means, 
however, is that ³U.S. pesticide residue limits are often higher because their 
warmer climate means they are plagued by more pests², and therefore in Canada we
are lowering our pesticide standards, raising a potential health risk. The 
article then goes on to actually explain the reasons behind this change, 
³Canadian regulators and their U.S. counterparts have been working to harmonize 
their pesticide regulations since 1996, as part of the North American Free Trade
Agreement. Now the effort is being fast-tracked as an initiative under the 
Security and Prosperity Partnership, a wide-ranging plan to streamline 
regulatory and security protocols across North America², and it continued, ³The 
SPP's 2006 report identified stricter residue limits as Œbarriers to 

On September 12-14, 2006, representatives from all three countries met in secret
at the Banff Springs Hotel to convene the North American Forum. This information
was brought to light through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made in 
the United States by a government watchdog group, Judicial Watch. Included in 
the FOIA documents, is a list of all the attendees, as well as the agenda being 
discussed and pursued.(27)

The three Co-Chairs of the North American Forum were, from Mexico, Pedro Aspe, 
the former Finance Minister of Mexico and currently a director of the McGraw 
Hill Companies and The Carnegie Corporation, from Canada, Peter Lougheed, the 
former Premier of Alberta, currently a director on five Canadian corporations as
well as being a member of the Trilateral Commission and is Chancellor Emeritus 
of Queen¹s University in Kingston, and from the United States, George P. Shultz,
the former US Secretary of State under the Reagan Administration, was in the 
Nixon Administration and was President of Bechtel Group (an engineering and 
construction firm that gets large contracts in the Œwar on terror¹) and 
currently sits as Chairman of the International Advisory Council of JP Morgan 

The Canadian participants in the North American Forum include Stockwell Day, the
SPP Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Greg Melchin, the 
Minister of Energy in the government of Alberta, Perin Beatty, the President and
CEO of Canadian manufacturers and Exporters, Peter M. Boehm, Assistant Deputy 
Minister, North America, Thomas D¹Aquino, President and CEO of the Canadian 
Council of Chief Executives, Vice-Chair of the Independent Task Force on the 
Future of North America as well as being one of the architects of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and is a member of the North American 
Competitiveness Council (NACC). Other Canadian members include John English, 
Executive Director at the Center for International Governance Innovation, Brian 
Felesky, a director of TransCanada Power, Suncor Energy, Fairquest Energy and is
Vice-Chair of the Canada West Foundation, Richard George, the President and CEO 
of Suncor Energy, is a member of the NACC, as well as being a Chairman of the 
Canadian Council of Chief Executives, James Gray, Chair of the Canada West 
Foundation, a board member of the Canadian National Railway Company, member of 
the advisory board of Lazard Canada, Fred Green, President and CEO of Canadian 
Pacific Railway, V. Peter Harder, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and 
International Trade, Harold Kvisle, CEO of TransCanada Corporation, as well as 
being on the boards of PrimeWest Energy Inc., and the Bank of Montreal, Gaetan 
Lavertu, the Canadian Ambassador to Mexico, John Manley, former Deputy Prime 
Minister and a Vice Chair of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North 
America and is on the boards of Nortel Networks, CIBC, and Canadian Pacific 
Railway, Colin Robertson, Minister & Head of the Advocacy Secretariat at the 
Canadian Embassy in Washington, and was a member of the team that negotiated the
NAFTA agreement, Berel Rodal, Vice Chairman on the International Center on 
Nonviolent Conflict and is on the boards of and is an advisor to technology 
firms in Canada, the United States and Europe, Gordon Smith, Chairman of the 
International Development Research Committee and is a member of the Trilateral 

