North American Union - SPP - AMero Historical Timeline:

Illegal Immigration needs to be stamped out now. Repatriation of illegals to their country of ORIGEN needs to happen now. Support Chris Simcox and the Minutemen Projects coming to a border state near you.

also ... This is our payback for listening to the governmental WHORES who said that NAFTA/WTO/GATT were 'good' for America and Jobs. All there has been is a GIANT SUCKING SOUND of Jobs leaving this country. This spot is to recognize the companies that are traitors to the US economy and the traitors in Government that have allowed this to happen
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

North American Union - SPP - AMero Historical Timeline:

Post#1 » Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:01 am

The North American - SPP - AMero Historical Timeline: ... 0133702539

Timeline of the Progress Toward a North American Union

Canadian, U.S., and Mexican elites, including CEOS and politicians, have a plan to create
common North American policies and further integrate our economies. This plan goes by
various names and euphemisms, such as "deep integration", "NAFTA-plus", "harmonization",
the "Big Idea", the "Grand Bargain", and the "North American Security and Prosperity
Initiative". Regardless of which name your prefer, the end goal of all of these plans is
to create a new political and economic entity that would supercede the existing
countries. Advocates refer to it as a "North American Community", but it is also known as
the North American Union (NAU). Theoretically, it would be similar to and competetive
with the European Union (EU). The individual currencies of each country would be replaced
by a common currency called the "Amero" and everything from environmental regulations to
security would be brought in line with a common standard.

Vive le offers the following timeline as a resource to educate the general
public about the progress of the three countries toward a new North American Union (NAU).

Vive le opposes the creation of the North American Union (NAU) because we
believe it will mean the loss of Canadian sovereignty and democracy and hand over more
power to giant, unelected corporations. We also believe that unlike the EU, the countries
joining the NAU are not roughly equal in size and power and that this means the U.S. will
most certainly be setting policy for all three countries. Considering the unpopularity of
the Bush administration and its policies in the U.S., Canada, and around the world we
believe that erasing the borders between our countries and adopting U.S. policies at this
time is a bad idea and will create economic, political and military insecurity in this
country. We hope that raising awareness about the plan to create a North American Union
(NAU) will create opposition and encourage debate in all three countries, but especially
in Canada.

Note: This timeline is a work in progress and will be updated as events progress. If you
notice a correction that needs to be made or an event that should be included, please
email Please allow time for updates to be made as they
will be made less frequently than updates to the main page of the site.


