Political Tectonic Shift: Energy Policy under the NAU
Traditional combustion-energy paradigm is over-represented at secret high-level negotiations under North American Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). Scheduled to begin to exercise power authority by 2007, the SPP will place three nations in the continent under “harmonized” laws and a unified administration. If that is not stopped – and we appear to be past the tipping point – will any of us recognize our society? And will it still be possible to shift the energy paradigm under such a political paradigm shift?
by Mary-Sue Haliburton, Ottawa, Canada
Pure Energy Systems News
Copyright © 2006
|
|
The North American Energy Policy
In recent decades, with government cooperation, a business-supported bias has enforced use of combustibles as the primary form of energy for transportation, heating and to a large degree, electrical generation as well. When oil prices rose far enough to cause the public to gripe, the government would step in, providing rebates and subsidies – out of the taxpayers’ own money of course.
On this archaic technology we have built an entire system of infrastructure and interconnected business that resists change. In addition to this obvious publicly-known bulwark in favour of the oil industry, there was an undeclared "North American Energy Policy" in effect. To nip in the bud any technologies that might reduce its dominance, certain highly-placed individuals would intervene to ridicule the inventions, and to block even proof-of-concept experiments. (Ref. 1)
In a process underway for decades in secret, and more recently coming to the brink of emergence, the three nations currently occupying the continent of North America are to be merged economically, and, to a greater extent than any of their respective populations yet realize, politically. This is known as the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). On March 23 in 2005, the SPP agreement was signed formally by the three government leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. (Ref. 2)
Political Tectonic Plates Shifting
Whether it is “only” a new layer of government that will be overlaid on top of existing ones, or whether the unified administration will ultimately replace the existing three governments in Ottawa, Washington, and Mexico City, the SPP represents a violent shakeup of the ground we thought we had under our feet. A tsunami of daily-life consequences will flood over everyone as well, as all areas of financial and social law are to be “harmonized” to make it easier for business. To those setting up this continental administration, borders are simply a hindrance to commerce. Modeled on the European Economic Community (EEC), the North American Union (NAU) seeks to minimize and ultimately to eliminate such inconveniences.
Because elected officials participate along with the CEOs of oil businesses in the working groups and councils which are finalizing the details, the official stance is that the push toward this union is a “democratic” one. All that is missing from their apparent working definition of that word is a mandate from the electorates of the three countries. Many Canadians voting in the January 2006 election were led to believe, based on the campaign slogans of Steven Harper, that they were voting for a nationalist leader. He claimed he would “stand up for Canada” – all the while clearly planning to do the opposite.
Under working groups and the “North American Competitiveness Council” (NACC), a single administration for the continent is already being set up, with ministries and secretariats of its own. It is not yet publicly known exactly what form this will take, but the political and social traditions of each country are on the table -- or maybe the chopping block. The plans are to be completed by the end of 2006. Within one to four years, residents of all parts of North America will be facing a monolithic administration – most likely without any of our original constitutions, and possibly without our familiar political party setups and legal systems.
This is not a wild conspiracy theory, nor is what little has been published based on guesswork. The union of North America is the official policy of the U.S. government. (Ref. 3)
Government Secrecy: U.S. Administration’s Misinformation
The U.S. government describes this incoming merger in neutral, non-threatening terms as a co-operative partnership (ref. 4), but many observers are suspicious that it involves a tighter union than what has been described in official communiqués. The SPP actually establishes a "totally new state corporate rule over the entire North American Continent." (Ref. 5)
With great effort, some individual Americans have ferreted out the background and ramifications of the agreement, comparing public announcements with what is actually happening in Congress and in verifiable news reports. These individuals accuse the government of covering up a traitorous agenda to eliminate the constitution and the nation itself. The government's own myth-debunking website (ref. 6) alleges that no agreement was ever signed.