American participants in the North American Forum include General Peter Pace, 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military position on the 
United States, Deborah Bolton, Political Advisor to the Commander the North 
American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), and the Commander of the United 
States Northern Command (NORTHCOM), Ronald T. Covais, President of the Americas 
at the Lockheed Martin Corporation, the largest weapons manufacturer and defense
contractor in the world, Christopher Henry, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy, Carla A. Hills, Chairman and CEO of Hills & Company, 
former US Trade Representative in the George H.W. Bush Administration, Vice 
Chair of the Council on Foreign Relations, which was the principal sponsor of 
the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, a member of the 
Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission, Co-Chair of the Center for 
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a top US think tank, Caryn Hollis, 
the Principal Director of Western Hemisphere Affairs in the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs in the Pentagon, Robert 
James, President of Asset Management, Inc., a member of the Council on Foreign 
Relations, Admiral Timothy J. Keating, the Commander of US Northern Command and 
NORAD, M. Peter McPherson, on the board of Dow Jones, and was Director of 
Economic Policy in Iraq, formerly worked in senior executive positions at Bank 
of America, former Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury, where he was 
instrumental in the negotiations for the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, Doris 
Meissner, a Senior Fellow at the Migration Policy Institute and member of the 
Council on Foreign Relations, Mary Anastasia O¹Grady, Editorial Board Member of 
the Wall Street Journal, a former employee of Merrill Lynch & Co., Robert 
Pastor, Director of the Center for North American Studies and Vice President of 
International Affairs and professor of International Relations at American 
University, also author of the book, ³Toward a North American Community², and a 
Vice-Chair of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America and is a
member of the Council on Foreign Relations, William J. Perry, a professor at 
Stanford University and former Secretary of Defense, the head of the Pentagon 
during much of the Clinton Administration, Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., the Assistant
Secretary of State for Western Hemispheres who works for Condoleezza Rice, David
G. Victor, a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and member of the Council 
on Foreign Relations, and Maj. General Mark A. Volcheff, Director of Plans, 
Policy & Strategy for NORAD.(28)

In the FOIA documents that can be freely downloaded from Judicial Watch¹s 
website, they openly discuss how they plan to use the issue of climate change to
impose a carbon tax on the people of North America as another method of further 
integrating North America.(29) But perhaps the most revealing and disturbing 
aspect was when they were discussing ³Border Infrastructure and Continental 
Prosperity², which was Chaired by John Manley, and which, in the documents it 
was written that, ³While a vision is appealing working on the infrastructure 
might yield more benefit and bring more people on board (Œevolution by 
stealth¹)².(30) [Emphasis added] This is the most concerning thing yet, as the 
phrase ³evolution by stealth², refers to implementing this agenda under the 
radar, out of public view and in secret. This is the general thinking of those 
involved with implementing this ³deep integration² process, leading to the 
formation of a North American Union.

In February of 2007, the North American Competitiveness Council released their 
prepared document for the SPP Ministers titled, ³Enhancing Competitiveness in 
Canada, Mexico, and the United States: Private-Sector Priorities for the 
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)².(31)

In their list of recommendations, they suggest:

* ³Speed up development of national critical infrastructure protection 
strategies², where they state, ³All three North American governments should 
complete their national critical infrastructure protection strategies and 
vulnerability assessments within the next 12 months².

* ³Enhance emergency management and pandemic preparedness through expanded use 
of specific disaster planning and simulations², under which they state, 
³Emergency preparedness simulations, with the involvement of the private sector,
have proven to be very useful. They should be conducted on a regular basis 
across a range of threats and border points².

* ³Agree to implement before the end of 2007 planned land preclearance pilot 
projects², where they suggest, ³Moving customs processes further away and inland
from the actual border crossings has the potential to reduce border congestion 

* ³Improve the benefits of voluntary business participation in security 
programs², and state, ³More efficient and faster processing at the border and 
elimination of duplicative applications will result in increased participation 
in these programs².

* ³Further simplify the NAFTA rules-of-origin requirements², where they explain,
³Two phases of simplification to the rules of origin under the NAFTA have been 
completed successfully, covering more than US$30 billion in trilateral trade. A 
third phase of public consultations has just been completed, and the resulting 
package of proposals for further simplification should be implemented as soon as

* ³Simplify the NAFTA certification process and requirements², and they say, 
³The long- term goal should be to eliminate the NAFTA certificate on shipments².

* ³Withdraw or suspend the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) interim rule of August 26, 2006², and suggest in it¹s stead, ³The 
governments of the United States and Canada, in consultation with the private 
sector, should launch bilateral discussions to identify legitimate risks related
to plant pests and animal diseases and to determine the most appropriate means 
of mitigating these risks while minimizing disruption to legitimate trade².

