Wednesday, January 10, 2007

North American Union Isn't Going Away

by Jerome R. Corsi

Posted Jan 09, 2007

Michael Medved has now published a second tirade on the issue of North American integration, this time attacking both Joseph Farah and me by name. John Hawkins has also responded briefly on his blog, taking the opportunity to issue yet another ad hominem attack, this time calling me “crazy.” Neither gentleman has yet responded to the substantive arguments or evidence that many of us have produced, demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that North American integration is proceeding full speed ahead in the Bush Administration.Maybe Medved and Hawkins should include the Wall Street Journal in their list of those at whom they cast a flurry of personal abuse and invective. As early as July 2, 2001, Robert L. Bartley, then-editor of the Wall Street Journal, directly supported the idea of creating a North American Union in no uncertain terms, writing an editorial titled, “Open Nafta Borders? Why Not.” Bartley wrote:
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.Michael Medved wrote, “If the plans for a North American Union are coming from forces on the left as marginal as the fringies on the right who worry about such schemes, then there is, indeed, no reason for fear.” Perhaps Medved will want to revise this claim in view of the Wall Street Journal quotation his evidently deficient research failed to uncover.Bartlet’s Wall Street Journal editorial also tied his vision of a European Union evolving out of NAFTA with his endorsement of an amnesty combined with what today we would call a “pathway to citizenship.” His editorial continued, “North of the border, the solution to the problem of illegal immigration is to make it legal, or at least to normalize the movement of people.” Consistently, I have argued that President Bush’s refusal to secure our borders stems from his agreement on March 23, 2005, in Waco, Tex., to enter the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Phyllis Schlafly has written an important piece noting that President Bush at Christmas 2006 pardoned 16 criminals, including five drug dealers. Yet, he has refused to pardon Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who were prosecuted under a law intended to punish drug dealers because they attempted to stop at the Mexican border a van carrying 743 pounds of marijuana.Do Medved and Hawkins support an open border policy? Do Medved and Hawkins support a guest worker program, even if the new law amounts to an amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens already in the United States? Possibly, we can get Medved and Hawkins to answer these questions directly.Medved and Hawkins make much of arguing that American University professor Robert Pastor has specifically gone on the record saying he does not support the creation of a North American Union. Yet, this is only part of the story. I have consistently pointed out that even Jean Monnet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, acknowledged in his memoirs that he intentionally used a stealth methodology to advance his regional government goals. I have referenced an important book by Christopher Booker and Richard North, “The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union,” that presents a careful and exhaustive study of the intentional deception used by proponents to create the European Union. Medved and Hawkins refuse to respond to these points.The EU emerged from an initial coal and steal agreement through an incremental process. Then the 1957 Treaty of Rome created a European Common Market. From this, a European Community emerged. In 1991 at a meeting in the Dutch town of Maastrich, the European leaders drafted a new treaty revising the Treaty of Rome by replacing the European Common Market with a full-fledged European Union regional government. In 1999, 11 European countries decided to phase out their currencies in favor of the Euro by 2002. Those of us writing out against a North American Union and the Amero want to make sure the United States does not go through the same stealth process, a methodology even the editor of the Wall Street Journal endorsed in 2001. I have already advanced from NAFTA to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. What’s next? Medved and Hawkins are typically non-responsive to these points.Pastor’s objections to a North American Union are strictly pragmatic. Pastor has repeatedly called for the next stage to be what he calls the “North American Community.” Pastor wants to put in place a series of institutional structures, including his North American Development Fund,” all resulting in greater North American economic and political integration, such that we all begin to think like “North Americans” rather than citizens of the U.S. Canada, and Mexico. I interviewed Pastor by telephone on Dec. 13, 2006, after Pastor gave an interview in Spanish to the magazine Poder y Negocios. In that magazine interview, Pastor had argued in Spanish that a new 9/11 crisis might be needed to further North American integration. Pastor also expressed frustration that the lame-duck nature of the Bush Administration, the minority government in Canada, and the challenge from the left to Mexico’s new president, Felipe Calderón, were blocking the three governments from moving toward integration fast enough. With Pastor’s permission, I recorded my interview with him. I am going to reproduce here from the transcript a relevant segment of my interview with Pastor, in which I asked him a number of questions to determine if his objection to a North American Union was on pragmatic grounds.