* 1921: The Council on Foreign Relations is founded by Edward Mandell House, who had
been the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson.
* 1973: David Rockefeller asks Zbigniew Brzezinski and a few others, including from
the Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations and the Ford Foundation, to put
together an organization of the top political, and business leaders from around the
world. He calls this group the Trilateral Commission (TC). The first meeting of the group
is held in Tokyo in October. See: Trilateral Commission FAQ
* 1974: Richard Gardner, one of the members of the Trilateral Commission, publishes
an article titled "The Hard Road to World Order" which appeared in Foreign Affairs
magazine, published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In the article he wrote:
"In short, the 'house of world order' would have to be built from the bottom up rather
than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use
William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty,
eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal
assault." Gardner advocated treaties and trade agreements as a means of creating a new
economic world order. See: The Hard Road to World Order
* November 13, 1979: While officially declaring his candidacy for U.S. President,
Ronald Reagan proposes a ?North American Agreement? which will produce ?a North American
continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more
* January 1981: U.S. President Ronald Reagan proposes a North American common market.
* September 4, 1984: Conservative Brian Mulroney is elected Prime Minister of Canada
after opposing free trade during the campaign.
* September 25, 1984: Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney meets President Reagan
in Washington and promises closer relations with the US.
* October 9, 1984: The US Congress adopts the Trade and Tariff Act, an omnibus trade
act that notably extends the powers of the president to concede trade benefits and enter
into bilateral free trade agreements. The Act would be passed on October 30, 1984.
* 1985: A Canadian Royal Commission on the economy chaired by former Liberal Minister
of Finance Donald S. Macdonald issues a report to the Government of Canada recommending
free trade with the United States.
* St. Patrick's Day, 1985: Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and President Ronald Reagan
sing "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling" together to cap off the "Shamrock Summit", a 24-hour
meeting in Quebec City that opened the door to future free trade talks between the
countries. Commentator Eric Kierans observed that "The general impression you get, is
that our prime minister invited his boss home for dinner." Canadian historian Jack
Granatstein said that this "public display of sucking up to Reagan may have been the
single most demeaning moment in the entire political history of Canada's relations with
the United States."
* September 26, 1985: Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney announces that Canada
will try to reach a free trade agreement with the US.
* December 10, 1985: U.S. President Reagan officially informs Congress about his
intention to negotiate a free trade agreement with Canada under the authority of trade
promotion. Referred to as fast track, trade promotion authority is an accelerated
legislative procedure which obliges the House of Representatives and the Senate to decide
within 90 days whether or not to establish a trade trade unit. No amendments are
* May 1986: Canadian and American negotiators begin to work out a free trade deal.
The Canadian team is led by former deputy Minister of Finance Simon Reisman and the
American side by Peter O. Murphy, the former deputy United States trade representative in
* October 3, 1987: The 20-chapter Canada?United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA
or FTA) is finalized. U.S. trade representative Clayton Yeutter offers this observation:
"We've signed a stunning new trade pact with Canada. The Canadians don't understand what
they've signed. In twenty years, they will be sucked into the U.S. economy."
* November 6, 1987: Signing of a framework agreement between the US and Mexico.
* January 2, 1988: Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan officially sign the
* January 1, 1989: The Canada US Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA or FTA) goes into
* June 10, 1990: Presidents Bush (U.S.) and Salinas (Mexico) announce that they will
begin discussions aimed at liberalizing trade between their countries.
* August 21, 1990: Mexican President Salinas officially proposes to the US president
the negotiation of a free trade agreement between Mexico and the US.
* February 5, 1991: Negotiations between the US and Mexico aimed at liberalizing
trade between the two countries officially become trilateral at the request of the
Canadian government under Brian Mulroney.
* April 7 to 10, 1991: Cooperation agreements are signed between Mexico and Canada
covering taxation, cultural production and exports.
* May 24, 1991: The American Senate endorses the extension of fast track authority in
order to facilitate the negotiation of free trade with Mexico.
* June 12, 1991: Start of trade negotiations between Canada, the US and Mexico.
* April 4, 1992 Signing in Mexico by Canada and Mexico of a protocol agreement on
cooperation projects regarding labour.
* August 12, 1992: Signing of an agreement in principle on NAFTA.
* September 17, 1992: Creation of a trilateral commission responsible for examining
cooperation in the area of the environment.
* October 7, 1992: Official signing of NAFTA by Michael Wilson of Canada (minister),
American ambassador Carla Hills and Mexican secretary Jaime Serra Puche, in San Antonio
* December 17, 1992: Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney, US president George Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari,
subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.
* March 17 and 18, 1993: Start of tripartite discussions in Washington aimed at
reaching subsidiary agreements covering labor and the environment.
* September 14, 1993: Official signing of parallel agreements covering labor and the
environment in the capitals of the three countries.
* 1993: The Liberal Party under Jean Chretien promises to renegotiate NAFTA in its
campaign platform, titled "Creating Opportunity: the Liberal Plan for Canada" and also
known as The Red Book.
* December 1993: Newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien signs NAFTA
without changes, breaking his promise to renegotiate NAFTA. U.S. President Bill Clinton
signs NAFTA for the U.S.
* November 1993: The North American Development Bank (NADB) and its sister
institution, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), are created under the
auspices of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to address environmental
issues in the U.S.-Mexico border region. The two institutions initiate operations under
the November 1993 Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and
the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning the Establishment of a Border
Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank (the ?Charter?).
See: About Us (The North American Development Bank)
* January 1, 1994: NAFTA and the two agreements on labour and the environment go into
effect, replacing CUSFTA.
* November 16, 1994: Canada and Mexico sign a cooperation agreement regarding the
peaceful use of nuclear energy.
* December 1994: The Summit of the Americas is held in Miami. The three signatories
of NAFTA officially invite Chile to become a contractual party of the agreement. The Free
Trade Area of the Americas or FTAA is initiated. According to the offical FTAA website,
"the Heads of State and Government of the 34 democracies in the region agreed to
construct a Free Trade Area of the Americas, or FTAA, in which barriers to trade and
investment will be progressively eliminated. They agreed to complete negotiations towards
this agreement by the year 2005 and to achieve substantial progress toward building the
FTAA by 2000." See: FTAA
* December 22, 1994: Mexican monetary authorities decide to let the Peso float. The
US and Canada open a US$6 billion line of credit for Mexico.
* January 3, 1995: Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo presents an emergency plan.
* January 1995: President Clinton announces an aid plan for Mexico.
* February 9, 1995: Mickey Kantor, the US Foreign Trade representative, announces
Washington?s intention to include the provisions of NAFTA regarding labor and the
environment in negotiations with Chile.
* February 21, 1995: Signing in Washington of an agreement regarding the financial
assistance given to Mexico. Mexico in turn promises to pay Mexican oil export revenue as
a guarantee into an account at the Federal Reserve in New York.
* February 28, 1995: Mexico announces the increase of its customs duties on a number
of imports from countries with which it does not have a free trade agreement.
* March 9, 1995: President Zedillo presents austerity measures. The plan envisages a
50% increase in value added taxes, a 10% reduction of government expenditure, a 35%
increase in gas prices, a 20% increase in electricity prices and a 100% increase in
transportation prices. The minimum wage is increased by 10%. The private sector can
benefit from government assistance. The inter-bank rate that is reduced to 74% will be
increased to 109% on March 15.
* March 29, 1995: Statistical data on US foreign trade confirms the sharp increase in
Mexican exports to the US.
* April 10, 1995: The US dollar reaches its lowest level in history on the
international market. It depreciated by 50% relative to the Japanese yen in only four
* June 7, 1995: First meeting of the ministers of Foreign Trade of Canada (Roy
MacLaren), the US (Mickey Kantor), Mexico (Herminio Blanco) and Chile (Eduardo Aninat) to
start negotiations.
* December 29, 1995: Chile and Canada commit to negotiate a bilateral free trade
* June 3, 1996: Chile and Canada start negotiating the reciprocal opening of markets
in Santiago.
* November 18, 1996: Signing in Ottawa of the Canada-Chile free trade agreement by
Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada and Eduardo Frei, President of Chile. The
agreement frees 80% of trade between the two countries. It is the first free trade
agreement signed between Chile and a member of the G 7.
* July 4, 1997: The Canada-Chile free trade agreement comes into effect.
* 1997: The US presidency proposes applying NAFTA parity to Caribbean countries.
* April 17, 1998: Signing in Santiago, Chile of the free trade agreement between
Chile and Mexico by President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León of Mexico, and President
Eduardo Frei of Chile.
* August 1, 1999: The Chile-Mexico free trade agreement comes into effect.
* September, 1999: The Canadian right-wing think tank the Fraser Institute publishes
a paper by Herbert G. Grubel titled "The Case for the Amero: The Economics and Politics
of a North American Monetary Union." In the paper Grubel argues that a common currency is
not inevitable but it is desirable. See: The Case for the Amero
* July 2, 2000: Vicente Fox Quesada of the National Action Party (PAN), is elected
president of Mexico, thus ending the reign of the Revolutionary Institutional Party (RIP)
that had held power for 71 years. Mr. Fox is sworn in on 1 December 2000.
* July 4, 2000: Mexican president Vicente Fox proposes a 20 to 30 year timeline for
the creation of a common North American market. President Fox?s ?20/20 vision? as it is
commonly called, includes the following: a customs union, a common external tariff,
greater coordination of policies, common monetary policies, free flow of labor, and
fiscal transfers for the development of poor Mexican regions. With the model of the
European Fund in mind, President Fox suggests that US$10 to 30 billion be invested in
NAFTA to support underdeveloped regions. The fund could be administered by an
international financial institution such as the Inter-American Development Bank.
* November 27, 2000: Trade negotiations resume between the US and Chile for Chile?s
possible entry into NAFTA.
* 2001: Robert Pastor's 2001 book "Toward a North American Community" is published.
The book calls for the creation of a North American Union (NAU).
* April 2001: Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien and US President George W. Bush
sign the Declaration of Quebec City at the third Summit of the Americas: ?This is a
?commitment to hemispheric integration." See: Declaration of Quebec City
* August 30, 2001: The Institute for International Economics issues a press release
advocating that the United States and Mexico should use the occasion of the visit of
President Vicente Fox of Mexico on September 4-7 to develop a North American Community as
advocated by Robert Pastor in his book "Toward a North American Community." See: A
Blueprint for a North American Community
* September 11, 2001: A series of coordinated suicide terrorist attacks upon the
United States, predominantly targeting civilians, are carried out on Tuesday, September
11, 2001. Two planes (United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11) crash
into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (One and Two).
Both towers collapse within two hours. The pilot of the third team crashes a plane into
the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. Passengers and members of the flight crew on
the fourth aircraft attempts to retake control of their plane from the hijackers; that
plane crashes into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County,
Pennsylvania. Excluding the 19 hijackers, a confirmed 2,973 people die and another 24
remain listed as missing as a result of these attacks. U.S. borders with Canada and
Mexico shut down temporarily after terrorists attack the World Trade Centre in New York
City. Business leaders in all three countries, worried that trade had come to a halt,
hatch a plan to create Fortress North America -- a continental economic and security zone.
* December 2001: New U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci publicly advocates
"NAFTA-plus". See: The Emergence of a North American Community?
* December 12, 2001: U.S. Governor Tom Ridge and Canadian Deputy Prime Minister John
Manley sign the Smart Border Declaration and Associated 30-Point Action Plan to Enhance
the Security of Our Shared Border While Facilitating the Legitimate Flow of People and
Goods. The Action Plan has four pillars: the secure flow of people, the secure flow of
goods, secure infrastructure, and information. It includes shared customs data, a safe
third-country agreement, harmonized commercial processing, etc.
* February 7, 2002: Robert Pastor gives invited testimony before the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, House of Commons, Government of
* April 2002: The Canadian right-wing think tank the C.D. Howe Institute publishes
the first paper in the "Border Papers" series, which they have described as "a project on
Canada's choices regarding North American integration." The Border Papers were published
with the financial backing of the Donner Canadian Foundation. Generally the border papers
advocate deep integration between Canada and the U.S., and the first border paper
"Shaping the Future of the North American Economic Space: A Framework for Action" by
Wendy Dobson popularized the term "the Big Idea" as one euphemism for deep integration.
To read the border papers, you can visit the C.D. Howe Institute website at Use the publication search form (1996 to current, PDF) and choose "border
papers" from the "Serie contains" drop down menu.
* June 28, 2002: John Manley and Tom Ridge announce progress on the Smart Border
Declaration, including ?stepped up intelligence cooperation with Canada,? ?common
standards for using biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints, facial recognition, and
iris scanning, to confirm the identify of travelers,? and ?a common approach to screen
international air passengers before they arrive in either country and identify those who
warrant additional security scrutiny.?
* September 9, 2002: President Bush and Prime Minister Chrétien meet to discuss
progress on the Smart Border Action Plan and ask that they be updated regularly on the
work being done to harmonize our common border.
* December 5, 2002: The text of the Safe Third Country Agreement is signed by
officials of Canada and the United States as part of the Smart Border Action Plan. See
the final text here: Final Text of the Safe Third Country Agreement Refugee support
groups on both sides of the Canadian-U.S. border criticize the new agreement dealing with
refugees for stipulating that refugees must seek asylum in whichever of the two countries
they reach first. Critics say that preventing individuals who first set foot in the U.S.
from making a claim in Canada will increase cases of human smuggling, and that other
refugees will be forced to live without any kind of legal status in the U.S. See for
example: 10 Reasons Why Safe Third Country is a Bad Deal
* September 11, 2002: The National Post publishes an article by Alan Gotlieb, the
chairman of the Donner Canadian Foundation and Canada's ambassador to the United States
from 1981 to 1989, titled "Why not a grand bargain with the U.S.?" In the article,
Gotlieb asks "Rather than eschewing further integration with the United States, shouldn't
we be building on NAFTA to create new rules, new tribunals, new institutions to secure
our trade? Wouldn't this 'legal integration' be superior to ad hoc responses and largely
ineffective lobbying to prevent harm from Congressional protectionist sorties? Wouldn't
our economic security be enhanced by establishing a single North American competitive
market without anti-dumping and countervail rules? Are there not elements of a grand
bargain to be struck, combining North American economic, defence and security
arrangements within a common perimeter?" See: Why not a grand bargain with the U.S.?
* September 26, 2002: Canadian citizen Maher Arar is detained in New York while
passing through John F. Kennedy Airport and held for 12 days by U.S. officials then
deported to Syria where he is tortured and imprisoned for a year. In 2006, a Canadian
government commission into the affair blames the unfiltered sharing of faulty information
between Canadian and U.S. security agencies, which is specifically mandated in the Smart
Border Declaration.
* November 1-2, 2002: Robert Pastor presents "A North American Community. A Modest
Proposal To the Trilateral Commission," to the North American Regional Meeting, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada. Pastor called for implementation of "a series of political proposals
which would have authority over the sovereignty of the United States, Canada and Mexico.
... the creation of North American passports and a North American Customs and
Immigrations, which would have authority over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security. A North American Parliamentary Group
would oversee the U.S. Congress. A Permanent Court on Trade and Investment would resolve
disputes within NAFTA, exerting final authority over the judgments of the U.S. Supreme
Court. A North American Commission would 'develop an integrated continental plan for
transportation and infrastructure.'" See: A North American Community. A Modest Proposal
To the Trilateral Commission
* December 6, 2002: The White House issues an update on the progress of the Smart
Border Action Plan. See: U.S. Canada Smart Border 30 Point Action Plan Update
* December, 2002: US Secretary Colin Powell signs an agreement between the United
States and Canada to establish a new bi-national planning group at the North American
Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) headquarters in Colorado Springs. The new bi-national
planning group is expected to release a report recommending how the militaries of U.S.
and Canada can "work together more effectively to counter land-based and maritime
threats." See: U.S. and Canada Sign Bi-National Agreement on Military Planning
* January 2003: The Canadian Council of Chief Executives headed by Tom D'Aquino (also
a member of the trinational Task Force on the Future of North America) launches the North
American Security and Prosperity Initiative (NASPI) in January 2003 in response to an
alleged "need for a comprehensive North American strategy integrating economic and
security issues". NASPI has five main elements, which include: Reinventing borders,
Maximizing regulatory efficiencies, Negotiation of a comprehensive resource security
pact, Reinvigorating the North American defence alliance, and Creating a new
institutional framework. See: North American Security and Prosperity Initiative (PDF).
* April 3, 2003: The CCCE sets up an ?Action Group on North American Security and