* ³Sign a new North American Regulatory Cooperation Framework and ensure 
consistent application of standards and regulatory requirements within each 
country², and recommend, ³a North American Regulatory Cooperation and Standards 
Committee should be formed to survey the variety of standards and regulatory 
differences by industry that impede trade².

* ³Develop a public-private North American initiative to tackle counterfeiting 
and piracy², and they explain, ³While the governments are already actively 
engaging the business community, the NACC encourages taking this to a new level.
Engaging private sector stakeholders directly with their international 
counterparts, as well as with the three governments, would ensure a 
comprehensive cross-border solution².

* ³Focus on trilateral collaboration to expand the supply of highly skilled 
people in the energy sector throughout North America², where they say, 
³Governments and businesses should organize an annual North American energy 
skills conference. This public-private conference should include energy 
companies, construction companies, energy ministry officials, local development 
planning authorities, training and education officials, immigration authorities,
and others with an interest in expanding the pool of highly skilled workers 
(degreed professionals and vocational labor) in the energy sector².

This quote has been attributed to Benito Mussolini, ³Fascism should more 
properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate 
power². ŒPublic-private¹ partnerships are the perfect example of a corporatist 
state, because it is the sharing of the duties and functions of government with 
large multinational corporations.

As an example of how secretive this process is and is meant to be, the Ottawa 
Citizen reported on May 11, 2007, about how ³Amid heated charges of a coverup, 
Tory MPs yesterday abruptly shut down parliamentary hearings on a controversial 
plan to further integrate Canada and the U.S², and further stated, ³The 
firestorm erupted within minutes of testimony by University of Alberta professor
Gordon Laxer that Canadians will be left Œto freeze in the dark¹ if the 
government forges ahead with plans to integrate energy supplies across North 
America. He was testifying on behalf of the Alberta-based Parkland Institute 
about concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a 2005 
accord by the U.S., Canada and Mexico to streamline economic and security rules 
across the continent². Furthermore, the article continued examining the remarks 
made by the University of Alberta professor, saying ³The deal, which calls North
American Œenergy security¹ a priority, will commit Canada to ensuring American 
energy supplies even though Canada itself -- unlike most industrialized nations 
-- has no national plan or reserves to protect its own supplies, he argued.² 
However, the real controversy arose when, ³Tory MP Leon Benoit, chair of the 
Commons Standing Committee on International Trade, which was holding the SPP 
hearings, ordered Mr. Laxer to halt his testimony, saying it was not relevant², 
however, ³Opposition MPs called for, and won, a vote to overrule Mr. Benoit's 
ruling. Mr. Benoit then threw down his pen, declaring, ŒThis meeting is 
adjourned,¹ and stormed out, followed by three of the panel's four Conservative 
members. The remaining members voted to continue, with the Liberal vice-chair 
presiding.² The article then points out that, ³Mr. Benoit's actions are 
virtually unprecedented, observers say; at press time, procedure experts still 
hadn't figured out whether he had the right to adjourn the meeting unilaterally.
Mr. Benoit did not respond to calls for comment². The article finishes by 
saying, ³¹It's shocking the extent to which the Conservative party will go to 
cover up information about the SPP,¹ says NDP MP Peter Julian, who also sits on 
the committee.²(32)