A lot of what you argue is incremental. First, for instance, we have NAFTA, then the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America which is in place right now. You have called the Council on Foreign Relations task force report entitled, Building a North American Community, a blue print for SPP. Now, you are advocating a next stage, which you call a North American Community. That sounds like an incremental advancement on North American integration, which, absent a crisis, is what you are recommending.PASTOR: Yes. What I am recommending is a series of functional steps. You could call them incremental, although I think they are a little bit more than incremental. Each of the proposals that I have laid out do represent more than just small steps. But it doesn’t represent the leap toward a North American Union, or even to some confederation of any kind. I’m not representing that. I don’t think either is plausible, necessary, or even helpful to contemplate at this stage.But, I want to concentrate on that, what you just said, “at this stage.” In your book Toward a North American Community you lay out three or four different ways that economic integration could lead to political integration, and there, as in this interview, you reject them. But your rejection is largely on pragmatic grounds, which could be summarized as “the countries aren’t ready yet.” It doesn’t sound like your saying that a political union is an inherently bad idea.PASTOR: Oh, I don’t think a political union is an inherently bad idea. Nor do I think it is a good idea for North America right now.Again, “right now” is the key part of that statement.PASTOR: I teach a course at American University in which I look at the different options and I put them before the students. The reason it is not a good idea at this state, perhaps ever, is because of people like yourself who begin to fear that their sense of America could disappear and therefore they become resistant to ideas that are as simple as obvious to me as creating transportation corridors between the three countries that trade more with each other by land than with any other countries in the world. To me that seems just straightforward. But if you’re fearful that somehow America’s sovereignty will disappear even if you just take these small steps forward, then you don’t do anything. Then you’re just mired in the status quo. Actually you’re not in the status quo, because in this world which is moving very rapidly you can’t stay competitive if you don’t move.We probably have some disagreements beyond fear. I might believe that the structure of laws we have in place in the United States is superior to what a regional configuration would be, even as demonstrated in Europe. That would be a separate argument than fear.PASTOR: That’s fair enough. I’ve just laid out one possible motive, I think there are others. And I think there are on each of these issues questions that I think should be on the agenda for discussion among the three publics. There are legitimate arguments on both sides.So, Pastor acknowledges that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the North American integration debate and, contrary to Medved and Hawkins, Pastor was not abusive simply because I disagree with him. When asked specifically if he would say that a North American Union formed as a regional political government was an inherently bad idea, Pastor declined to do so. Moreover, Pastor admitted in the telephone interview that a main reason he rejects the idea of a North American Union right now is because of the opposition I have launched, based on my desire to preserve and protect U.S. sovereignty. One suspects Pastor would have preceded full speed ahead with full political integration of North America, if he had not encountered our strong resistance. Pastor is a globalist. Later in the interview Pastor said, “Globalization is a net plus for the world economy, for the middle class, and for all people.”Medved and Hawkins make much of the argument that Pastor’s views are not influential upon public policy because Pastor, an adviser to John Kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign, is not part of the Bush Administration. Nor is Pastor affiliated with any Bush Administration official at a top policy-making level. Yet, during the Carter Administration, Pastor served on the National Security Council, where he played a major role in the decision to hand the Panama Canal over to Panama via a treaty that Pastor helped negotiate. Had John Kerry won the 2004 presidential election, Pastor may have emerged once again with an influential policy job in the administration.Besides, do Medved and Hawkins seriously want to argue that academic arguments have no influence upon the formation of public policy? Pastor was a co-chair of the task force that authored the Council on Foreign Relations task force report titled, “Building a North American Community.” In his career, Pastor has alternated between government and academic positions, while continuing to serve non-governmental organizations such as the North American Forum on Integration, where Pastor currently serves on the board of directors. Pastor now has spent over a decade advancing his ideas about how North American integration