Prosperity,? which is comprised of 30 CEOs including former Canadian Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney?s former chief of staff, Derek Burney. On April 7, this action group meets with
Tom Ridge, John Manley, then U.S. ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci and prominent U.S.
neocon Richard Perle in Washington, D.C. to discuss the Security and Prosperity
* October 21, 2003: Dr. Robert Pastor gives testimony to the U.S. House of
Representatives, International Relations Committee, Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere
Affairs on "U.S. Policy toward the Western Hemisphere:Challenges and Opportunities" in
which he recommends the formation of a "North American Community."
* January 2004: NAFTA celebrates its tenth anniversary with controversy, as it is
both praised and criticized.
* January/February 2004: The Council on Foreign Relations publishes Robert Pastor's
paper "North America's Second Decade," which advocates further North American
integration. Read it at: North America's Second Decade
* April 16, 2004: The CCCE holds its Spring Members meeting in Washington, D.C.,
bringing close to 100 CEOs together to discuss North American integration with
politicians including John Manley, Condoleeza Rice and Jim Peterson.
* April 2004: The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) publishes a major
discussion paper titled "New Frontiers: Building a 21st Century Canada-United States
Partnership in North America." Some of the paper?s 15 recommendations expand on the NASPI
framework in areas such as tariff harmonization, rules of origin, trade remedies, energy
strategy, core defence priorities and the need to strengthen Canada-United States
institutions, including the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). Other
recommendations focus on the process for developing and executing a comprehensive
strategy, including the need for greater coordination across government departments,
between federal and provincial governments and between the public and private sectors.
See: Building a 21st Century Canada-United States Partnership in North America
* October 2004: The Canada-Mexico Partnership (CMP) is launched during the visit of
President Vicente Fox to Ottawa. See: Canada-Mexico Partnership (CMP)
* November 1, 2004: The Independent Task Force on the Future of North America is
formed. The task force is a trilateral task force charged with developing a "roadmap" to
promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three
countries. The task force is chaired by former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister John Manley.
It is sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in association with the
Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos
* December 29, 2004: The Safe Third Country Agreement comes into force. See: Safe
Third Country Agreement Comes Into Force Today
* March 14, 2005: The Independent Task Force on the Future of North America releases
"Creating a North American Community - Chairmen?s Statement." Three former high-ranking
government officials from Canada, Mexico, and the United States call for a North American
economic and security community by 2010 to address shared security threats, challenges to
competitiveness, and interest in broad-based development across the three countries.
Among its key recommendations are the establishment of a continental security perimeter,
a common external tariff, a common border pass for all North Americans, a North American
energy and natural resources strategy, and an annual meeting where North American leaders
can discuss steps towards economic and security integration. See: Creating a North
American Community Chairmen?s Statement
* March 14, 2005: Robert Pastor, author of "Toward a North American Community" and
member of the task force on the future of North America, publishes an article titled "The
Paramount Challenge for North America: Closing the Development Gap," sponsored by the
North American Development Bank, which recommends forming a North American Community as a
way to address economic inequalities due to NAFTA between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.
* March 23, 2005: The leaders of Canada, the United States and Mexico sign the
Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America at the trilateral summit in
Waco, Texas. Canada is signed on by Prime Minister Paul Martin. See:
* March 24, 2005: The 40 Point Smart Regulation Plan is launched as part of the SPP
agreement. It is a far-reaching plan to introduce huge changes to Canada's regulatory
system in order to eliminate some regulations and harmonize other regulations with the
U.S. Reg Alcock, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board, launches the Government of Canada's implementation plan for Smart
Regulation at a Newsmaker Breakfast at the National Press Club. For the original plan and
updates see: Smart Regulation: Report on Actions and Plans
* March 2005: Agreement to build the Texas NAFTA Superhighway: ?A ?Comprehensive
Development Agreement? [is] signed by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to
build the ?TTC-35 High Priority Corridor? parallel to Interstate 35. The contracting
party involved a limited partnership formed between Cintra Concesiones de
Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A., a publically listed company headquartered in Spain,
owned by the Madrid-based Groupo Ferrovial, and a San Antonio-based construction company,
Zachry Construction Corp.? Texas Segment of NAFTA Super Highway Nears Construction,
Jerome R. Corsi, June 2006, The proposed NAFTA superhighway
will be a 10 lane super highway four football fields wide that will travel through the
heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the
Canadian border north of Duluth. Minn. The "Trans-Texas Corridor" or TTC will be the
first leg of the NAFTA superhighway.
* April 2005: U.S. Senate Bill 853 is introduced by Senator Richard G. Lugar (IN) and
six cosponsors. ?The North American Security Cooperative Act (NASCA) is touted as a bill
to protect the American public from terrorists by creating the North American Union. The
North American Union consists of three countries, U.S., Canada, and Mexico, with open
borders, something that is proposed to be in effect by 2010. Thus, it would ensure the
fulfillment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.? NASCA Rips
America, April 2005,
* May 2005: The Council on Foreign Relations Press publishes the report of the
Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, titled "Building a North American
Community" (task force report 53). See: Building a North American Community
* June 2005: A follow-up SPP meeting is held in Ottawa, Canada.
* June 2005: A U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee policy paper is released: ?The
CFR did not mention the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), but it is obvious
that it is part of the scheme. This was made clear by the Senate Republican Policy
Committee policy paper released in June 2005. It argued that Congress should pass CAFTA ?
The Senate Republican policy paper argued that CAFTA ?will promote democratic
governance.?But there is nothing democratic about CAFTA?s many pages of grants of vague
authority to foreign tribunals on which foreign judges can force us to change our
domestic laws to be ?no more burdensome than necessary?on foreign trade.? CFR's Plan to
Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada, July 2005,
* June 9, 2005: CNN's Lou Dobbs, reporting on Dr. Robert Pastor's congressional
testimony as one of the six co-chairmen of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
Independent Task Force on North America, began his evening broadcast with this
announcement: "Good evening, everybody. Tonight, an astonishing proposal to expand our
borders to incorporate Mexico and Canada and simultaneously further diminish U.S.
sovereignty. Have our political elites gone mad?"
* June 27, 2005: NDP critic for International Trade and Globalization, Peter Julian
(Burnaby-New Westminster) says "The Liberal minority government is fast tracking Canada
into an agenda of deep integration with the US and Mexico without a mandate from
Canadians or consultation with Parliament". See NDP Demands Transparency In Can/US/Mexico
* July 2005: The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) passes in the U.S.
House of Representatives by a 217-215 vote.
* October 2005: The inaugural meeting of the North American Forum, which brings
together U.S., Canadian and Mexican government and business representatives to discuss
issues related to continental economic and social integration, is held at a secret
location in Sonoma, California. Invitees to the event, which is chaired jointly by former
U.S. secretary of state George Shultz, former Mexican finance minister Pedro Aspe, and
former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed, include John Manley, Mexican ambassador to the
U.S. Carlos de Icaza, Chevron CEO David O'Reilly, former head of the CIA James Woolsey,
and a host of U.S. policy advisors to George W. Bush.
* November 2005: Canadian Action Party leader Connie Fogal publishes an article
called "Summary and Part 1:The Metamorphosis and Sabotage of Canada by Our Own
Government- The North American Union." See Summary and Part 1:The Metamorphosis and
Sabotage of Canada by Our Own Government The North American Union
* January 2006: Conservative Stephen Harper is elected Prime Minister of Canada with
a minority government.
* January 10-11, 2006: Government officials and corporate leaders from Canada, the
U.S. and Mexico meet in Louisville, Kentucky for a ?Public-Private Dialogue? around the
SPP. Discussion hits on ?marrying policy issues with business priorities,? expanding the
SPP ?beyond those identified in the initial stages of the process,? and building a
?genuine constituency for North American integration.? A North American council on
competitiveness, comprised entirely of corporate leaders, is discussed.
* March 31, 2006: At the Summit of the Americas in Cancun, Canada (under new Prime
Minister Stephen Harper) along with the U.S. and Mexico release the Leaders' Joint
Statement. The statement presents six action points to move toward a North American
Union, aka a North American Community. These action points include: 1) Establishment of a
Trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework 2) Establishment of the North American
Competitiveness Council (NACC) 3) Provision for North American Emergency Management 4)
Provision for Avian and Human Pandemic Influenza Management 5) Development of North
American Energy Security 6) Assure Smart, Secure North American Borders. Read the full
statement at: Leaders' Joint Statement
* April 2006: A draft environmental impact statement on the proposed first leg of the
"NAFTA superhighway", the "Trans-Texas Corridor" or TTC, is completed.
* June 2006: Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado. demands superstate accounting from the Bush
administration: ?Responding to a report, Tom Tancredo is demanding the
Bush administration fully disclose the activities of an office implementing a trilateral
agreement with Mexico and Canada that apparently could lead to a North American union,
despite having no authorization from Congress.? Tancredo Confronts 'Super-State' Effort,
June 2006,
* June 15, 2006: U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez convenes the first
meeting of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), the advisory group
organized by the Department of Commerce (DOC) under the auspices of the Security and
Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and announced by the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico
on March 31, 2006.
* July 2006: Public hearings on the proposed "NAFTA superhighway" begin in the U.S.
* July 25, 2006: The article "Meet Robert Pastor, Father of the North American Union"
is published. See: Meet Robert Pastor: Father of the North American Union
* August 15, 2006: The NACC meets in Washington, D.C. to hash out priority issues for
the SPP. The business leaders decide that the U.S. secretariat of the NACC will deal with
?regulatory convergence,? the Canadian secretariat, housed by the CCCE, will deal with
?border facilitation,? and the Mexican secretariat will handle ?energy integration.?
There is no media coverage of this event.
* August 21, 2006: An article titled North American Union Threatens U.S. Sovereignty"
is posted to
* August 27, 2006: Patrick Wood (U.S.) publishes an article titled "Toward a North
American Union" for The August Review. See: Toward a North American Union
* August 28, 2006: A North American United Nations? by Republican Congressman Ron
Paul (Texas) is published. See: A North American United Nations?
* August 29, 2006: Patrick Buchanan (U.S.) criticizes a North American union in his
article "The NAFTA super highway." See: The NAFTA super highway
* September 12-14, 2006: A secret "North American Forum" on integration is held at
the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel. Elite participants from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are
present to discuss ?demographic and social dimensions of North American integration,?
security cooperation and a ?North American energy strategy.? It is ignored by the
mainstream media. See the Vive le article for the secret agenda and participant
list: Deep Integration Planned at Secret Conference Ignored by the Media
* September 13, 2006: Maclean?s magazine finally covers the August 15 NACC meeting in
an article by Luiza Savage titled ?Meet NAFTA 2.0.? The Maclean's article on integration
notes that according to Ron Covais, the president of the Americas for defence giant
Lockheed Martin, a former Pentagon adviser to Dick Cheney, and one of the architects of
North American integration, the political will to make deep integration of the continent
happen will last only for "less than two years". According to the article, to make sure
that the establishment of a North American Union will take place in that time, "The
executives have boiled their priorities down to three: the Canadian CEOs are focusing on
'border crossing facilitation,' the Americans have taken on 'regulatory convergence,' and
the Mexicans are looking at 'energy integration' in everything from electrical grids to
the locating of liquid natural gas terminals. They plan to present recommendations to the
ministers in October. This is how the future of North America now promises to be written:
not in a sweeping trade agreement on which elections will turn, but by the accretion of
hundreds of incremental changes implemented by executive agencies, bureaucracies and
regulators. 'We've decided not to recommend any things that would require legislative
changes,' says Covais. 'Because we won't get anywhere.' " See: Meet NAFTA 2.0
* September 28, 2006: Stockwell Day says there was "nothing secret" about the forum
on integration held in Banff. See: Nothing secret about Banff forum, says Stockwell Day
* February 23, 2007: SPP Ministerial meeting is held in Ottawa, Canada, and attended
by Canadian Ministry of Industry Maxime Bernier, Mexican Secretary of the Economy Eduardo
Sojo, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs
Peter MacKay, Mexican Secretary of External Affairs Patricia Espinosa Castellano, U.S.
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Canadian Minister of Public Safety
Stockwell Day, and Mexican Secretary of the Interior Francisco Javier Ramirez Acuna.
Officials also consult with corporate CEOs, members of the North American Competitiveness
Council (NACC). The Council's 10 Canadian members were appointed last summer by Prime
Minister Harper and given privileged access to government Ministers to push their
corporate vision for continental "integration". In a statement, the ministers responsible
for the SPP noted that they ?recognize the importance of focusing on initiatives that
will further competitiveness and quality of life in North America, and will continue to
work together to successfully meet the security and prosperity challenges of the 21st
century.? The agenda of the meeting is challenged by an alliance of citizen's groups in
Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. See: Tri-national ministerial meeting to star Rice and
Chertoff, Trade, Competitiveness, and Security Issues at the Forefront of North American
Ministerial Meeting and United States Strengthens Ties with Canada, Mexico: Neighbors
coming together through Security and Prosperity Partnership, By David McKeeby
* March 31-April 1, 2007: The Council of Canadians, the Canadian Labour Congress and
other progressive organizations hold a teach-in in ottawa called Integrate This!
Challenging the Security and Prosperity Partnership. See Integrate This!
* April 26-27, 2007: A closed-door roundtable meeting on the Future of North American
Environment 2025 is held in Calgary on April 26 and 27 2007. This is the final concluding
roundtable initiated by three think tanks to address issues around where the Security and
Prosperity Partnership is going. The report is to be sent to the three national
governments, both for feedback and comments, at the end of June 2007. NDP MP Peter Julian
crashes the meeting, and due to his presence there the Harper government pulls its
delegation. Organisers tell Julian that the federal government delegation was basically
stopped at the Airport from attending the final roundtable meetings on the subject.
* April-May 2007: Thanks to the efforts of NDP International Trade Critic Peter
Julian (Burnaby - New Westminster), the Standing Committee on International Trade holds
the first ever hearings on the so-called "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP) of
North America. The televised hearings are held on April 26, May 1st and 3rd, 2007 in
Ottawa. To read the transcripts of the hearings, see Info on SPP Hearings from NDP MP
Peter Julian and Update on Hearings at Trade Committee re SPP from NDP MP Peter Julian
Contributed by: sthompson
* Thursday, May 10, 2007: Amid heated charges of a coverup, Tory MPs abruptly shut
down parliamentary hearings on the SPP, a controversial plan to further integrate Canada
and the U.S. They shut the hearings down in reaction to the testimony of University of
Alberta professor and director of the Parkland Institute Gordon Laxer, who testifies that
Canadians will be left "to freeze in the dark" if the government forges ahead with plans
to integrate energy supplies across North America. In response, the chair of the
committee, Conservative MP Leon Benoit (Vegreville-Wainwright), rules his testimony out
of order for being "irrelevant" to the hearings. When opposition MPs on the committee
vote down his ruling, Benoit blurts out that he is adjourning the meeting, and proceeds
to storm out with two other Conservative MPs. [Some of this information was paraphrased
from the article in the Ottawa Citizen. For full article see "Tory chair storms out of
SPP hearing", Friday May 11, the Ottawa Citizen, Tory chair storms out of SPP hearing.]
Later, Gordon Laxer's presentation to the trade committee on SPP is officially voted in
as evidence by the committee. The full testimony is printed in both the Calgary Herald
and the Edmonton Journal on May 16, 2007. You can read it on Vive at: Latest News from
Parkland Institute: Laxer Creates Stir on the Hill; or see the Edmonton Journal article,
Canada-first energy strategy needed.
* July 5, 2007: Prison Planet reports that the merger of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico
into a North American Union will be formally presented to U.S. Congress at the end of
summer, after more meetings on the subject. See: Globalists To Formally Propose Merger Of
U.S., Canada, Mexico
* July 9, 2007: NDP MP Peter Julian starts gathering signatures on a petition to stop
the SPP. Signees "call upon the Government of Canada to stop further implementation of
the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) with the United States and
Mexico until there is a democratic mandate from the people of Canada, Parliamentary
oversight, and consideration of its profound consequences on Canada?s existence as a
sovereign nation and its ability to adopt autonomous and sustainable economic, social,
and environmental policies, and urge the Government of Canada to conduct a transparent
and accountable public debate of the SPP process, involving meaningful public
consultations with civil society and a full legislative review, including the work,
recommendations, and reports of all SPP working groups, and a full debate and a vote in
Parliament." See Sign the Petition to Stop the SPP and Deep Integration
* UPCOMING August 20-21, 2007: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, George W.
Bush, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon will meet for the planned third summit of the
Security and Prosperity Partnership. August 20-21,Montebello, QC. Protests are being
planned. We'll update details on this as we get them.