In refutation of that official misdirection, Tom DeWeese’s (ref. 7) article about the cover-up lists news reports of Bush, Fox and Martin in fact signing the SPP agreement in 2005 in Waco, Texas. And on March 31, 2006, a second agreement was signed in Cancun by Bush, Vicente Fox and Steven Harper, the new Prime Minister of Canada. The politicians’ photo-op and signing were a formality; the real negotiations had been ongoing among high-level government and industry representatives in the preceding years. Only a brief summary of the agreement was announced, stating six priorities to ensure that the union would be in place by the end of this year. Notably, the agreement calls for "collaboration" amongst business executives and governmental agencies for “energy security" as a continental policy exercise.
DeWeese lists more examples of how the government's official statements are contradicted by the facts. For example, to counter the claim that the SPP "won’t change our court system or legislative process and that it respects the sovereignty of each nation," DeWeese outlines the total lack of Congressional oversight as indicating that the SPP is not respecting the existing system.
If the existing system were being respected, why would the planning and implementation be so secretive, and government statements not supported by facts? And if it’s for our benefit, why aren’t politicians, who love to show how much they are achieving for their constituents, promoting it in glowing terms?
DeWeese concludes, "The United States is the most unique nation on earth. We were created out of a radical idea that free people, with their freedoms protected by the government would be happy and prosper beyond imagination. The idea worked. Now, the Bush Administration is ignoring this historic fact to “harmonize” us with Canada and especially Mexico, which is not a free country; has no [right of] property and has just proved its unworthiness of conducting free and fair elections. At risk are our culture, our wealth, and the once proud American way of life."
In short, the same lack of honesty which Al Gore ascribed to both Democrats and Republicans in not telling the public enough about energy policy (Ref. 8: speech text) has also been at work to hide the nature and effects this trilateral negotiation that is bringing the NAU into effect. The public in three countries are not being told enough about the process (in as many languages) to know whether to take action against it, and if so, of what kind.
American Media: Very Few Voices Raised
On June 21st, 2006, viewers of CNN’s Lou Dobbs’ program, would have heard this chilling announcement: "President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it, and he took the step without approval from either the U.S. Congress or the people of the United States." (Ref. 9) Given that statement’s tone of doom, it’s not hard to see why the government’s website is issuing soothing denials.
This is quoted in “Creating the North American Union” by Dennis Behreandt, which appears on The New American website as well as in its current issue of the Magazine.
On the invited list of participants at a secret planning conference in Banff, Alberta, September 12-14, 2006, was one Mary Anastasia O’Grady, described as a “Journalist for Wall Street Journal (Area Specialist)”. (Ref. 10: list of attendees) Apparently the business-oriented readers of that publication may be treated to some future reports that might reflect tips obtained as inside knowledge. But this doesn’t amount to disclosure of the NAU agenda in any broad sense. We may see some Wall Street insiders being touted for their very astute market “predictions” about what is going to happen with resource stock prices, but they will not be discussing the politics of union or its social implications, other than the usual talk of how borders and “protectionist” laws get in the way of business.
No other journalists were present either inside that meeting or outside the hotel making observations at a distance, or at any other of the meetings since the SPP signing was announced at the press conference in March. The silence from the media is deafening.
Despite having an overtly and publicly pro-NAU website, the spokesman of the North American Forum which sponsored the event, John Larson, excused the secrecy on the grounds that because attendees were promised privacy, reporters could not be told about the conference. And for the same reason he refused to confirm who had attended, let alone what they discussed in secret. (Ref. 11)
The strongly right-wing John Birch Society, which continues to sound alarm bells, regards supporters of the NAU as communists and enemies of freedom. They might be surprised to find that their allies in Canada who also strongly oppose the continental union are doing so because they see it as too right-wing due to its avowed purpose of terminating Canadian social programs such as universal Medicare. It’s the far-right-wing Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), currently in power, which is promoting the NAU. Its officials who attended the conference are toeing the secrecy line; and its leader co-signed the May 2006 agreement.
This “strange-bedfellows” aspect of the issue puts the usual left vs. right dichotomy into perspective. The old concepts are nearly irrelevant when it comes to whether people support the continental amalgamation or not. It’s all about concentrating power over larger and larger areas into fewer and fewer hands, and theories from all parts of the left/right spectrum are advanced both to justify and to attack the monster country that is being created. We need new language to discuss this, and on a different level.
**Read the rest of this Article
No comments:
Post a Comment