by Patrick Wood
Editor, The August Review
Volume 6, Issue 5
The global elite, through
the direct operations of President George Bush and his
Administration, are creating a North American Union that
will combine Canada, Mexico and the U.S. into a
superstate called the North American Union. There is no
legislation or Congressional oversight, much less public
support, for this massive restructuring of the U.S.
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?
Lou Dobbs on
Lou Dobbs Tonight, June
The global elite, through the direct operations of President George
Bush and his Administration, are creating a North American Union
that will combine Canada, Mexico and the U.S. into a superstate
called the North American Union (NAU). The NAU is roughly patterned
after the European Union (EU). There is no political or economic
mandate for creating the NAU, and unofficial polls of a
cross-section of Americans indicate that they are overwhelmingly
against this end-run around national sovereignty.
To answer Lou Dobbs, "No, the political elites have not gone mad",
they just want you to think that they have.
The reality over appearance is easily cleared up with a proper
historical perspective of the last 35 years of political and
economic manipulation by the same elite who now bring us the NAU.
This paper will explore this history in order to give the reader a
complete picture of the NAU, how it is made possible, who are the
instigators of it, and where it is headed.
It is important to first understand that the impending birth of the
NAU is a gestation of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government,
not the Congress. This is the topic of the first discussion below.
The next topic will examine the global elite's strategy of
subverting the power to negotiate trade treaties and international
law with foreign countries from the Congress to the President.
Without this power, NAFTA and the NAU would never have been
After this, we will show that the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) is the immediate genetic and necessary ancestor of
Lastly, throughout this report the NAU perpetrators and their
tactics will be brought into the limelight so as to affix blame
where it properly belongs. The reader will be struck with the fact
that the same people are at the center of each of these subjects.
Government that Money Can Buy
Modern day globalization was launched with the creation of
Trilateral Commission in 1973 by David Rockefeller and
Brzezinski. Its membership consisted of just over 300 powerful
elitists from north America, Europe and Japan. The clearly stated
goal of the Trilateral Commission was to foster a "New International
Economic Order" that would supplant the historical economic order.
In spite of its non-political rhetoric, The Trilateral Commission
nonetheless established a headlock on the Executive Branch of the
U.S. government with the election of James Earl Carter in 1976.
Hand-picked as a presidential candidate by Brzezinski, Carter was
personally tutored in globalist philosophy and foreign policy by
Brzezinski himself. Subsequently, when Carter was sworn in as
President, he appointed no less than one-third of the U.S. members
of the Commission to his Cabinet and other high-level posts in his
Administration. Such was the genesis of the Trilateral Commission's
domination of the Executive Branch that continues to the present
With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Trilateral Commission
member George H.W. Bush was introduced to the White House as
vice-president. Through Bush's influence, Reagan continued to select
key appointments from the ranks of the Trilateral Commission.
George H.W. Bush began his four-year term as President. He
was followed by fellow Trilateral Commission member William
Jefferson Clinton, who served for 8 years as President and appointed
fourteen fellow Trilateral members to his Administration.
The election of George W. Bush in 2000 should be no surprise.
Although Bush was not a member of the Trilateral Commission, his
vice-president Dick Cheney is. In addition, Dick Cheney's wife,
Lynne, is also a member of the Commission in her own right.
The hegemony of the Trilateral Commission over the Executive Branch
of the U.S. government is unmistakable. Critics argue that this
scenario is merely circumstantial, that the most qualified political
"talent" quite naturally tends to belong to groups like the
Trilateral Commission in the first place. Under examination, such
explanations are quite hollow.
Why would the Trilateral Commission seek to dominate the Executive
Branch? Quite simply - Power! That is, power to get things done
directly which would have been impossible to accomplish through the
only moderately successful lobbying efforts of the past; power to
use the government as a bully platform to modify political behavior
throughout the world.
Of course, the obvious corollary to this hegemony is that the
influence and impact of the citizenry is virtually eliminated.