Sources aside from articles provided within the timeline:
Vive le, FAQ, Sovereignty vs Deep Integration
North American Forum on Integration, NAFTA Timeline
North American Union/Testimony, Publications and Reports, Sourcewatch, a project of the
Center for Media and Democracy, North American Union/Testimony, Publications and Reports
Free Market News Network Corp, N. AM. UNION TIMELINE
SPP Timeline, SPP: What You Don't Know CAN Hurt You!
Wikipedia, various entries,

Also, wherever possible links to the full text of various agreements have been provided.

We also recommend the Council of Canadians' deep integration timeline: DI timeline (PDF)

Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Legislators in three countries to see details on North Ameri

Post#2 » Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:12 am

More info on this trust fund family garbage they are shoving down our throat. I can almost taste the blue blood hunting season coming real soon.

Legislators in three countries to see details on North American Union, The Wanderer, May 10, 2007

Canadians Completely Unaware of Looming North American Union Bush and Calderon to Visit Canada
by Kevin Parkinson July 17, 2007 (excerpt only)
The ratification of the SPP, and the emergence of the North American Union have been organized entirely by government committees and private enterprise. I refer readers to my website at ... a&aid=6346

----- Original Message -----
From: Pat O.
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:20 AM
Subject: Fw: Legislators in three countries to see details on North American Union, The Wanderer, May 10, 2007

One of the best analysis of the NAU -- pat

Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 2:42 PM
Subject: Legislators in three countries to see details on North American Union, The Wanderer, May 10, 2007

Legislators in three countries,
To see details on North American Union,

Article by Paul Likoudis,
The Wanderer
March 10, 2007
pp. 1 and 8

Permission to use from Paul Likoudis, if all acknowledgements included.

(Many thanks to Debbie Niwa for transferring this article onto one pdf page for easier reading)

The Wanderer (America's oldest Catholic weekly newspaper)

The Wanderer Press,
201 Ohio Street, St. Paul, MN 55107
Tel: 651-224-5733
Fax: 651-224-9666

Subscription rates:
one year ($50.00)
six months ($30.00)
Canada and Foreign - add $10
Online edition:
Free 3 month trial offer