This was a positive development to see that a mainstream Canadian party has 
finally started to address the issue of the SPP, however, the NDP does not call 
for abolishing the SPP or the agenda of ³deep integration² into a North American
Union, and in fact, do not even mention to prospect of a North American Union, 
but rather call for ³Canada to ensure that the SPP is put through real public 
consultations, democratic debate, and parliamentary oversight². 
(http://www.ndp.ca/page/5550). It¹s not to say that I don¹t agree with this, 
it¹s just that it is not beneficiary to call for ³discussing and debating² the 
SPP agreement when it is already being fast-tracked into implementation and 
formation for a North American Union by 2010, so it¹s more expedient to 
immediately suspend and abolish this agreement in order to preserve Canadian 
sovereignty and our independence as a nation. This is not an agreement worth 
altering or debating, because ultimately, should we even be debating whether or 
not we hand over all of our country to a North American Union of unelected 
individuals in an undemocratic continental super-state? To me, anyway, its not 
even up for debate, either you want Canada to remain independent and free and 
sovereign, or you want us to subvert everything about our country into a North 
American Union government made up of unaccountable people whose allegiance is 
not to any nation, constitution, or people, but rather to a group of 
international corporate elites who are the driving force behind it. The only 
Canadian political party which is truly calling this what it is, is the Canadian
Action Party (CAP), led by Connie Fogal, which describes this integration as 
³The agenda of the corporate/financial/military elite of North America is to 
unify the territories currently occupied by Canada, USA, and Mexico into one 
entity with a new border around the perimeter of North America under their aegis
and control², and therefore, ³The Canadian Action Party calls for the immediate 
withdrawal of all government participation in the North American Union, 
including withdrawal of participation in the military Bilateral Planning 
Committee; the dissolution of the North American Competitiveness Council 
(Canadian membership announced by Stephen Harper in June, 2006); an end to the 
annual meetings of the three leaders of Canada, USA and Mexico on this NAU 
impetus; the abrogation of NAFTA; and the cessation of the NAFTA model expansion
into all areas of Canadian affairs; defence, international trade, finance, 
immigration, justice, et cetera.²(33)

So far, there have been 19 US State Legislatures that have been trying to pass 
Anti-North American Union resolutions, blocking its development and the 
continuation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, and in fact, a few of 
them have even managed to pass legislation blocking the North American Union, 
which is an excellent sign that opposition to the North American Union is 
growing very quickly.(34) And amazingly enough, the United States Congress voted
362 to 63 in favour of approving an amendment to H.R. 3074 (Transportation, 
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008), 
which prohibits ³the use of funds to participate in a working group pursuant to 
the Security and Prosperity Partnership², meaning that funding for the SPP 
working groups is being cut off.(35) However, the unfortunate thing is that if 
you even ask members of the Canadian Parliament about the SPP and the North 
American Union, they will either say they don¹t know anything about it or that 
it¹s a conspiracy theory. So we¹ve got some work to do yet, and we have to do it

The Bi-National Planning Group, which was formed in 2002, was established as a 
³Canada-US Joint Planning Group², and states that the planning group ³will 
improve our ability to respond to a range of incidents in an efficient and 
timely way², and to do this, it stated:

- ³By preparing contingency plans to respond to terrorist attacks, natural 
disasters and other emergencies in Canada or the United States;

- By improving the coordination of military support to civilian authorities, 
when requested;

- And by better coordinating Canada-US maritime surveillance, intelligence 
sharing and threat assessments².

It further stated that, ³So in order to build linkages with civilian agencies 
and other levels of government, officials from the Office of Critical 
Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness and Foreign Affairs will 
also be working alongside military personnel².(36)

Also in 2002, in conjunction with the Bi-National Planning Group, the Northern 
Command (NORTHCOM), was created, which, ³was given responsibility for the 
continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the 
contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the 
North American coastline², and that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld boasted about 
³the introduction of NorthCom ­ with all of North America as its geographic 
command². Even NORTHCOM¹s own website states that, ³USNORTHCOM¹s AOR [area of 
operations] includes air, land and sea approaches and encompasses the 
continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico and the surrounding water out 
to approximately 500 nautical miles².(37)

Now, these agreements, put in place before the implementation or even signing of
the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, already made it 
possible for the United States military to be deployed on Canadian or Mexican 
soil in the event of or even threat of an emergency of any kind. However, since 
the SPP, of which one of its primary agendas it the total integration of the 
military structure of North America, we have come a long way. Today, in the 
threat of or event of any emergency, be it a natural disaster or terrorist 
attack, here in Canada, we will see the US military being deployed on our soil 
with the full support of the Canadian government, or should I say ³North 
American government²?