"World Order" Strategy
After its founding in 1973, Trilateral Commission members wasted no
time in launching their globalist strategy. But, what was that
Richard Gardner was an original member of the Trilateral Commission,
and one of the prominent architects of the New International
Economic Order. In 1974, his article "The Hard Road to World Order"
appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine, published by the
With obvious disdain for anyone holding
nationalistic political views, Gardner proclaimed,
"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."1 [emphasis added]
In Gardner's view, using treaties and
trade agreements (such as General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs or
GATT) would bind and supercede constitutional law piece by piece,
which is exactly what has happened. In addition, Gardner highly
esteemed the role of the United Nations as a third-party legal body
that could be used to erode the national sovereignty of individual
Gardner concluded that "the case-by-case approach can produce some
remarkable concessions of 'sovereignty' that could not be achieved
on an across-the-board basis"2
Thus, the end result of such a process is that the U.S. would
eventually capitulate its sovereignty to the newly proposed world
order. It is not specifically mentioned who would control this new
order, but it is quite obvious that the only 'players' around are
Gardner and his Trilateral cronies.
It should again be noted that the formation of the Trilateral
Commission by Rockefeller and Brzezinski was a response to the
general frustration that globalism was going nowhere with the status
quo prior to 1973. The "frontal assault " had failed, and a new
approach was needed. It is a typical mindset of the global elite to
view any roadblock as an opportunity to stage an "end-run" to get
Gardner confirms this frustration:
"Certainly the gap has never loomed
larger between the objectives and the capacities of the
international organizations that were supposed to get mankind on
the road to world order. We are witnessing an outbreak of
shortsighted nationalism that seems oblivious to the economic,
political and moral implications of interdependence. Yet never
has there been such widespread recognition by the world's
intellectual leadership of the necessity for cooperation and
planning on a truly global basis, beyond country, beyond region,
especially beyond social system."3
The "world's intellectual leadership"
apparently refers to academics such as Gardner and Brzezinski.
Outside of the Trilateral Commission and the CFR, the vast majority
of academic thought at the time was opposed to such notions as
Groundwork: Fast Track Authority
In Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, authority is
granted to Congress "To regulate commerce with foreign nations." An
end-run around this insurmountable obstacle would be to convince
Congress to voluntarily turn over this power to the President. With
such authority in hand, the President could freely negotiate
treaties and other trade agreements with foreign nations, and then
simply present them to Congress for a straight up or down vote, with
no amendments possible.
This again points out elite disdain for a
Congress that is elected to be representative "of the people, by the
people and for the people."
So, the first "Fast Track" legislation was passed by Congress in
1974, just one year after the founding of the Trilateral Commission.
It was the same year that Nelson Rockefeller was confirmed as Vice
President under President Gerald Ford, neither of whom were elected
by the U.S. public. As Vice-President, Rockefeller was seated as the
president of the U.S. Senate.
According to Public Citizen, the bottom line of Fast Track is
"...the White House signs and enters
into trade deals before Congress ever votes on them. Fast Track
also sets the parameters for congressional debate on any trade
measure the President submits, requiring a vote within a certain
time with no amendments and only 20 hours of debate."4
When an agreement is about to be given
to Congress, high-powered lobbyists and political hammer-heads are
called in to manipulate congressional hold-outs into voting for the
legislation. (*See CAFTA Lobbying Efforts) With only 20 hours of
debate allowed, there is little opportunity for public involvement.
Congress clearly understood the risk of giving up this power to the
President, as evidenced by the fact that they put an automatic
expiration date on it. Since the expiration of the original Fast
Track, there been a very contentious trail of Fast Track renewal
efforts. In 1996, President Clinton utterly failed to re-secure Fast
Track after a bitter debate in Congress. After another contentious
struggle in 2001/2002, President Bush was able to renew Fast Track
for himself in the Trade Act of 2002, just in time to negotiate the
Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and insure its passage
It is startling to realize that since 1974, Fast Track has not been
used in the majority of trade agreements. Under the Clinton
presidency, for instance, some 300 separate trade agreements were
negotiated and passed normally by Congress, but only two of them
were submitted under Fast Track: NAFTA and the GATT Uruguay Round.
In fact, from 1974 to 1992, there were only three instances of Fast
Track in action: GATT Tokyo Round, U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement
and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Thus, NAFTA was only the
fourth invocation of Fast Track.
Why the selectivity? Does it suggest a very narrow agenda? Most
certainly. These trade and legal bamboozles didn't stand a ghost of
a chance to be passed without it, and the global elite knew it. Fast
Track was created as a very specific legislative tool to accomplish
a very specific executive task -- namely, to "fast track" the
creation of the "New International Economic Order" envisioned by
Trilateral Commission in 1973!
Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that,
"all Treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Because international treaties supercede
national law, Fast Track has allowed an enormous restructuring of
U.S. law without resorting to a Constitutional convention (Ed. note:
Both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski called for a
constitutional convention as early as 1972, which could clearly be
viewed as a failed "frontal assault").
As a result, national sovereignty of the
United States has been severely compromised - even if some
Congressmen and Senators are aware of this, the general public is
still generally ignorant.
Free Trade Agreement
NAFTA was negotiated under the executive leadership of Republican
President George H.W. Bush. Carla Hills is widely credited as being
the primary architect and negotiator of NAFTA. Both Bush and Hills
were members of the Trilateral Commission!
Ceremony: From left to right (standing)
President Salinas, President Bush, Prime Minister Mulroney
(Seated) Jaime Serra Puche, Carla Hills, Michael Wilson.
With Bush's first presidential term drawing to a close and Bush
desiring political credit for NAFTA, an "initialing" ceremony of
NAFTA was staged (so Bush could take credit for NAFTA) in October,
1992. Although very official looking, most Americans did not
understand the difference between initialing and signing; at the
time, Fast Track was not implemented and Bush did not have the
authority to actually sign such a trade agreement.
Bush subsequently lost a publicly contentious presidential race to
democrat William Jefferson Clinton, but they were hardly polar
opposites on the issue of Free Trade and NAFTA: The reason? Clinton
was also a seasoned member of the Trilateral Commission.
Immediately after inauguration, Clinton became the champion of NAFTA
and orchestrated its passage with a massive Executive Branch effort.
Unexpected Resistance to NAFTA
Prior to the the 1992 election, there was a fly in the elite's
ointment -- namely, presidential candidate and billionaire Ross
Perot, founder and chairman of Electronic Data Systems (EDS). Perot
was politically independent, vehemently anti-NAFTA and chose to make
it a major campaign issue in 1991. In the end, the global elite
would have to spend huge sums of money to overcome the negative
publicity that Perot gave to NAFTA.
At the time, some political analysts believed that Perot, being a
billionaire, was somehow put up to this task by the same elitists
who were pushing NAFTA. Presumably, it would accumulate all the
anti-globalists in one tidy group, thus allowing the elitists to
determine who their true enemies really were. It's moot today
whether he was sincere or not, but it did have that outcome, and
Perot became a lightning rod for the whole issue of free trade.
Perot hit the nail squarely on the head in one of his nationally
televised campaign speeches:
"If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an
hour for factory workers and you can move your factory south of
the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, hire young -- let's
assume you've been in business for a long time and you've got a
mature workforce - pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no
health care - that's the most expensive single element in making
a car - have no environmental controls, no pollution controls,
and no retirement, and you didn't care about anything but making
money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south..."5
Perot's message struck a nerve with
millions of Americans, but it was unfortunately cut short when he
entered into public campaign debates with fellow candidate Al Gore.
Simply put, Gore ate Perot's lunch, not so much on the issues
themselves, but on having superior debating skills. As organized as
Perot was, he was no match for a politically and globally seasoned
politician like Al Gore.
Machine gears up
To counter the public relations damage done by Perot, all the stops
were pulled out as the NAFTA vote drew near. As proxy for the global
elite, the President unleashed the biggest and most expensive spin
machine the country had ever seen.
Former Chrysler chairman Lee Iococca was
enlisted for a multi-million dollar nationwide ad campaign that
praised the benefits of NAFTA. The mantra, carried consistently
throughout the many spin events: "Exports. Better Jobs. Better
Wages", all of which have turned out to be empty promises
Bill Clinton invited three former presidents to the White House to
stand with him in praise and affirmation NAFTA. This was the first
time in U.S. history that four presidents had ever appeared
Of the four, three were members of the
Trilateral Commission: Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and George H.W.
Bush. Gerald Ford was not a Commissioner, but was nevertheless a
confirmed globalist insider. After Ford's accession to the
presidency in 1974, he promptly nominated Nelson Rockefeller (David
Rockefeller's oldest brother) to fill the Vice Presidency that Ford
had just vacated.