As Washington think tanks go, there is
probably none so high-powered, so connected
to the international corporate and
government elites as K-Street's Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),
whose board of directors is headed by
former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn.
The board, in fact, reads like a who's
who of the military-industrial complex.
The CSIS board members include
former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger,
former Assistant Secretary of State Richard
Armitage, former Defense Secretaries
William Cohen and James R. Schlesinger,
the top executives from Exxon-Mobile and
Time magazine and financier Felix Rohatyn,
among a host of other CEOs in the world of
high finance, defense, and energy.
The president and CEO of CSIS is Dr.
John Hamre, who served as the 26th U.S.
deputy secretary of defense from 1997 to
1999. Prior to holding that post, he was the
undersecretary of defense (comptroller)
from 1993 to 1997. The CSIS web site states
in its bio of Hamre that "as comptroller, Dr.
Hamre was the principal assistant to the secretary
of defense for management improvement
programs and for the preparation, presentation,
and execution of the defense budget"
— a period when, according to former
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the
Pentagon could not account for $3 trillion
in expenses.
Before going to the Pentagon, Hamre
worked on the Senate Armed Services Committee
for ten years where he specialized in
defense budget issues.
And so, when CSIS reports that it has
convened a number of working groups to
study all the issues related — in contemporary
parlance — to disappearing the borders
that separate the United States from Canada
and Mexico, and will submit to the legislatures
of the three countries its proposals to
join the three countries into one political,
economic, and security bloc this September,
one should salute their respective countries
CSIS's "North American Future 2025
Project" was headed up by Mexican staff
member Armand B. Peschard-Sverdrup,
who released a report in late April detailing
the work of the study group and its proposals
to create a highly bureaucratic European
Union-style North America superstate that
would be able to compete economically and
militarily with India and China for control
over trade and resources.
In the "summary," Peschard-Sverdrup
informs the backers of the North American
Union project that: "The results of the study
will enable policymakers to make sound,
strategic, long-range policy decisions about
North America, with an emphasis on regional
"Specifically, the project will focus on
a detailed examination of
future scenarios, which
are based on current
trends, and involve six
areas of critical importance
to the trilateral relationship:
labor mobility,
energy, the environment,
security, competitiveness,
and border infrastructure
and logistics."
Under the heading
"Project Description," he
informs: "In order to
strengthen the capacity
of Canadian, U.S., and Mexican administration
officials and that of their respective
legislatures to analyze, comprehend, and anticipate
North American integration, the
CSIS North America Project proposes to
carry out a series of seven closed-door
roundtable sessions.
The following article appeared in The Wanderer, Vol. 140, No. 19, May 10, 2007, pgs 1 and 8. Callouts have been added herein.
Legislatures In Three Countries . . .
To See Details On North American Union
By Paul Likoudis
"To capture the very best thinking on
the six issues that will be covered, each of
the roundtable sessions will convene a combination
of practitioners (from each respective
administration and legislature); stakeholders
(from the private sector and conceivably
even labor unions); and highly specialized
academics and analysts from
Canada, the United States, and Mexico.
Limiting the number of participants to between
21 and 45 individuals — with an equal
number from each nation — should allow
for free-flowing and balanced discussion.
"Independent of these trilateral brainstorming
sessions, the CSIS North America
Project will conduct additional research and
review the very latest published and unpublished
works produced in all three countries.
In the spirit of a North American partnership,
the CSIS North America Project is receptive
to collaborating with Canadian and
Mexican research institutions. In Mexico,
CSIS will be collaborating
with the CIDE.
"To adhere to
the desired time line for
this project, as well as to
budgetary parameters,
the North American Future
2025 project will
derive its assumptions
from existing projection
scenarios, such as Mapping
the Global Future:
Report of the National
Intelligence Council's
2020 Project; 'Dreaming
With the BRICS: The Path to 2050,' a
Goldman Sachs study issued in October
2003; relevant projection scenarios from
Statistics Canada and Mexico's Instituto
Nacional de Estadística Geografía e
Informática; and the CSIS/Global Strategy
Institute's own long-range forecasts con-
CSIS's "North American
Future 2025 Project" . . .
released a report in late April
detailing the work of the study
group and its proposals to
create a highly bureaucratic
European Union-style
North America superstate...
ducted through the Seven Revolutions and
Seven Futures Projects.
"The North American Future 2025
project will also examine relevant futurelooking
work dealing with each of the six
topics upon which the three governments
have agreed — namely, labor mobility, energy,
the environment, security, competitiveness,
and border infrastructure and logistics.
"The final deliverable will be a report
on options and policy recommendations on
the future of North American integration
that will be presented in September 2007 to
the executive and legislative branches of the
three governments of North America. The
report will be produced in the three official
languages — English, Spanish, and French
— as part of an effective dissemination strategy
aimed at maximizing the policy impact
of the report."
Among the various discussion groups
assembled at various "roundtables," one includes
government officials from Mexico,
the United States, and Canada who will examine
"where North America and other global
regions currently stand in key sectors,
such as trade, demographics, infrastructure,
natural resources (that is, energy and water),
and science and technology."
Another "roundtable" will study, and
project from, trends on "the liberalization
of trade and investment" and the "international
migration of labor."
"Such changes in the global economy,"
the report states, "have led to the creation
of a new international division of labor —
the shifting labor markets that arise from
changing the geographic specialization of
global production patterns. Production now
transcends national borders and is facilitated
by advances in technology and communications
as well as increased financial deregulation.
The changing global production
system and the increasing
demand for a
mobile labor supply
will inherently affect
domestic and international
labor markets
and wages into the
year 2025. . . .
"The free flow of
people across national
borders will undoubtedly
continue throughout
the world as well
as in North America,
as will the social, political,
and economic
challenges that accompany
this trend. In
order to remain competitive
in the global
economy, it is imperative
for the 21st-century
North American
labor market to possess the flexibility necessary
to meet industrial labor demands on
a transitional basis and in a way that responds
to market forces. This demand will
prompt policymakers to think creatively
about prospective policy options."
The third "roundtable" will consist of
energy experts who will "develop policies
that will secure the region's energy needs
and allow it to remain competitive in the
global arena. . . .
"The global demand for energy — not
only oil, gas, and coal but also nuclear, hydropower,
wind, and other renewable energy
resources — will continue to increase in the
21st-century because of the growing global
population and a predicted doubling of the
global economy. By the year 2030, it is estimated
that energy consumption in China
and India will be more than quadruple their
1990 level. World-wide energy use is currently
205 million barrels per day of oil
equivalent (MBDOE) and is projected to increase
by 60% — to 335 MBDOE — in the
year 2030. In 2005, the supply of conventional
oil resources was estimated at 3.2 trillion
barrels; when nonconventional resources
are included, the total is just above
4 trillion barrels.
"In terms of North American demand,
even though Mexico, Canada, and the
United States produce almost one-fourth of
the world's energy,
the region's population
consumes a
larger portion than it
produces. Furthermore,
North America
is the only oil-producing
region in the
world that has exceeded
its 50% production
"In order for
North America to secure
the energy resources
and strategic
networks needed to
remain competitive in
the global economy,
policymakers must
devise forward-looking,
policies that integrate
governments, the private
sector, and stakeholders. To foster the
development of such policies, CSIS will examine
a wide array of energy issues, including,
but not limited to, access to energy resources,
development of energy-efficient
and sustainable technologies, energy diversification,
physical and cybernetic security
of critical energy infrastructure, trade and
investment laws and regulations, risk management,
and environmental impacts. Trilateral
coordination of energy policy is crucial
to assuring North America's future competitiveness
and regional security."
Water Issues
This roundtable will also examine issues related
to the environment, such as climate
change and growing pollution, especially
that caused by a rapidly increasing "volume
of transportation."
"It is widely recognized that changes
in climate pose a threat to domestic economies,
natural resources, and ecosystem
functions. Even though agricultural sectors
can be expected to adapt well to the climate
changes, other potential effects could arise
and have an impact on North America.
Canada, the United States, and Mexico
could experience the loss of coastal wetlands,
coastal erosion, water shortages, heat
waves, droughts, tornadoes, flooding in
coastal regions, an increased threat of pests
and diseases, forest fires, and damage to
water sources."
Water issues will be one of the biggest
challenges facing decision-makers, for:
"Fresh water is running out in many regions
of the world — be it the water in rivers,
lakes, basins, aquifers, or watersheds.
Therefore, communities throughout the
world will be seeking alternative water
sources, and North America will by no
means be exempt from this looming prob-
"The three nations
will have to overcome the
bureaucratic challenges posed
by their different political
systems and legal regimes . . . ”
— North American Future 2025 Project (p. 6)
"The free flow of people across
national borders will undoubtedly
continue throughout the world
as well as in North America, as
will the social, political, and
economic challenges. . .”
— North American Future 2025 Project (p. 4)
lem. North America, and particularly the
United States and Mexico, will experience
water scarcity as a result of arid climates
coupled with growing populations and increased
water consumption.
"Juxtaposed to the relative scarcity of
water in the United States and Mexico,
Canada possesses about 20% of the earth's
fresh water. Cognizant that water will become
a strategic resource, Canada's federal
and provincial governments have undertaken
measures to protect the nation's water
supply. This task is particularly challenging,
given that Canada and the United State
share many basins along their border, such
as the Great Lakes as well as multiple rivers.
Because water availability, quality, and
allocation are likely to undergo profound
changes between 2006 and 2025,
policymakers will benefit from a more proactive
approach to exploring different creative
solutions beyond the current
transboundary water management agreements
that the United
States has reached with
both Mexico and
"One such option
could be regional agreements
between Canada,
the United States, and
Mexico on issues such as
water consumption, water transfers, artificial
diversions of fresh water, water conservation
technologies for agricultural irrigation,
and urban consumption. . . .
"The three nations will have to overcome
the bureaucratic challenges posed by
their different political systems and legal regimes,
particularly if the overriding future
goal of North America is to achieve joint
optimum utilization of the available water
and to implement procedures that will help
avoid or resolve differences over water in
the face of ever-increasing pressures over
this priceless resource."
This roundtable will further analyze the
"the degradation of the North American ecosystem
and the destruction of natural habitats
are the most pervasive threats to
biodiversity, as well as the consequences of
an inevitable invasion of 'alien species' due
to global trade.
"The introduction of non-native species
(be they bacteria, viruses, fungi, insects,
mollusks, plants, fish, mammals, or birds)
can pose a threat to domestic and native species
through predation, competition, parasitism,
or hybridization. Consequently, introducing
these species can alter the equilibrium
of the ecosystem. As a result,
bioinvasions could cause damage to forests
and agricultural and horticultural crops and
can pose health risks to humans. Moreover,
all these problems are accompanied by a
high economic cost," the report states.
Roundtable Five is devoted to discussion
of a "strategy to ensure
the security of the
region." Not only will
North America be targeted
by terrorists, drugtraffickers,
and organized
crime groups, but
its security will be
threatened by computer
hackers who will be able to break into the
systems that control the power grid, dams,
etc., and also the weather:
"North America and the world will have
to prepare to contend with threats emanating
from weather-related disasters, which
are likely to become more frequent and perhaps
more intensive as a result of projected
increases in greenhouse gas emissions and
global climate change. Natural disaster mitigation,
preparedness, response, and recovery
planning will become a priority for gov-
CSIS . . . has been working
on the full integration of the
three countries [U.S., Canada,
and Mexico] since 1985.
ernments around the world."
This roundtable will also consider various
health-related issues, such as the need
to respond rapidly to a highly anticipated
influenza outbreak, and the need to extend
American-style health to Mexico where its
demographic implosion will be filled by an
increase of immigration from Central
One Superstate
Finally, the document states: "Whatever
North American security architecture is ultimately
conceptualized and agreed upon,
it is clear that the protection of critical infrastructure
will continue to be of foremost
importance from the standpoint of protecting
human life and ensuring national and
North American economic stability.
"The critical infrastructure referred to
here involves the following areas: agriculture,
water, health and emergency services,
energy (electrical, nuclear, hydro, and gas
and oil), transportation systems (air, roads,
rail, ports, and waterways), information and
telecommunications networks, and banking
and financial systems."
CSIS is fully capable of handling the
transition of the three countries into one superstate,
the document concludes, because
it has been working on the full integration
of the three countries since 1985.
Note: The Wanderer is a "National Catholic
Weekly Founded Oct. 7, 1867 • Our Second
Century of Lay Apostolate," St. Paul,


#2 Excuse for Martial law
Next 9/11, Summer, 2007? (w/ Top Three U.S. Nuke Targets)

We are already under Martial law....


DeFazio (a member of Congress) being denied information available to the civil
authority is prima facie evidence of martial law.

Please be advised.

Also, note the information released by Hal Tuner in regard to PsyOps against the
American people.

The text appearing in this database was produced from material provided by the
source(s) as listed. The official recorded copy is the printed published copy of
that source. The text in this database is not the official text. Although
substantial efforts have been made to match the database text to the official
legal text they represent, substantive errors or differences may remain. It is
the user’s responsibility to verify the legal accuracy of all legal text. This
private limited issue is licensed and intended for reference purposes only
(resort to the original cited authority should always be made). Absolutely no
legal advice, opinions, services, or warrantee is given, nor intended, nor
implied. Nothing contained herein is to be considered as rendering of legal
advice for specific cases, and readers are responsible for obtaining such advice
from their own legal counsel. This issue is intended for educational and
informational purposes only pursuant to 17 U.S.C.A. § 107 et seq.

"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right," DeFazio

" ... 54058910.x
ml&coll=7" ... s/11848965

DeFazio asks, but he's denied access

Classified info - The congressman wanted to see government plans for after a
terror attack

Friday, July 20, 2007
The Oregonian Staff

WASHINGTON -- Oregonians called Peter DeFazio's office, worried there was a
conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating
the government after a terrorist attack.

As 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.

"I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of
reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a
significant terrorist attack," DeFazio says.

Homeland Security Committee staffers told his office that the White House
initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. DeFazio doesn't know
who did it or why.