In North America, the United States is the most dominant country in the region, 
and therefore, being merged into a North American Union will hand over most of 
the control over this process with the end result being that the NAU will be 
predominantly controlled by the US elite. Even the main backers on the Canadian 
side of this are already deeply integrated with the US establishment, as a large
amount of the corporations in the Canadian Council of Chief Executives are 
merely subsidiary companies of much larger American corporations, as well as 

(http://www.ceocouncil.ca/en/about/members.php#t) And obviously, the US military
is much more advanced than that of the Canadian Forces and military structure, 
so we must examine some very important legislation and orders coming out of the 
US government, because they can, in fact, have a very large effect upon all 
people in North America, as they predominantly relate to the reactions of the US
government in the event of an emergency, and, just as we examined, in the event 
of an emergency, we will likely be under the control of the US military 

First of all, on October 17, 2006, George Bush signed the Military Commissions 
Act (H.R. 6166), which officially has the ability to designate any foreign 
citizen an ³enemy combatant², which strips them of the right to Habeas Corpus, 
which is the writ through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention
of themselves, which is vitally important to protect individual freedoms and 
liberty against arbitrary state action, such as imprisonment without trial or 
charges. Not only does this affect all non-US citizens, but, according to Bruce 
Ackerman, a Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale, who wrote an article
for the Los Angeles Times, titled ³The White House Warden‹A Commentary by Bruce 
Ackerman², in which he stated that the legislation, ³authorizes the president to
seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the 
United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial 
by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights², 
and that, ³ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a 
military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal 

Marty Lederman, a Professor of Law at Georgetown University(39), wrote an 
article about the Military Commissions Act in which he stated, ³the really 
breathtaking subsection is subsection (ii), which would provide that UEC 
[Unlawful Enemy Combatant] is defined to include any person "who, before, on, or
after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has 
been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review 
Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the 
President or the Secretary of Defense², and he continued, ³Read literally, this 
means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using 
whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is 
concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 
Œhostilities¹ at all², and that, ³This definition is not limited to Al Qaeda and
the Taliban. It's not limited to aliens -- it covers U.S. citizens as well. It's
not limited to persons captured or detained overseas. And it is not even limited
to the armed conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, authorized by Congress 
on September 18, 2001. Indeed, on the face of it, it's not even limited to a 
time of war or armed conflict; it could apply in peacetime².(40)

On the same day Bush signed the Military Commissions Act, October 17, 2006, he 
also signed another piece of legislation, titled the ³John Warner Defense 
Authorization Act, 2007², and according to US Senator Patrick Leahy, the 
Conference Report on the Defense Authorization Act ³includes language that 
subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military¹s 
involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to 
declare martial law², and that, ³it adopts some incredible changes to the 
Insurrection Act, which would give the President more authority to declare 
martial law. Let me repeat: The National Guard Empowerment Act, which is 
designed to make it more likely for the National Guard to remain in State 
control, is dropped from this conference report in favor of provisions making it
easier to usurp the Governors control and making it more likely that the 
President will take control of the Guard and the active military operating in 
the States². He continues, ³The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the 
President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law 
enforcement activities without the consent of a governor. When the Insurrection 
Act is invoked posse comitatus does not apply. Using the military for law 
enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy².(41)

On May 9, 2007, a Presidential National Security Directive was issued, the 
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20. 
This directive explains what the procedures will be for ³Continuity of 
Government² in the event of a catastrophic emergency. The Directive defines 
³Catastrophic Emergency² as, ³any incident, regardless of location, that results
in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely 
affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or 
government functions², and it defines ³Continuity of Government² as ³a 
coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure 
that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic
Emergency². In Section (6) of the Directive, it states, ³The President shall 
lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional 
government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the 
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) 
is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National 
Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for 
National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall
coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive
departments and agencies.² [Emphasis added]. The bold part is so important 
because it states how in the event of a ³catastrophic emergency² the President 
takes over all the functions of government, making the legislative and judicial 
branches of government irrelevant. Essentially, the President will become a 
dictator in the event of an emergency. Furthermore, the Directive goes on to 
say, in section (7), ³The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the 
President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and 
activities of executive departments and agencies².(42)

Why this is so relevant is because if you notice the fact that in the event of 
an emergency it is the Executive branch, headed by the President of the United 
States who will be running the entire country, and another key individual, as 
revealed by section (7), above, is the Director of Homeland Security, who 
currently is Michael Chertoff, a Security and Prosperity Minister working very 
closely with his Canadian counterpart, Stockwell Day, the Minister of Public 
Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which was a department created in 2003, 
incidentally, the same year that the Homeland Security Department was created. 
And it is the Executive branch of government, which signed and has been 
advancing the goals and agenda of the SPP into forming the North American Union.
So, in the event of a ³catastrophic emergency², the people that are the main 
individuals responsible for implementing the SPP agreement will be giving 
extraordinary and unprecedented power, in fact, the power of a dictatorship.