The academic community was enlisted when, according to Harper's
Magazine publisher John MacArthur,
...there was a pro-NAFTA petition,
organized and written my MIT's Rudiger Dornbusch, addressed to
President Clinton and signed by all twelve living Nobel
laureates in economics, and exercise in academic logrolling that
was expertly converted by Bill Daley and the A-Team into PR gold
on the front page of The New York Times on September 14. 'Dear
Mr. President,' wrote the 283 signatories..."6
Lastly, prominent Trilateral Commission
members themselves took to the press to promote NAFTA. For instance,
on May 13, 1993, Commissioners Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance wrote
a joint op-ed that stated:
"[NAFTA] would be the most
constructive measure the United States would have undertaken in
our hemisphere in this century."7
Two months later, Kissinger went
"It will represent the most creative
step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries
since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even
larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western
Hemisphere." [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but
the architecture of a new international system."8 [emphasis
It is hardly fanciful to think that
Kissinger's hype sounds quite similar to the Trilateral Commission's
original goal of creating a New International Economic Order.
signing NAFTA On January 1, 1994, NAFTA became law:
Under Fast Track
procedures, the house had passed it by 234-200
(132 Republicans and
102 Democrats voting in favor)
and the U.S. Senate
passed it by 61-38.
That Giant Sucking
Sound Going South
To understand the potential impact of the North American Union, one
must understand the impact of NAFTA.
NAFTA promised greater exports, better jobs and better wages. Since
1994, just the opposite has occurred. The U.S. trade deficit soared
and now approaches $1 trillion dollars per year; the U.S. has lost
some 1.5 million jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico
have fallen significantly.
Patrick Buchanan offered a simple example of NAFTA's deleterious
effect on the U.S. economy:
"When NAFTA passed in 1993, we
imported some 225,000 cars and trucks from Mexico, but exported
about 500,000 vehicles to the world. In 2005, our exports to the
world were still a shade under 500,000 vehicles, but our auto
and truck imports from Mexico had tripled to 700,000 vehicles.
"As McMillion writes, Mexico now exports more cars and trucks to
the United States than the United States exports to the whole
world. A fine end, is it not, to the United States as "Auto
Capital of the World"?
"What happened? Post-NAFTA, the Big Three just picked up a huge
slice of our auto industry and moved it, and the jobs, to
Of course, this only represents the auto
industry, but the same effect has been seen in many other industries
as well. Buchanan correctly noted that NAFTA was never just a trade
deal: Rather, it was an "enabling act - to enable U.S. corporations
to dump their American workers and move their factories to Mexico."
Indeed, this is the very spirit of all outsourcing of U.S. jobs and
manufacturing facilities to overseas locations.
Respected economist Alan Tonelson, author of The Race to the Bottom,
notes the smoke and mirrors that cloud what has really happened with
"Most U.S. exports to Mexico before,
during and since the (1994) peso crisis have been producer goods
- in particular, parts and components sent by U.S.
multinationals to their Mexican factories for assembly or for
further processing. The vast majority of these, moreover, are
reexported, and most get shipped right back to the United States
for final sale. In fact, by most estimates, the United States
buys 80 to 90 percent of all of Mexico's exports."10
Tonelson concludes that "the vast
majority of American workers has experienced declining living
standards, not just a handful of losers."
Mexican economist and scholar Miguel Pickard sums up Mexico's
supposed benefits from NAFTA:
"Much praise has been heard for the
few 'winners' that NAFTA has created, but little mention is made
of the fact that the Mexican people are the deal's big 'losers.'
Mexicans now face greater unemployment, poverty, and inequality
than before the agreement began in 1994."11
In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to
the citizenry of the United States or Mexico. Still, this is the
backdrop against which the North American Union is being acted out.
The globalization players and their promises have remained pretty
much the same, both just as disingenuous as ever.
Prelude to the
North American Union
Soon after NAFTA was passed in 1994, Dr. Robert A. Pastor began to
push for a "deep integration" which NAFTA could not provide by
itself. His dream was summed up in his book, Toward a North American
Union, published in 2001. Unfortunately for Pastor, the book was
released just a few days prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New
York and thus received little attention from any sector.
However, Pastor had the right connections. He was invited to appear
before the plenary session (held in Ontario, Canada) of the
Trilateral Commission on November 1-2, 2002, to deliver a paper
drawing directly on his book.
His paper, "A Modest Proposal To the
Trilateral Commission", made several recommendations:
"... the three governments should
establish a North American Commission (NAC) to define an agenda
for Summit meetings by the three leaders and to monitor the
implementation of the decisions and plans.
A second institution should emerge
from combining two bilateral legislative groups into a North
American Parliamentary Group.
