Even worse, wouldn’t this lead to liberalization and collaborative policy making in many other sensitive areas, from monetary policy and immigration to labor and environmental law?
NAFTA’s defenders said no. They argued that the agreement is designed to dismantle tariff barriers, not build a new regulatory bureaucracy.
...
Yet the critics were essentially right. NAFTA lays the foundation for a continental common market, as many of its architects privately acknowledge. Part of this foundation, inevitably, is bureaucratic: The agreement creates a variety of continental institutions — ranging from trade dispute panels to labor and environmental commissions — that are, in aggregate, an embryonic NAFTA government.
NAFTA promoter Henry Kissinger, a key member of America’s foreign-policy establishment, also acknowledged during the 1993 NAFTA debate that NAFTA would be far more significant than just another trade agreement. “It [NAFTA] will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere,” the former secretary of state enthused in a column appearing in the Los Angeles Times for July 18, 1993. “[NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system.”
On November 29, 1993, nine days after the U.S. Senate passed the NAFTA implementation legislation, completing congressional action, National Security Adviser Anthony Lake sent a memo to President Clinton stating: “Hemispheric institutions, including the OAS [Organization of American States] and Inter-American Development Bank and now the NAFTA institutions, can be forged into the vital mechanisms of hemispheric governance.” This internationalist perspective is particularly infuriating when one realizes that Lake, in his role as national security adviser, should have been telling the president how to keep our nation independent, not how to submerge our nation in hemispheric governance.
End Goal
The record of the last 14 years shows that numerous elitists have been trying to move us in the direction described by Orme, Kissinger, and Lake. The Republican president now residing in the White House has been a willing partner in the drive to create a merger, as was his Democratic predecessor. If these individuals achieve their goal, not just jobs but the independence of our great country and even our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms will be lost. Yet the very fact that they have had to proceed slowly and stealthily, and have experienced setbacks such as the stalled FTAA agreement, shows that the unfolding NAFTA-NAU process can be exposed and reversed.
http://www.thenewam
--
Under NAFTA and the SPP, the rule of law — including our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights — is being replaced with arbitrary rule by unaccountable elitists.
The North American Free Trade Agreement was intended from the beginning to be the foundational framework for a future North American Union.
“Free trade” agreements are composed of large numbers of all-encompassing regulations. Do such tight controls really make trade “free,” and are they in America’s best interests?
U.S. policy already gives foreign competitors almost every advantage in trade, yet our government is working hard to make shipping foreign imports cheaper than ever before.
Internationalists argue that global risks require global governance. In reality, global risks are best managed by independent nations.
If America adopted a single currency (e.g., the “amero”) with Canada and Mexico, we would no longer control our own monetary policy.
NAFTA promised to raise wages and living conditions in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, yet the middle class in these countries is getting poorer while the rich get richer.
There are significant signs that an aroused and knowledgeable populace can defeat efforts to merge the United States with Canada and Mexico.
A coalition of groups warns that President Bush’s Security and Prosperity Partnership will lead to a merger of the United States, Mexico, and Canada, but Bush claims that the pact is not threatening. Who is being truthful?
The business and political elitists who are guiding this transformation have even admitted that they won’t be content with achieving regional governance, but that their end goal is global governance. In 1995, another of America’s veteran promoters of country-by-country merger spoke at a forum arranged by the Gorbachev Foundation. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the primary architect of David Rockefeller’s globalist Trilateral Commission, told the gathering, “We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.”
Led by President Bush and his top internationalist teammates, the globalists promoting these attacks on our nation’s independence are proceeding without even notifying Congress. No one in either the House or the Senate should stand for such arrogance and destructiveness. Whether Democrat or Republican, all who serve in Congress must be alerted about these plans. Nothing less than the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the freedom of the American people are at stake.
Merger in the Making
Special Report
Immigrants have long come to America to live “the American dream.” Now, that dream is becoming more difficult to attain. To reinvigorate America, we must understand the problem.
A coalition of groups warns that President Bush’s Security and Prosperity Partnership will lead to a merger of the United States, Mexico, and Canada, but Bush claims that the pact is not threatening. Who is being truthful?
Special Report
Under NAFTA and the SPP, the rule of law — including our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights — is being replaced with arbitrary rule by unaccountable elitists.
The North American Free Trade Agreement was intended from the beginning to be the foundational framework for a future North American Union.
“Free trade” agreements are composed of large numbers of all-encompassing regulations. Do such tight controls really make trade “free,” and are they in America’s best interests?
U.S. policy already gives foreign competitors almost every advantage in trade, yet our government is working hard to make shipping foreign imports cheaper than ever before.
Internationalists argue that global risks require global governance. In reality, global risks are best managed by independent nations.
If America adopted a single currency (e.g., the “amero”) with Canada and Mexico, we would no longer control our own monetary policy.
NAFTA promised to raise wages and living conditions in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, yet the middle class in these countries is getting poorer while the rich get richer.
There are significant signs that an aroused and knowledgeable populace can defeat efforts to merge the United States with Canada and Mexico.
http://www.thenewam
==============
==== don't try to join Rapture Imminent Group-can't get new members in!
http://groups.msn.com/RaptureImminent/messages.msnw
http://groups.msn.com/RaptureImminent/general.msnw?action=get_threads&Dir=0&ID_Last=255
http://groups.msn.com/RaptureImminent/general.msnw?action=get_threads&Dir=0&ID_Last=96
Offline 
Send Email