"We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of
America," DeFazio says. "I would think that would be relevant to any member of
Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee."

Bush administration spokesman Trey Bohn declined to say why DeFazio was denied
access: "We 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 sensitive."

Norm Ornstein, a legal scholar who studies government continuity at the
conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he "cannot think of one good
reason" to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland
Security Committee.

"I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual, knee-jerk
overextension of executive power that we see from this White House," Ornstein

This is the first time DeFazio has been denied access to documents. DeFazio has
asked Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., to help him
access the documents.

"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right," DeFazio

Jeff Kosseff: 202-383-7814 HYPERLINK


" ... http://www.


By: Hal Turner

North Bergen, NJ -- As a radio talk show host, I receive a whole slew of e-mail
and regular mail about virtually every issue under the sun. Much of it gets
deleted or thrown away. Some of it results in stories appearing on my web site
or being discussed on my show. Every once in awhile, something akin to a
bombshell arrives and yesterday, July 18, 2007 was one such day.

I came into possession of portions of a U.S. military plan which was allegedly
classified "Top Secret." This put me in a bind because without having a security
clearance myself, having something which is Classified is unlawful. Reading such
a document is also unlawful and revealing it to the public is definitely
unlawful. So, I thought about it. I decided screw it, I'm going to read it.

As I read the document, my blood ran cold. Chills ran up my spine. The hair on
the back of my neck stood up. My gut started churning. This document is an
operational plan to use U.S. military troops against U.S. Citizens!

The plan says "A perceived serious potential of dissident American groups rising
up against constituted authority has been clearly identified by
counter-intelligence agencies. [Underlining mine]

The plan goes on to say why people are clearly thinking of rising up and
throwing-off our federal government by saying "The stated cause for such an
uprising appear to be growing dissatisfaction with the course and conduct of the
war in Iraq, the chronic inability of Congress to deal with various pressing
issues and the perception of widespread corruption and indifference to public

Sounds accurate to me. In fact, it describes perfectly reasonable justification
for the America people to utilize our original right of self-defense against
such a government or for us to impose reform!

Most stunning about the plan is that it talks about political reform and offers
an unbelievably out-of-touch, completely un-American observation: "Reform may be
necessary, but reform is a matter for the state . . . . ."

A matter for the state? We The People ARE the state. We The People decide on
reform. For this U.S. military plan to assert "Reform may be necessary, but
reform is a matter for the state" is like reading something out of the old
Soviet Union! What planet are these people on?

The truly chilling parts of this plan involve the use of "Informant nets" of
Americans literally spying on their fellow citizens and "Block Control" where
the plan calls for "trusted resident reports on the activities of people in
their neighborhoods." Folks, this is what Fidel Castro does in Communist Cuba!

As you read the details below, remember this: This plan has been drawn up by OUR
military. The military WE hired, WE train, WE equip, WE feed, WE clothe, WE
house. It is an OUTRAGE that anyone in our military would DARE to even create
such plan, nevermind try to implement it!

A Blunt warning to our Government and our Military:

In our nation of 300 million people, there are at least 95 million lawful gun
owners. Those 95 million guns owners lawfully possess 212 million firearms.

Even if the government recalled ALL military members from around the entire
world, they would have a force of only about two million.

95 million gun owners versus 2 million troops. I think we all know how this
would turn out: the government would be slaughtered.

In fact, if only ten percent of the 95 million gun owners had guts enough to
fight, we would still outnumber the military almost 3:1.

We The People of the United States aren't the least bit worried about government
tanks and planes, those tools are useless in guerilla warfare. Want proof? Iraq!
The U.S. government is getting its ass kicked over there. Government wouldn't
last a week if they tried implementing this plan here.

Government would do well to remember they exist at the whim and behest of the
American people. Government in this land exists to serve us as we direct.

The power government wields belongs to The People. We The People merely LEND
part of our power to government and we have the absolute right to take that
power back at any time we deem appropriate. In fact, the founding fathers made
clear we can take it back in any MANNER we deem appropriate! That's why they
gave us the Second Amendment!

If the U.S. government or military dares attempt to implement this plan, they
should expect to be killed.

----------------- PRECIS OF THE PLAN ---------------------

Classification: Top Secret-Noforn as of 1 June 2007

Distribution Restriction: Distribution authorized to the DOD and DOD contractors
only to maintain operations security. This determination was made on 1 June
2007. Other requests for this document must be referred to (redacted)

Destruction Notice: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of
contents or reconstruction of the document. .

This publication uses the term insurgent to describe those taking part in any
activity designed to undermine or to overthrow the established authorities

Counterinsurgency is those military, paramilitary, political, economic,
psychological, and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency (JP
1-02). It is an offensive approach involving all elements of national power; it
can take place across the range of operations and spectrum of conflict

In dealing with the local populace, the primary aims must be to:

·Protect the population.

·Establish local political institutions.

·Reinforce local governments.

·Eliminate insurgent capabilities.

·Exploit information from local sources.

An insurgency is organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted
government through use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02). It is a
protracted politico-military struggle designed to weaken government control and
legitimacy while increasing insurgent control. Political power is the central
issue in an insurgency.

An insurgent organization normally consists of four elements:


Combatants (main forces, regional forces, local forces).

Cadre (local political leaders that are also called the militants).

Mass base (the bulk of the membership).

The support of the people, passive or active then, is the center of gravity. It
must be gained in whatever proportion is necessary to sustain the insurgent
movement (or, contrariwise, to defeat it). As in any political campaign, all
levels of support are relative.

Insurgent movements begin as "fire in the minds of men." Insurgent leaders
commit themselves to building a new world. They construct the organization to
carry through this desire. Generally, popular grievances become insurgent causes
when interpreted and shaped by the insurgent leadership. The insurgency grows if
the cadre that is local insurgent leaders and representatives can establish a
link between the insurgent movement and the desire for solutions to grievances
sought by the local population

Insurgent leaders will exploit opportunities created by government security
force actions. The behavior of security forces is critical. Lack of security
force discipline leads to alienation, and security force abuse of the populace
is a very effective insurgent recruiting tool. Consequently, specific insurgent
tactical actions are often planned to frequently elicit overreaction from
security force individuals and units.

Insurgencies are dynamic political movements, resulting from real or perceived
grievance or neglect that leads to alienation from an established government.

A successful counterinsurgency will result in the neutralization by the state of
the insurgency and its effort to form a counterstate. While many abortive
insurgencies are defeated by military and police actions alone, if an insurgency
has tapped into serious grievances and has mobilized a significant portion of
the population, simply returning to the status quo may not be an option. Reform
may be necessary, but reform is a matter for the state, using all of its human
and material resources. Security forces are only one such resource. The response
must be multifaceted and coordinated, yet states typically charge their security
forces with "waging counterinsurgency." This the security forces cannot do

These imperatives are-

· Facilitate establishment or reestablishment of a 'legitimate government'.

· Counterinsurgency requires perseverance.

· Foster popular support for the incumbent US government.

· Prepare to perform functions and conduct operations that are outside normal
scope of training.

· Coordinate with US governmental departments and agencies, and with vital
non-governmental, agencies.

Urban operations.

· Protection of government facilities.

· Protection of infrastructure.

· Protection of commercial enterprises vital to the HN economy.

· Protection of cultural facilities.

· Prevention of looting.

· Military police functions.

· Close interaction with civilians.

· Assistance with reconstruction projects.

· Securing the national borders.

· Training or retraining a national military police and security force.

Establishing and maintaining local government credibility.

· Contributing local government is both tangible and psychological. Local
security forces must reinforce and be integrated into the plan at every stage.

· Facilitate and use information and intelligence obtained from local sources to
gain access to the insurgent's economic and social base of support, order of
battle, tactics, techniques, and procedures.

Army forces help local pro-government police, paramilitary, and military forces
perform counterinsurgency, area security, or local security operations. They
advise and assist in finding, dispersing, capturing, and destroying the
insurgent force.

US forces may conduct offensive operations to disrupt and destroy insurgent
combat formations. These operations prevent the insurgents from attacking
government-controlled areas.

There are many organizations and extensive resources available to aid
counterinsurgent forces.

Commanders should not overlook the aid these organizations may provide. All
forces assigned an AO or function should determine which departments and
agencies are assisting in that AO and coordinate actions so that there is no
duplication of effort. Such departments,

councils and agencies include-

· National Security Council.

· Department of Defense.

· Department of State.

· Department of Justice.

· Department of the Treasury.

· Department of Homeland Security.

· Department of Agriculture.

· Department of Commerce.

· Central Intelligence Agency.

· Department of Transportation

Various governmental departments directly administer or support other
governmental agencies. Examples of these US agencies are-

· The US Coast Guard (under Department of Homeland Security).

· The Federal Bureau of Investigation (under Department of Justice).

· Immigration Customs Enforcement (under Department of Homeland Security).

· Federal Communications Commission

. The proper application of force is a critical component to any successful
counterinsurgency operation. In a counterinsurgency, the center of gravity is
public support. In order to defeat an insurgent force, US forces must be able to
separate insurgents from the population. At the same time, US forces must
conduct themselves in a manner that enables them to maintain popular domestic
support. Excessive or indiscriminate use of force is likely to alienate the
local populace, thereby increasing support for insurgent forces. Insufficient
use of force results in increased risks to US forces and perceived weaknesses
that can jeopardize the mission by emboldening insurgents and undermining
domestic popular support. Achieving the appropriate balance requires a thorough
understanding of the nature and causes of the insurgency, the end state, and the
military's role in a counterinsurgency operation. Nevertheless, US forces always
retain the right to use necessary and proportional force for individual and unit
self-defense in response to a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent.

The media, print and broadcast (radio, television and the Internet), play a
vital role in societies involved in a counterinsurgency. Members of the media
have a significant influence and shaping impact on political direction, national
security objectives, and policy and national will. The media is a factor in
military operations. It is their right and obligation to report to their
respective audiences on the use of military force. They demand logistic support
and access to military operations while refusing to be controlled. Their desire
for immediate footage and on-the-spot coverage of events, and the increasing
contact with units and Soldiers (for example, with embedded reporters) require
commanders and public affairs officers to provide guidance to leaders and
Soldiers on media relations. However, military planners must provide and enforce
ground rules to the media to ensure operations security. Public affairs offices
plan for daily briefings and a special briefing after each significant event
because the media affect and influence each potential target audience external
and internal to the AO. Speaking with the media in a forward-deployed area is an
opportunity to explain what our organizations and efforts have accomplished.