"The third institution should be a
Permanent Court on Trade and Investment
"The three leaders should establish
a North American Development Fund, whose priority would be to
connect the U.S.-Mexican border region to central and southern
The North American Commission should
develop an integrated continental plan for transportation and
"...negotiate a Customs Union and a
Common External Tariff
"Our three governments should
sponsor Centers for North American Studies in each of our
countries to help the people of all three understand the
problems and the potential of North America and begin to think
of themselves as North Americans"12 [emphasis added]
Pastor's choice of the words "Modest
Proposal" are almost comical considering that he intends to
reorganize the entire North American continent.
Nevertheless, the Trilateral Commission bought Pastor's proposals
hook, line and sinker. Subsequently, it was Pastor who emerged as
the U.S. vice-chairman of the CFR task force that was announced on
October 15, 2004:
"The Council has launched an
independent task force on the future of North America to examine
regional integration since the implementation of the North
American Free Trade Agreement ten years ago... The task force
will review five spheres of policy in which greater cooperation
may be needed. They are: deepening economic integration;
reducing the development gap; harmonizing regulatory policy;
enhancing security; and devising better institutions to manage
conflicts that inevitably arise from integration and exploit
opportunities for collaboration."13
Independent task force, indeed! A total
of twenty-three members were chosen from the three countries. Each
country was represented by a member of the Trilateral Commission:
Carla A. Hills (U.S.), Luis Robio (Mexico) and Wendy K. Dobson
(Canada). Robert Pastor served as the U.S. vice-chairman.
This CFR task force was unique in that it focused on economic and
political policies for all three countries, not just the U.S. The
Task Force stated purpose was to,
"... identify inadequacies in the
current arrangements and suggest opportunities for deeper
cooperation on areas of common interest. Unlike other
Council-sponsored task forces, which focus primarily on U.S.
policy, this initiative includes participants from Canada and
Mexico, as well as the United States, and will make policy
recommendations for all three countries."14 [Emphasis added]
Richard Haass, chairman of the CFR and
long-time member of the Trilateral Commission, pointedly made the
link between NAFTA and integration of Mexico, Canada and the U.S.:
"Ten years after NAFTA, it is
obvious that the security and economic futures of Canada,
Mexico, and the United States are intimately bound. But there is
precious little thinking available as to where the three
countries need to be in another ten years and how to get there.
I am excited about the potential of this task force to help fill
Haass' statement "there is precious
little thinking available" underscores a repeatedly used elitist
technique. That is, first decide what you want to do, and secondly,
assign a flock of academics to justify your intended actions. (This
is the crux of academic funding by NGO's such as Rockefeller
Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie-Mellon, etc.)
justification process is complete, the same elites that suggested it
in the first place allow themselves to be drawn in as if they had no
other logical choice but to play along with the "sound thinking" of
The task force met three times, once in each country. When the
process was completed, it issued its results in May, 2005, in a
paper titled "Building a North American Community" and subtitled
"Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North
America." Even the sub-title suggests that the "future of North
America" is a fait accompli decided behind closed doors.
Some of the recommendations of the task force are:
"Adopt a common external
"Adopt a North American Approach
"Establish a common security
perimeter by 2010."
"Establish a North American
investment fund for infrastructure and human capital."
"Establish a permanent tribunal
for North American dispute resolution."
"An annual North American Summit
meeting" that would bring the heads-of-state together for
the sake of public display of confidence.
"Establish minister-led working
groups that will be required to report back within 90 days,
and to meet regularly."
Create a "North American
Create a "North American
It should: Many of the
recommendations are verbatim from Pastor's "modest" presentation to
the Trilateral Commission mentioned above, or from his earlier book,
Toward a North American Union.
Shortly after the task force report was issued, the heads of all
three countries did indeed meet together for a summit in Waco, Texas
on March 23, 2005. The specific result of the summit was the
creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
The joint press release stated,
"We, the elected leaders of Canada,
Mexico, and the United States, have met in Texas to announce the
establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of
"We will establish working parties led by our ministers and
secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our
respective countries. These working parties will respond to the
priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set
specific, measurable, and achievable goals. They will outline
concrete steps that our governments can take to meet these
goals, and set dates that will ensure the continuous achievement
"Within 90 days, ministers will present their initial report
after which, the working parties will submit six-monthly
reports. Because the Partnership will be an ongoing process of
cooperation, new items will be added to the work agenda by
mutual agreement as circumstances warrant."17
Once again, we see Pastor's North
American Union ideology being continued, but this time as an outcome
of a summit meeting of three heads-of-states. The question must be
"Who is really in charge of this process?"