should advance, in academics, in government, and as a key player in well-positioned non-government organizations that seek to impact public policy. So, let me ask once again, what exactly do Medved and Hawkins find annoying—that a NAU and the Amero could be the end result of the North American integration currently happening, or that I might suggest the Bush Administration could be following the Jean Monnet path intentionally? Again, gentlemen, we would appreciate a direct answer to the question.Medved clearly seems most concerned that no one should criticize Bush, especially now that the 110th Congress has begun under Democratic control. Somehow appointing himself as a cheerleader for the conservative movement, Medved argues that we need “a united Republican Party and a re-energized conservative movement that isn’t distracted and paralyzed by non-existent threats concerning non-existent plans to terminate the independent survival of the United States.”Yet, while Medved has gyrated hysterically, he has evidently not taken up the challenge to study and discuss calmly the many issues I have raised concerning government websites and other public documentation. Does Medved simply dismiss the Department of Commerce website that documents the trilateral working group activity proceeding under SPP? Has Medved ever looked at the Texas Department of Transportation website that documents the 4,000 miles of Trans-Texas Corridor super highways that TxDOT aims to build over the next 50 years with financing from Cintra, the investment consortium from Spain? Nor do I agree that Republican Party unity is either a necessary or a sufficient condition to obtaining a re-energized conservative movement. Resisting Bush on immigration might do far more to re-energizing the conservative movement than blind adherence to the immigration policies the Bush administration has advanced. Unfortunately, as the term RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) suggests, being Republican today is not by definition equivalent with being conservative. In the final analysis are Medved and Hawkins basically just Republican Party apologists?Perhaps Medved has opposed Democrats on the radio so long that he considers it his responsibility to keep Republicans in office at any cost. I disagree. One of the main reasons much of the conservative movement has parted ways with the Bush Administration over the past two years is because of Bush’s determination to pursue guest-worker amnesty legislation rather than to secure our borders. No matter how much cheerleading Medved does, much of the conservative movement will oppose Bush strongly once again if the administration moves in the 110th Congress to push a “comprehensive immigration reform” bill such as S. 2611, the immigration bill co-sponsored by Senators Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and John McCain (R.-Ariz.). Regardless of how much Medved attacks me, many conservatives are preparing right now to oppose Bush if the administration goes down an open-borders path that many conservatives, as well as the U.S. public, have already soundly rejected. But character assassination seems to be Medved’s preferred methodology. Somewhat surprisingly, Medved has returned to mine the ground of my old Free Republic comments. Medved, who appears to have a deficiency in his ability to do solid research, may not realize that I have repudiated those comments and apologized for them long ago. As I have explained many times, the statements on Free Republic were written to be sarcastic, some of them to be ironic, others just to be provocative. The comments, as Medved presents them, are totally out of context and not reflective of my true views. On the subject of what I truly believe, I am the final authority. Let me again state for the record that my history of working to support the state of Israel attests to my true affection for the Jewish people worldwide. Nor am I anti-Catholic, since the truth is that I was born and raised in the Catholic faith, and I plan to die a Catholic as well.Medved and Hawkins obviously want the argument about North American integration to go away. Unfortunately, their main tactics to date have been to engage in an unrelenting campaign of invective and sophomoric name-calling, tactics which in truth more disgraces them than those of us against whom their vituperation is aimed. Still, I want to thank once again Medved and Hawkins for the continuing attention they are drawing to my arguments and the issue of North American integration. Somehow, Medved, an author himself, seems to object that I might make an economic living by writing. Until now, I had always assumed Medved was a capitalist, seeing how strongly he protests that he is now a conservative. Maybe that is another assumption about Medved that I will have to reconsider. At any rate, Medved should be aware that his histrionics do more to sell books for me, regardless whether Medved ever deigns to afford me the dubious honor of appearing on his radio show, or not. Far from being indignant, as Medved mistakenly assumes I am, the truth is that I am actually currently appreciative of the controversy. Medved should be advised, however, that appreciation and tolerance from those of us he is determined to malign may not be unlimited, as Columbia University may soon have the opportunity to discover.
Copyright © 2007 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Hamas: We'll obtain U.S. money