Continuous PSYOP are mounted to-

· Counter the effects of insurgent propaganda.

· Relate controls to the security and well-being of the population.

· Portray a favorable governmental image.

.Control measures must-

· Be authorized by national laws and regulations (counterparts should be trained
not to improvise unauthorized measures).

· Be tailored to fit the situation (apply the minimum force required to achieve
the de-sired result).

· Be supported by effective local intelligence.

· Be instituted in as wide an area as possible to prevent bypass or evasion.

· Be supported by good communications.

· Be enforceable.

· Be lifted as the need diminishes.

· Be compatible, where possible, with local customs and traditions.

· Establish and maintain credibility of local government.

A control program may be developed in five phases:

· Securing and defending the area internally and externally.

· Organizing for law enforcement.

· Executing cordon and search operations.

· Screening and documenting the population (performing a detailed census).

· Performing public administration, to include resource control.

Support to the judiciary may be limited to providing security to the existing
courts or may lead to more comprehensive actions to build local, regional, and
national courts and the required support apparatus. To avoid overcrowding in
police jails, the courts must have an efficient and timely magistrate
capability, ideally co-located with police stations and police jails, to review
cases for trial.

Cordon and search is a technique used by military and police forces in both
urban and rural environments. It is frequently used by counterinsurgency forces
conducting a population and resource control mission against small centers of
population or subdivisions of a larger community. To be effective, cordon and
search operations must have sufficient forces to effectively cordon off and
thoroughly search target areas, to include subsurface areas.

PSYOP, civil affairs, and specialist interrogation teams should augment cordon
and search orces to increase the effectiveness of operations. Consider the
following when conducting cordon and search operations:

Cordon and search operations may be conducted as follows:

Disposition of troops should-

· Facilitate visual contact between posts within the cordon.

· Provide for adequate patrolling and immediate deployment of an effective
re-serve force.

Priority should be given to-

· Sealing the administrative center of the community.

· Occupying all critical facilities.

· Detaining personnel in place.

· Preserving and securing all records, files, and other archives.

Key facilities include-

· Administrative buildings.

· Police stations.

· News media facilities.

· Post offices.

· Communications centers.

· Transportation offices and motor pools.

· Prisons and other places of detention.

· Schools.

· Medical facilities.

Search Techniques include-

· Search teams of squad size organized in assault, support, and security

One target is assigned per team.

· Room searches are conducted by two-person teams.

· Room search teams are armed with pistols, assault weapons, and automatic

· Providing security for search teams screening operations and facilities.

Pre-search coordination includes-

· Between control personnel and screening team leaders.

· Study of layout plans.

· Communications, that is, radio, whistle, and hand signals.

· Disposition of suspects.

· On-site security.

· Guard entrances, exits (to include the roof), halls, corridors, and tunnels.

· Assign contingency tasks for reserve.

· Room searches conducted by two- or three-person teams.

· Immobilize occupants with one team member.

· Search room with other team member.

· Search all occupants. When available, a third team member should be the

· Place documents in a numbered envelope and tag the associated individual with
a corresponding number.


Screening and documentation include following:

· Systematic identification and registration.

· Issuance of individual identification cards containing-

A unique number.

Picture of individual.

Personal identification data.


An official stamp (use different colors for each administration region).

Family group census cards, an official copy of which is retained at the local
po-lice agency. These must include a picture and appropriate personal data.

Frequent use of mobile and fixed checkpoints for inspection, identification, and
reg-istration of documents.

Preventing counterfeiting of identification and registration documents by
laminat-ing and embossing.

Programs to inform the population of the need for identification and

Covert surveillance is a collection effort with the responsibility fixed at the
intelligence/security division or detective division of the police department.
Covert techniques, ranging from application of sophisticated electronics systems
to informants, should include-

Informant nets. Reliability of informants should be verified. Protection of
identity is a must.

Block control. Dividing a community or populated area into zones where a trusted
resident reports on the activities of the population. If the loyalty of block
leaders is questionable, an informant net can be established to verify
questionable areas.

Units designated for counterinsurgency operations

· 115th MIB, Schofield, HI

· 704th MIB, Fort Made, MD, Collaboration with NSA

· 513st MIB, Fort Gordon, GA in Collaboration with NSA

· Arlington Hall Station, VA

· Aberdeen Proving Ground (Maryland)

· US Army Intelligence and Security Command ­ INSCOM- Huachuca ( Arizona )

· INTELLIGENCE THREAT and ANALYSIS CENTER ( Center Analysis for threat and
Intelligence )

· 501st Military Intelligence Brigade EAC

· 3rd Military Intelligence Battalion Exploitation Area

. . . . . . The document continues, page after page, throughout almost
nine-hundred pages. In those other pages, the document outlines "REX 84" "FEMA
concentration camps", already established, constructed and manned inside the
United States, to be utilized to house "insurgents" who are rounded-up by


When I read the document, I knew that I could be criminally prosecuted for
having it, prosecuted on a separate charge for reading it and prosecuted yet
again for releasing information contained within it.

I decided that the threat to Liberty posed by the document made it imperative
that I take action and I have done so. Now, all of you know!

I also realized that in order for the U.S. Government to prosecute me, the
document would have to be authentic. They would have to admit the Document is
authentic and actually Classified in order to bring any prosecution.

Since such an admission would prove me right and be an ominous warning to all of
you that real trouble is here, I suspect I am safe from any reprisals for the
time being. It's a gamble with enormous consequences, but saving our Republic
from a tyrannical government is worth my risk.

It is clear to me that very serious things are on the horizon here in America.
It will be up to us, citizen-patriots, to step up to defend our liberty. I am
ready. Are you?

-- Hal Turner



Best regards, LB Bork


Multi multa, non omnia novit = Many men know many things, no one knows

Have you been Deprogrammed? HYPERLINK ""


#3 Planned Economic collapse to bring in the new AMERO and NAU

The First Great Depression was planned. We had the HUD scandal in the 80's and 90's and another black Monday in 1986.

The next great depression has been planned and the CFR has already done a mock drill in 2000.
Exposed! CFR Bankers Plan for Financial Crash by Richard Freeman EIR July 28, 2000
On July 12-13, 2000, while public media were assuring the credulous public of a "soft landing" for the U.S. economy, the New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) held a conference at its exclusive mansion-headquarters on the East Side of Manhattan, entitled "The Next Financial Crisis: Warning Signs, Damage Control and Impact." For two days, several speakers told a high-powered audience of 250 people, comprised largely of bankers, investors, corporation officials, and policymakers, mostly from the United States, but also from Europe, of the possibility that the U.S. stock market, and potentially the world financial system, would melt down...

These are prime examples of neo-con propaganda agendas. If anything it will bankrupt the US. The Economist is based out of London. The aim of The Economist is to take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress. It's owned by the Financial Times another mouth piece for the Bush/Blair regimes and the oil-soaked MSM monopoly media run by the CFR media moguls.
Economist: Sanctioning War with Iran ... ID=9514293
Cockburn: Giuliani and the Dogs of War

The US economy is energy driven and the high prices in oil coupled with high unemployment is causing the inflation.
"Inflation steals money from the masses without them knowing it even happened, until it's over and done." -- Stalin

Congress is well aware of inflation and Helicopter Bernie testified before assuring us everything was OK. He thought if you would drop dollar bills out of the sky it would solve inflation. Bernanke is a graduate Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
House Financial Services Cmte. Hearing on State of the Economy (7/18/2007) C-Span

The collapse of the economy will probably occur simultaneously with the invasion of Iraq, followed by martial law, which is inevitable according to leading writers, scholars, economists and historians. Things will come so fast and furious the American sheople won't know what to do.

I would think getting out of Iraq is paramount so Bush can't use it as a springboard for ground troops into Iran.

Sen. Feingold is again calling for the censure of Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales. The NIE report is out and McConnell is issuing the same terror threats as Chertoff, Stephen Hadley, Tony Snow, Fern Townsend, followed by a State Dept. briefing on Pakistan, which I already sent out. The Bush administration is creating the terror as a pretext and justification for an attack on Iran.

Since the invasion of Iraq terrorism has increased seven times. The only reason we have been attacked, not because the USAPA or Homeland Security, it's is because Bush hasn't decided to do another MIHOP. An acronym for Made It Happen On Purpose

Meet The Press with Tim Russert Sunday July 22
Sunday, Exclusive! In his first television interview as Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell discusses terrorism. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., on Iraq. Plus, David Brooks, Bob Woodward & Stephen Hayes, author of "Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President." More...
Audio ... _m_edpicks

Al-Qaeda is a CIA creation. The war has an economical objective and the war on terror is fabricated. Iran is the next phase of this war. Israel will play slated to play a direct role in the bombing campaign. The preparation in this campaigned operation have already been completed.
Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, PhD economist and author - Flaming Pear

From Dr. Kevin Bennett
This information was also on historian and author Webster Tarpley's radio show.
He gave a critical briefing last Thursday evening, and told everyone to listen.
Cheney Determined To Strike In US With WMD This Summer
Only Impeachment, Removal or General Strike Can Stop Him By Webster G. Tarpley 07-21-07

The Coming Conflict in the Arctic Russia and US to Square Off Over Arctic Energy Reserves by Vladimir Frolov 07-17-07 ... a&aid=6344

Iran says "confessions" unveil U.S. plot By Hossein Jaseb 07/22/07 ... in3vQE1vAI

Congress is in recess and won't be returning until after Labor Day. After the holiday, contact them and tell them get out of Iraq, and "NO ATTACKS" on Iran and support Rep. Kucinich Bill HR 333.

----- Original Message -----
From: The Exposé
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 7:21 AM



Wednesday 18 July 2007 12:21



By Christopher Story FRSA, Editor and Publisher, International Currency Review, World Reports Limited, London and New York:

Press NEWS and the ARCHIVE Button on the Home Page for 'Wantagate' reports since April 2006. [Note: A new panel giving details of our latest publications as they are made available, has been added].

The entire world is on the verge of a financial and economic crash with no historical precedent. Not a single currency, portfolio, national government, bank or financial instrument will escape. We are teetering on the brink of a calamity. A sizeable number of massive institutions will go to the wall.

There will be global financial and economic chaos.

The international financial community has a simple, immediate choice. It can assist the technicians who are genuinely trying to finalise the Wanta Settlement to complete their work without further delay and interference, or it can sit and watch what is otherwise inevitably going to be the biggest destruction of wealth in human history.