Indeed, the three premiers returned to their respective countries
and started their "working parties" to "consult with stakeholders."
In the U.S., the "specific, measurable, and achievable goals" were
only seen indirectly by the creation of a government website billed
as "Security and Prosperity Partnetship of North America."
The stakeholders are not mentioned my
name, but it is clear that they are not the public of either of the
three countries; most likely, they are the corporate interests
represented by the members of the Trilateral Commission!
2006 SPP Summit in
The second annual summit meeting took
place on March 30-31, 2006, in Cancun, Mexico between Bush,
Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper. The Security and Prosperity
Partnership agenda was summed up in a statement from Mexican
president Vicente Fox:
"We touched upon fundamental items
in that meeting. First of all, we carried out an evaluation
meeting. Then we got information about the development of
programs. And then we gave the necessary instructions for the
works that should be carried out in the next period of work...
We are not renegotiating what has been successful or open the
Free Trade Agreement. It's going beyond the agreement, both for
prosperity and security."18 [emphasis added]
It may not have occurred to the reader that the two SPP summits
resulted in no signed agreements. This is not accidental nor a
failure of the summit process. The so-called "deeper integration" of
the three countries is being accomplished through a series of
regulations and executive decrees that avoid citizen watchdogs and
In the U.S., the 2005 Cancun summit spawned some 20 different
working groups that would deal with issues from immigration to
security to harmonization of regulations, all under the auspices of
Security and Prosperity Partnership.
The SPP in the U.S. is officially placed under the Department of
Commerce, headed by Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, but other
Executive Branch agencies also have SPP components that report to
After two years of massive effort, the names of the SPP working
group members have not been released. The result of their work have
also not been released. There is no congressional legislation or
oversight of the SPP process.
The director of SPP, Geri Word, was contacted to ask why a cloud of
secrecy is hanging over SPP. According to investigative journalist
Jerome Corsi, Word replied
"We did not want to get the contact
people of the working groups distracted by calls from the
This paternalistic attitude is a
typical elitist mentality. Their work (whatever they have dreamed
up on their own) is too important to be distracted by the likes
of pesky citizens or their elected legislators.
This elite change of tactics must not be understated:
Regulations and Executive Orders have replaced Congressional
legislation and public debate. There is no pretense of either.
This is another Gardner-style "end-run around national
sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece."
Apparently, the Trilateral-dominated
Bush administration believes that it has accumulated sufficient
power to ram the NAU down the throat of the American People, whether
they protest or not.
Pastor: A Trilateral Commission Operative
As mentioned earlier, Pastor is hailed as the father of the North
American Union, having written more papers about it, delivered more
testimonies before Congress, and headed up task forces to study it,
than any other single U.S. academic figure. He would seem a tireless
architect and advocate of the NAU.
Although he might seem to be a fresh, new name to in the
globalization business, Pastor has a long history with Trilateral
Commission members and the global elite.
He is the same Robert Pastor who was the executive director of the
1974 CFR task force ( funded by the Rockefeller and Ford
Foundations) called the Commission on US-Latin American Relations - aka the
Linowitz Commission. The Linowitz Commission, chaired by an
original Trilateral Commissioner Sol Linowitz, was singularly
credited with the giveaway of the Panama Canal in 1976 under the
ALL of the Linowitz Commission members
were members of the Trilateral Commission save one, Albert Fishlow;
other members were W. Michael Blumenthal, Samuel Huntington, Peter
G. Peterson, Elliot Richardson and David Rockefeller.
One of Carter's first actions as President in 1977 was to appoint
Zbigniew Brzezinski to the post of National Security Advisor. In
turn, one of Brzezinski's first acts was to appoint his protégé, Dr.
Robert A. Pastor, as director of the Office of Latin American and
Caribbean Affairs. Pastor then became the Trilateral Commission's
point-man to lobby for the Canal giveaway.
To actually negotiate the Carter-Torrijos Treaty, Carter sent none
other than Sol Linowitz to Panama as temporary ambassador. The
6-month temporary appointment avoided the requirement for Senate
confirmation. Thus, the very same people who created the policy
became responsible for executing it.