read this and "Al Qaeda a Kremlin Proxy? " below and find our foreign aid (who knew!) is going directly into terrorist and Communist hands...

Washington providing $86.4 million to bolster Abbas security forces
Posted: January 8, 200712:33 p.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein© 2007
JERUSALEM – A portion of $86.4 million in aid the United States pledged last week to bolster security forces affiliated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party will fall into the hands of the Hamas terror group, Hamas officials told WND.
Also, a leader of the Popular Resistance Committees, a terror group allied with Hamas, told WND his organization is planning attacks against Israel using weapons recently transferred to Fatah by the U.S. and Egypt.
The Popular Resistance Committees leader said attacks using the foreign weapons are meant "to prove the Zionist-American conspiracy to bolster forces against us won't work."
"We will obtain the U.S. weapons," the Committees leader said.
(Story continues below)
According to documents revealed Friday, the Bush administration will provide $86.4 million to strengthen security forces loyal to Abbas, including Force 17, Abbas' security detail, which also serves as de facto police units in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Some members of Force 17 also are openly members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization, Fatah's declared "military wing."
U.S. officials confirmed the financial aid is set to be transferred to Fatah.
The multi-million-dollar grant will be used to "assist the Palestinian Authority presidency in fulfilling PA commitments under the Road Map (peace plan) to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza," a U.S. government document said.
According to reports confirmed by Israeli and Palestinian officials, the U.S. and Egypt recently transferred rifles and ammunition to Force 17.
Abu Oubaida, a spokesman for Hamas so-called "military wing," told WND his terror group will obtain any weapons transferred to Fatah militias or purchased by Fatah using the incoming U.S. aid.
"I am sure that like in the past, this $86 million from America will find its way to the Hamas resistance via the honorable persons in the Fatah security organizations, including in Force 17. I can confirm 100 percent that this money and purchased weapons will find its way to Hamas," said Abu Oubaida.
The Hamas spokesman and other Hamas officials said "scores" of Fatah militants have switched over to Hamas in recent months.
Sources close to Hamas said the Fatah militants, including members of Force 17, worked with Hamas after receiving larger paychecks from the terror group.
"When they join Hamas, they bring along their new weapons," said a Hamas source.
A senior Fatah security official in the Gaza Strip, speaking on condition his name be withheld, confirmed to WND Fatah has a "significant problem" of its militia members in Gaza joining Hamas.
In an interview with WND, Muhammad Abdel-Al, a spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, said his terror group would likely obtain weapons and aid given to Fatah.
"We vow to show the Israelis very soon the weapons lately channeled to the Presidential Guards (Force 17) and to the Fatah security services will be directed against the (Israeli) occupation," said Abdel-Al
"In all the security services, including in Force 17, there are activists affiliated with all the Palestinian groups, including ours, and Hamas," he said. "We vow that there will be no use (of these arms) in a civil war, as we promise that should these arms reach us, we will use them against the occupation and the Zionist enemy."
The Popular Resistance Committees is a coalition of several Palestinian terror groups and is responsible for scores of anti-Israel shootings and rocket attacks. The Committees is also accused of carrying out a bombing in 2003 on a U.S. convoy in Gaza in which three American contractors were killed.
A Committees leader told WND his group is planning terror attacks using American and Egyptian weapons recently transferred to Fatah and obtained by the Committees.
He said when the attacks occur, the Committees will announce the foreign weapons were used.
The reports of U.S. aid to Fatah comes after weeks of factional clashes between Fatah and Hamas, which have engaged in heavy firefights since Abbas last month called for new Palestinian elections in a move widely seen as an attempt to dismantle the Hamas-led PA.
According to reports here confirmed by Israel, Egypt last month transferred 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 20,000 magazines and 2 million rounds of ammunition to Fatah security organizations in the Gaza Strip to bolster the groups in clashes against rival Hamas factions.
WND reported the U.S. sent assault rifles and ammunition last month to Fatah groups in Gaza. The weapons were delivered by an Israeli army convoy, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials involved in the transfer.
Also in May, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced Israel aided in delivering a shipment of U.S. weapons to Fatah.
Abu Yousuf, a senior member of Fatah's Force 17, which received the Egyptian and American weapons, told WND the arms shipments will be used to attack Jews and "fight Israeli occupation."
Like many Force 17 members, Abu Yousuf, openly serves in the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group.
"These weapons will be used to fight Israeli occupation forces, especially to defend against Zionist aggression in the Gaza Strip," said Abu Yousuf.
The Fatah militant accused Egypt and the U.S. of attempting to generate Palestinian civil war by arming one faction against another.
Abu Yousuf went on to hint new weapons provided to his group with the help of Israel could be shared with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization.
"During our official service and during our job hours we are soldiers (in Force 17). What we do in our free time it is our business. Of course, as members of Fatah, some of us are members in the Brigades and we take part in the defense and protection of our people and in the fight against the Israeli occupation," Abu Yousuf said.
Both Israel and the U.S. State Department consider the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to be a terror organization. But U.S. policy calls Fatah "moderate" and dictates the Brigades is a separate entity, but still affiliated with Fatah.
The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, together with Islamic Jihad, has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis. The Brigades also has carried out scores of deadly shooting and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians in recent months.
All Brigades leaders are also members of Fatah. Abbas last June appointed senior Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leader Mahmoud Damra as commander of Force 17. Damra, who was arrested by Israel in November, was on the Jewish state's most-wanted list of terrorists.
U.S. weapons prompting Palestinian arms race?
Meanwhile, Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' so-called military wing, told WND the U.S. aid and weapons shipments have prompted a Palestinian arms race.
The Hamas leader said weapons procured as a result of the U.S. shipment will be used against Israel.
"The more the Americans give Abu Mazen (Abbas) weapons, the more we will have in the future weapons to use against the Israelis, because it incites the different organizations to intensify their own supply of weapons," said Abu Abdullah of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department.
According to Palestinian security sources, the increased drive by Hamas to obtain new weapons has raised the price of arms in Egypt and Jordan.
"An M-16 that sold for 6,000 Jordanian Dinar now is worth 10,000 Dinar because Hamas is trying to get more weapons," a Palestinian security source told WND.
Like Hamas spokesman Abu Oubaida, Hamas' Abu Abdullah said U.S. weapons to Fatah would eventually fall into the hands of Hamas:
"These American weapons will be one day the property of all the Palestinian people and its resistance, including Hamas," Abu Abdullah said. "The U.S. gives weapons to Fatah during internal Palestinian clashes, but one day when we go back to carrying out operations together, these [weapons] will be shared."