Not only that, but Peter DeFazio, a member of the US House Homeland Security 
Committee, as reported in the Oregonian newspaper, was hounded by phone calls to
his office as Oregon citizens ³worried there was a conspiracy buried in the 
classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a 
terrorist attack². The article continued, ³As a member of the U.S. House on the 
Homeland Security Committee, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure 
"bubbleroom" in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the 
White House to see the secret documents. On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: 
DENIED,² and it further stated, ³Bush administration spokesman Trey Bohn 
declined to say why DeFazio was denied access: ŒWe do not comment through the 
press on the process that this access entails. It is important to keep in mind 
that much of the information related to the continuity of government is highly 
sensitive¹.² The article ended with a quote from DeFazio, stating, ³Maybe the 
people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right².(43) Another clear 
indication that Congress, the Legislative branch, has no authority when it comes
to an emergency.

On July 17, 2007, George Bush issued an Executive Order titled, ³Blocking 
Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq², in 
which it is stated that, ³all property and interests in property of the 
following persons ( . . .) are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, 
exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the 
Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the 
Secretary of Defense,

(1) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or 
acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform 
in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people².(44)

[Emphasis added]

Essentially, what this means, as pointed out by University of Ottawa Professor 
of Economics, Michel Chossudovsky, ³The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar

Robert Pastor, one of the main architects of the North American Union/SPP, who 
is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, on the board of the North 
American Forum on Integration (mock North American Parliament), and was a Vice 
Chair of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, which wrote 
up the ³Building a North American Community² document, and who also wrote the 
book, ³Toward a North American Community², has stated in an interview with a 
Spanish-language magazine, Poder y Negocios, that, ³The 9/11 crisis made Canada 
and the United States redefine the protection of their borders², and he 
continued, ³What I'm saying is that a crisis is an event which can force 
democratic governments to make difficult decisions like those that will be 
required to create a North American Community², and then he stated, ³It's not 
that I want another 9/11 crisis, but having a crisis would force decisions that 
otherwise might not get made².(46)

This is why it is fundamental to understand the relationship between the North 
American Union and a ³Catastrophic Emergency². As well as this, there are deeply
concerning developments, such as the fact that on January 24, 2006, the 
Department of Homeland Security, headed by SPP Minister Michael Chertoff who 
would also help run the government in the event of an emergency, gave out a 
contract worth $385 million dollars to a subsidiary of the Halliburton 
Corporation, KBR, (Kellogg, Brown and Root), an engineering and construction 
firm, and has, according to the press release on Halliburton¹s website, ³been 
awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support 
the Department of Homeland Security¹s (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency², and further states, 
³the competitively awarded contract will be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, Fort Worth District. KBR held the previous ICE contract from 2000 
through 2005². It continues, ³The contract, which is effective immediately, 
provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to 
augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities 
in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support 
the rapid development of new programs.² [Emphasis added]. And it also states, 
³The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. 
Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as 
the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural 
disaster. In the event of a natural disaster, the contractor could be tasked 
with providing housing for ICE personnel performing law enforcement functions in
support of relief efforts².(47)

As renowned author and UC Berkley Professor Peter Dale Scott pointed out in an 
article he wrote titled, ³Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention 
Camps², he stated, ³For those who follow covert government operations abroad and
at home, the contract evoked ominous memories of Oliver North's controversial 
Rex-84 "readiness exercise" in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary "refugees," in
the context of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into 
the United States. North's activities raised civil liberties concerns in both 
Congress and the Justice Department. The concerns persist.² Scott continues, 
quoting another official, ³¹Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup 
after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters,¹ says 
Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon 
Papers, the U.S. military's account of its activities in Vietnam. ŒThey've 
already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions
of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo¹.²(48)