The Trilateral Commission's role in the Carter Administration is
confirmed by Pastor himself in his 1992 paper The Carter
Administration and Latin America: A Test of Principle:
"In converting its predisposition
into a policy, the new administration had the benefit of the
research done by two private commissions. Carter, Vance, and
Brzezinski were members of the Trilateral Commission, which
provided a conceptual framework for collaboration among the
industrialized countries in approaching the full gamut of
international issues. With regard to setting an agenda and an
approach to Latin America, the most important source of
influence on the Carter administration was the Commission on
U.S.-Latin American Relations, chaired by Sol M. Linowitz."21
As to the final Linowitz Commission
reports on Latin America, most of which were authored by Pastor
himself, he states:
"The reports helped the
administration define a new relationship with Latin America, and
27 of the 28 specific recommendations in the second report
became U.S. policy."22
Pastor's deep involvement with
Trilateral Commission members and policies is irrefutable, and it
continues into the present.
In 1996, when Trilateral Commissioner Bill Clinton nominated
as Ambassador to Panama, his confirmation was forcefully knocked
down by Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), who held a deep grudge against
Pastor for his central role in the giveaway of the Panama Canal in
The setback obviously did not phase Pastor in the slightest.
The stated target for full implementation of the North American
Union is 2010.
"The Task Force proposes the
creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance
security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community
based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint
Statement of the three leaders that 'our security and prosperity
are mutually dependent and complementary.' Its boundaries will
be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security
perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and
capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to
guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America."
Don't underestimate the global elite's
ability to meet their own deadlines!
This paper does not pretend to give thorough or even complete
coverage to such important and wide-ranging topics as discussed
above. We have shown that the restructuring of the United States has
been accomplished by a very small group of powerful global elitists
as represented by members of the Trilateral Commission.
The Trilateral Commission plainly stated that it intended to create
a New International Economic Order. We have followed their members
from 1973 to the present, only to find that they are at the dead
center of every critical policy and action that seeks to restructure
Some critics will undoubtedly argue that involvement by members of
the Trilateral Commission is merely incidental. However, the odds
for their involvement at random is too large to be even remotely
understandable; it would be like winning the lottery jackpot five
times in a row, with the same numbers!
The credo of The August Review is "Follow the money, follow the
power." In this view, the United States has literally been hijacked
by less than 300 greedy and self-serving global elitists who have
little more than contempt for the citizens of the countries they
would seek to dominate. According to Trilateralist Richard Gardner's
viewpoint, this incremental takeover (rather than a frontal
approach) has been wildly successful.
To again answer Lou Dobbs question, "Have our political elites gone
mad?" -- No Lou, they are not "mad", nor are they ignorant. To look
into the face of these global elites is to look into the face of
unmitigated greed, avarice and treachery.
Gardner, Richard, The Hard Road
to World Order, (Foreign Affairs, 1974) p. 558
ibid, p. 563
ibid. p. 556
Fast Track Talking Points,
Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen
Excerpts From Presidential Debates,
Ross Perot, 1992
MacArthur, The Selling of Free
Trade, (Univ. of Cal. Press, 2001) p. 228
Washington Post, op-ed,
Kissinger & Vance, May 13, 1993
Los Angeles Times, op-ed,
Kissinger, July 18, 1993
The Fruits of NAFTA,
Patrick Buchanan, The Conservative Voice, March 10, 2006
Tonelson, The Race to the Bottom
(Westview Press, 2002) p. 89
Trinational Elites Map North American
Future in "NAFTA Plus",
Miquel Pickard, IRC Americas website
A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral
Commission, Presentation by Dr. Robert A. Pastor,
Council Joing Leading Canadians and
Mexicans to Launch Intependent Task Force on the Future of
America, Press Release, CFR Website
Building a North American Community,
Council on Foreign Relations, 2005
North American Leaders Unveil Security
and Prosperity Partnership, International
Information Programs, U.S. Govt. Website
Concluding Press Conference at Cancun
Summit, Vicente Fox, March 31, 2006
Traditional Elites Map North American
Future in "NAFTA Plus",
Miguel Pickard, p. 1, IRC Website
Bush sneaking North American
super-state without oversight?,
Jerome Corsi,WorldNetDaily, June 12, 2006.
The Carter Administration and Latin
America: A Test of Principle, Robert A. Pastor,
The Carter Center, July 1992, p. 9
ibid. p. 10
Building a North American Community,
Council on Foreign Relations, 2005, p. 2