President Bush Continues To Push America Toward A Police State

some notes in article as well on "singing statements"

by Chuck Baldwin January 9, 2007
President George W. Bush's brand of conservatism is something completely foreign to traditional norms. He has outspent even the most liberal administrations. He has led the nation into undeclared foreign wars under false pretenses. He has bloated the size and scope of the federal government like no president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. He has consistently promoted "civil unions" for homosexuals. He has increased federal funding for abortion providers at home and abroad. In addition, over the objections of a Republican-controlled Congress, Bush even supported the Clinton gun ban.
However, it is President Bush's preoccupation with turning America into a total surveillance society that separates his administration from any and all others. Before this administration, no conservative president had endorsed the concept of turning the United States into the fulfillment of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, but that is exactly what G.W. Bush is attempting to do.
Under the rubric of fighting terrorism, President Bush has done more to strip the American people of constitutionally-protected freedoms than any administration since Abraham Lincoln. The latest example of Bush's tyrannical tendencies comes in the form of his most recent "signing statement." And please understand that President Bush has issued more "signing statements" than any president in history. In fact, before President Reagan, there was a total of only 75 "signing statements" by all previous administrations. Then, Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton issued 247 "signing statements" combined. So far, President George W. Bush has issued 147 "signing statements" that have challenged constitutional restrictions (upon him) to more than 750 statutes. (Source: The Boston Globe)
After signing a postal reform bill called H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act," President Bush issued a "signing statement" that declared his (Bush's) right to open the private mail of American citizens without a judge's warrant.
According to the New York Daily News, "That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it."
The News continues by saying, "Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.
"'The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming,' said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington."
Furthermore, a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim said, "You have to be concerned. It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."
President Bush's decision to grant himself the power to open private mail without a warrant is similar to what he has done in the recent past. Remember that Bush recently said he had the authority to perform warrantless eavesdropping on the American people.
A total surveillance society is something that Americans heretofore understood to be completely contrary to the principles of liberty. Such a society was reserved for Marxist or Nazi regimes, and was repugnant to all true Americans. No More. President Bush has taken the concept of a surveillance society into the mainstream of America's public life and culture. Sadder still is the fact that there is only a handful of people that seem worried about it, and none of these are conservative Christian leaders.
Since G.W. Bush became president, the American people have lost their Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendment protections. Their phone calls, emails, and even private discussions can be (and are) monitored by federal police agencies without court order. Beyond that, virtually all of their major banking transactions are constantly monitored, as well as their travel and shopping activities.
The Republican Party has demonstrated that it has no inclination to oppose Bush's New World Order, that is for sure. For one thing, the GOP always was, and still is, the party of Big Business. And just who do you think is getting all the high-dollar federal contracts to do all this national snooping? You bet. The GOP's Big Business buddies.
The national conservative Christian leaders have likewise demonstrated a total disregard for Bush's push for an Orwellian society. After all, they have been too busy enjoying the perks and benefits of sitting at the king's table. Plus, they don't have to worry about being the target of Bush's secret police stings. They are part of the "inner circle," don't you know?
That brings it down to the Democrats. What will Nancy Pelosi and company do to slow down this emerging police state juggernaut? Probably not much. She has made reference to the need to restore constitutional safeguards to Washington politics. But we have heard that kind of talk before, haven't we? The track record of the Democratic Party is hardly reassuring. After all, this is the same bunch that took delight in trashing the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In the end, it always comes down to "we the people." Until America's local pastors, local sheriffs, local and state elected officers, and local and state judges begin standing up to this out-of-control federal monstrosity, the slippery slide into fascism will continue. Aw, shucks! I just remembered that most of those people are also on the federal take. Therefore, a return to traditional conservatism is just about out of the question.
Then again, we could do something revolutionary, such as casting aside both major political parties, and start supporting true constitutionalists for a real change in America. The skeleton for such a movement already exists in the form of the Constitution Party. Here is their web site:
One thing is for sure and for certain: we don't need any more "conservatives" like George W. Bush.
© Chuck Baldwin