Later this month, on August 20 ­ 21, 2007, the leaders of our three countries 
are again meeting to convene the third annual SPP Leaders Summit, where they 
will be accompanied by the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), in 
Montebello, Quebec. The Council of Canadians, a grassroots organization in 
Canada, which opposes the SPP was scheduled to hold a public forum discussing 
the dangers of the SPP, however, ³The Municipality of Papineauville, which is 
about six kilometres from Montebello, has informed the Council of Canadians that
the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec (SQ) and the U.S. Army will not allow the 
municipality to rent the Centre Communautaire de Papineauville for a public 
forum on Sunday August 19, on the eve of the so-called Security and Prosperity 
Partnership Leaders Summit,² and the Council of Canadians¹ press release further
stated, ³It is deplorable that we are being prevented from bringing together a 
panel of writers, academics and parliamentarians to share their concerns about 
the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canadians², and that, ³Meanwhile, 
six kilometres away, corporate leaders from the United States, Mexico and Canada
will have unimpeded access to our political leaders². On top of this, ³As well 
as being shut out of Papineauville, the Council of Canadians has been told that 
the RCMP and the SQ will be enforcing a 25-kilometre security perimeter around 
the Chateau Montebello, where Stephen Harper will meet with George W. Bush and 
Felipe Calderón on August 20 and 21. According to officials in Montebello, there
will be checkpoints at Thurso and Hawkesbury, and vehicles carrying more than 
five people will be turned back.²(49)

Here, we have a clear example of the dangers of the SPP, as already we are so 
far along that the US military has jurisdiction to tell Canadians where we can 
and cannot go in our own country. Not only that, but our so-called Democratic 
leaders are hiding from citizens behind a 25km (18mile) security perimeter where
they are advised by giant corporations. Yes, that is freedom, that is democracy,
that is transparency and above all, reassuring. It is now painfully clear that 
our so-called ³representatives² do not work in the interests of the people they 
are supposed to represent, but rather work for the interests of giant 
corporations who seek to have total control. I hope everyone joins in a national
and perhaps continental day of action on August 20, 2007, to peacefully protest 
the treasonous agenda being pursued by the North American political, military 
and corporate elite, who seek ³Security² for themselves from free, democratic 
and constitutional societies, and ³Prosperity² for their select clique of giant 
corporations over the prosperity of people, life and liberty.

In their main goal being to ³integrate² North America, and all people within it,
they will feel the backlash of some unintended consequences, such as, ironically
enough, uniting all North Americans together . . . in opposition to them and 
their elitist agenda.

Mahatma Gandhi, the man who led India to independence from the tyrannical 
British Empire, once said:

³When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love 
have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can
seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it . . . always².


1. Canadian Council of Chief Executives. ³North American Security and 


2. Canadian Council of Chief Executives. ³Paul Martin Urged to Take the Lead in 
Forging a New Vision for North American Cooperation².

North American Security and Prosperity: November 5, 2003

3. Canadian Council of Chief Executives. ³Trinational Call for a North American 
Economic and Security Community by 2010².

North American Security and Prosperity: March 14, 2005.

4. Pastor, Robert. ³Toward a North American Community: Lessons from the Old 
World for the New².

Peterson Institute: August 2001.

/ref=sr_1_1/701-6243606-4376334?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid =1186359143&sr=8-1

5. Grubel, Herbert. ³The Case for the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a 
North American Monetary Union².

Fraser Institute: September 1999.
6. McKenna, Barrie. ³Dodge says single currency 'possible'².
The Globe and Mail: May 21, 2007.


7. Ibid. 

8. Dodge, David. ³Economic Integration in North America².
The Bank of Canada, Publications and Research: August 7, 2003.
9. CBC News. ³Cop wins RCMP settlement after highway search².
January 28, 2005:

10. CBC News. ³U.S. investigations on Canadian soil done within the law: Day².

Thursday, October 5, 2006:

11. White House. ³Joint Statement by President Bush, President Fox, and Prime 
Minister Martin². Office of the Press Secretary: March 23, 2005.


12. John Manley, Pedro Aspe, William Weld. ³Building a North American 

The Council on Foreign Relations: May 2005.
13. Ibid. Pages 52-59.

14. SPP. ³Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: Report to 

June 2005: http://spp.gov/report_to_leaders/index.asp?dName=report_to_leaders

15. North American Forum on Integration. ³Triumvirate: the only North American 
Parliament²: http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/fina/presentation.asp?count=eng

16. NAFI. ³Triumvirate 2006². 

17. NAFI. ³Our Board of Directors².
18. SPP.gov. ³2006 Leaders Summit².

19. Government of Canada: SPP. ³Security and Prosperity Partnership of North 
America Report to Leaders August 2006².


20. CTV.ca News Staff. ³Opposition anti-U.S. on softwood, Emerson says².

August 31, 2006: 

21. Foreign Affairs and International Trade. ³Ministers and Parliamentary 


22. US Chamber of Commerce. ³North American Competitiveness Council (NACC)².

February 2007: http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/international/nacc.htm

23. Government of Canada: SPP. ³SPP Reports².
24. Government of Canada: SPP. ³Security Priorities².
25. CBC News. ³Critics alarmed by Canada's no-fly list².

June 18, 2007: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/06/18/no-fly-list.html 

26. Patterson, Kelly. ³Canada raising limits on pesticide residues².
The Montreal Gazette: May 8, 2007.


27. Judicial Watch. ³Judicial Watch Releases Pentagon Records from ŒNorth 
American Forum¹ Meetings²: January 29, 2007: 

28. Ibid. ³Bolton Agenda and Notes². Pages 13-29.
29. Ibid. Page 5.
30. Ibid. Page 9.

31. CCCE. ³Enhancing Competitiveness in Canada, Mexico, and the United States ­ 
Initial Recommendations of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC)².

Publications: Presentations and Reports: February 23, 2007.
32. Patterson, Kelly. ³Tory chair storms out of SPP hearing².

Ottawa Citizen: May 11, 2007: 

33. Canadian Action Party. ³Globalization - Reject the North American Union 

Policies ­ Sovereignty: 

34. JBS. ³Update on the Status of the Anti-NAU Resolutions in 19 State 

35. JBS. ³In an Historic Vote, Congress Moves to Limit SPP Funding².

36. Canadian National Defence. ³Minister of National Defence Speaking Notes².

December 9, 2002: http://www.cnos.forces.gc.ca/BPG/mndSpkngNotes_e.asp

37. Lagassé, Philippe. ³NORAD, NorthCom, and the Binational Planning Group:

The Evolution of Canada­US Defence Relations ­ Part 1².
CASR: July 2003: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

38. Ackerman, Bruce. ³The White House Warden‹A Commentary by Bruce Ackerman².

Los Angeles Times: September 28, 2006: http://www.law.yale.edu/news/3531.htm

39. Georgetown Law. ³Martin S. Lederman².


40. Lederman, Marty. ³Imagine Giving Donald Rumsfeld Unbounded Discretion to 
Detain You Indefinitely²: September 27, 2006.


41. Leahy, Patrick. ³Remarks Of Sen. Patrick Leahy: National Defense 
Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007²: September 29, 2006.


42. The White House. ³National Security and Homeland Security Presidential 

Office of the Press Secretary: May 9, 2007.
43. Kosseff, Jeff. ³DeFazio asks, but he's denied access².
The Oregonian: July 20, 2007.


44. The White House. ³Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who 
Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq²: July 17, 2007.


45. Chossudovsky, Michel. ³Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar 

Global Research: July 20, 2007.

46. Corsi, Jerome. ³North American Union leader says merger just crisis away².

World Net Daily: December 15, 2006.


2006 Press Releases: January 24, 2006.


48. Scott, Peter Dale. ³Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention 

Pacific News Service: February 8, 2006.


49. Council of Canadians. ³RCMP, U.S. Army block public forum on the Security 
and Prosperity Partnership²: Media Release: July 11, 2007.


Posting archives: 
historical: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?lists=newslog
recent:  http://groups.google.com/group/newslog/topics

Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org

How We the People can change the world:

Community Democracy Framework: 

Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)