Existing values are being sustained by one consideration only: the expectation of the Leo Wanta Settlement. With the Settlement, the financial markets and the outlook will stabilise and will begin to improve. Without the Settlement, the global financial calamity that will be inevitable, will leave no country unaffected. The delusion that stolen fiat money assets stashed in places like Iceland, India, Ireland, Vietnam or Vanuatu will avoid the consequences of the catastrophe that will ensue absent the Wanta Settlement, is naïve.

There is no country in the world that lacks derivatives and CDOs in its national financial sector portfolio. There is no country in the world which will not suffer extreme pain as a consequence of the collapse of values, the disorderly pricing of currencies, or any of the other multiple variables concomitant with so-called globalisation. There will be no more talk of globalisation: it has been associated with a period of extreme excess, built on the back of financial theft so great that when the crash comes every single holder of wealth will experience wealth destruction and other shocks, with some values being pulped and others going to mere fractions of their numbers at the outset of July 2007. 1929 will look like a pleasant experience by comparison.

US intelligence operatives associated with the world's two most egregious financial criminals, Vice President R. Cheney and President George W. Bush Jr., are reported STILL to be messing with the arrangements for the Wanta Settlement. The risk they are running, as they seek to avoid arrest or worse, is that their own stolen wealth will go to hell like the assets of everyone else.

MORE ARRESTS OF BANKERS AROUND THE WORLD Last week, there were more arrests, mainly of bankers, around the world. The Editor has checked this single fact out, and has had it confirmed. Further arrests are taking place now. These arrests follow the smashing of the 'Eddie George ring', and presumably entail the neutering of that ring's co-conspirators and collaborators, engaged in the systematic frustration of the Wanta Settlement.

But while this is encouraging, all this is happening much, much too late in the day to prevent the likelihood of a calamity. The 'powers that be' allowed this situation to drift on from sub-crisis to sub-crisis while we warned the whole world (on the basis of premium intelligence which we have been privileged to receive thanks to the Editor's arms'-length relationship with Ambassador and Michael C. Cottrell, M.S.) of the extreme gravity of the situation.

Now we find that those who are genuinely trying to procure the absolutely necessary outcome are having to contend with people with axes to grind who, like mechanics with no knowledge of what they are supposed to be doing, are applying screwdrivers and spanners in the works, unscrewing this, tightening up that, leaving washers and components lying on the deck, and generally seeking to direct the outcome to suit themselves - without even understanding that their contributions are jeopardising their own prospects along with those of the whole of humanity.

FUTURE OF THE WORLD WITHOUT THE WANTA SETTLEMENT Such sources of unnecessary delay are being overcome, but there is no time left and the tinkering has to stop. Everything is taking longer than anticipated, and time has run out. Quite simply, either the Wanta Settlement is completed (nearly 14 months late), or:

. The Euro System will disintegrate as:
. The US dollar continues its collapse and the Euro goes through the roof;
. The United States' de facto world empire will collapse;
. The United States, reliant on 'just-in-time' delivery having allowed its industrial sector to be hollowed out, will be unable to manufacture anything much, since it will remain dependent on imported components which, given the collapse of the US dollar, and the refusal of foreigners to continue buying US Treasury securities, it will be unable to afford;
. Foreign predators will buy up remaining US assets at fire-sale prices;
. Foreign predators will buy up remaining UK assets at fire-sale prices;
. The United Kingdom - the underlying macroeconomic numbers of which are worse proportionately in many respects than those of the United States, following the gross mismanagement of Britain's finances by Gordon Brown - will be reduced to penury: it has virtually no international reserves, a small productive economy, a colossal services economy, a huge parasitical public sector, and depends for its solvency on the City of London, which will be decimated in the crash;
. The British economy will be flattened anyway, as sterling paradoxically goes through the roof, as it is now doing in parallel with the US dollar's
decline, and because Britain's macroeconomic data have never been worse;
. Householders with excessive debt will suffer excruciating consequences;
. Equity prices will implode worldwide;
. Derivatives values will go to zero (literally);
. The prices of all exotic financial products will follow;
. Financial institutions will disintegrate overnight;
. Central banks will be unable to handle the situation, yet will panic,
printing money on a scale with no precedent (if they have time, which is
. Unemployment will soar around the world;
. The Chinese economy will collapse, with 40% of its state-owned enterprises currently continuing to make losses and its foreign markets disintegrating;
. The East Asian economies will experience conditions that will be liable to throw some of them back to pre-industrial living standards;
. Germany, with its huge derivatives exposure, will be severely impacted, and has no defence against predatory hedge funds seizing control of vast swathes of the German economy - just as predatory German organisations have acquired strategic holdings amounting almost to a political stranglehold of the British economy in recent years;
. Germany's secret DVD-driven long-range hegemony strategy will crumble;
. The southern European EU 'Member States', decimated by the artificially
high Euro, will exit the socialist European Union Collective one after the other;
. Africa will be abandoned and will become a continental Zimbabwe;
. Latin America will be able to export more given the linkages of its currencies to the collapsing US dollar, but in the context of global
conditions life will not be easy. Very severe financial problems will inevitably overwhelm the entire region;
. Rates of inflation will soar into the 20s, and will rapidly reach hyperinflationary levels in some countries, with escalating inflation trends
liable to be curbed only by declines in Gross Domestic Product, as in Argentina some years ago;
. There will be no bolt-holes for 'funny money';
. Holders of stolen gold will probably be 'liquidated'.
. Soup kitchens will sprout everywhere (as we warned on 2nd September last year [see Archive]: no-one was listening).

Consider the following numbers which we have checked with experts and which are believed to be 'ball-park' reliable. The numbers against these mainly American financial institutions represent their estimated derivatives holdings, in billions of US dollars (1):

01. JPMorganChase, $33,700 billion
02. Bank of America, $13,800 billion
03. Citigroup, $11,000 billion
04. Wachovia Corporation, $2,457 billion
05. Bank One Corporation, $1,133 billion
06. HSBC, $1,043 billion
07. Wells Fargo Bank, $911 billion
08. Fleet Boston, $494 billion
09. Bank of New York, $496 billion
10. Country Wide Financial, $410 billion
11. State Street Bank, $320 billion
12. Taunus, $307 billion
13. National City Bank, Cleveland, $203 billion
14. ABN Amro, $188 billion
15. Mellon Bank, $153 billion
16. Keycorp, $98 billion
17. Suntrust, $82 billion
18. First Tennessee Bank, $58 billion
19. US Bancorp, $54 billion
20. PNC Bank NA, $45 billion
21. Doral, $31 billion
22. Northern Trust, $25 billion
23. CIBC Delaware, $25 billion
24. Metlife, $22 billion

And that's just the main US holders of derivatives (+ ABN Amro). The situation is replicated in Britain, Germany and Switzerland (especially) and France.

That the world is teetering on the brink of financial and economic calamity was even recognised by the Bank for International Settlements, which warned in its 77th Annual Report, published in Basle on 24th June 2007, that 'virtually nobody foresaw the Great Depression of the 1930s, or the crises which affected Japan and Southeast Asia in the early and late 1990s. In fact, each downturn was preceded by a period of non-inflationary growth exuberant enough to lead many commentators to suggest that a 'new era' had arrived. Behind each set of concerns lurks the common factor of accommodating financial conditions. Tail events affecting the global economy might at some point have much higher costs than is supposed'.

Beyond these widely cited sentences, the Bank for International Settlements' experts elaborated other general anxieties. For instance, on page 130 of its Annual Report, the BIS warned - without explaining that hedge funds are in many cases 'vents' for the collectivisation of fiat money created illegally off the back of stolen or diverted financial assets, mainly those of which Ambassador Leo Wanta is the sole Principal:

'Higher levels of leverage combined with relative opaqueness have raised concerns that any future problems in the sector could spread widely across the financial system. Counterparties may have underestimated the riskiness of individual funds and the overall fragility of markets where the funds are active'

'Given the key role that a benign credit environment has been playing in boosting the performance of the financial sector over the past years, a turn in the credit cycle [which immediately followed, or coincided with, publication of the latest BIS Annual Report - Editor] represents a significant risk to its outlook. Investment strategies that are predicated on continuing low spreads and rising asset prices are critically exposed to an increased incidence of defaults. A turn in the credit cycle is arguably within the expectations of market observers. Signs of strain in housing finance markets have multiplied, primarily in the United States, and household indebtedness remains a concern in many jurisdictions as retail loan delinquencies have risen'.

In its general macroeconomic analysis, the Bank for International Settlements tiptoes round the issue addressed in this commentary - the horrendous implications of a generalised collapse of confidence arising from continued frustration of the Wanta Settlement and Plan by malevolent or incompetent cadres within US intelligence. The Annual Reports of the BIS share with the academic literature the weakness that none of the people who write these reports appear ever to have taken account of the possibility that financial institutions and policy might be devolved into the hands of organised crime - which explains why they are having such a very hard time understanding the real causes of the prospective millennial calamity that humanity now faces.

BANKS 'MIGHT BE STUCK WITH A WAREHOUSE OF DEPRECIATING ASSETS' When the central bankers' central bank uses language invoking the possibility that big investment and commercial banks 'might be stuck with a warehouse of depreciating assets in turbulent times', it is obliquely referring to the situation we are describing, without being specific.

This particular passage ends as follows:

'The fact that banks are now increasingly providing bridge equity, along with bridge loans, to support the still growing number of corporate mergers and acquisitions, is not a good sign. A closely related concern is the possibility that banks have, either intentionally or inadvertently, retained a significant degree of credit risk on their books'.

CORRECT EXPECTATION, PERVERSELY DIVERSIONARY EXPLANATION Speaking on the 15th July at the World Economic Forum on East Asia, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Singapore's Second Minister for Finance, warned that financial contagion will erupt where it is least expected, and will trigger a 'vicious' aftermath.

'The international community', he added, faces a real risk of 'economic chaos' arising from major imbalances in the global financial system. Complacency has set in after years of uninterrupted global growth and there is no evidence to suggest a self-correcting mechanism is in place to avert a major shock to the global financial system'.

THE SELF-CORRECTING MECHANISM IS THE HIJACKED WANTA PLAN On the contrary, the self-correcting mechanism exists and has been in place for 14 months already: it is the Wanta Plan; and today's threat of global economic and financial chaos ari

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest