Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Busting Paranoid Right-Wing Fantasies of Dissolving the Mexico-U.S.-Canada Borders

By Manuel Pérez Rocha and Sarah Anderson, AlterNet. Posted April 9, 2008.


It's time to call BS on the idea of a mythical North American Union.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This month, President Bush will host the leaders of Canada and Mexico to advance the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a project Lou Dobbs has predicted will "end the United States as we know it."

Lou sounds downright blasé, though, compared to all the online ranting and raving on this subject. And while there are plenty of reasons for progressives to be up in arms over this effort to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement, the xenophobes have clearly cornered the market.

In their paranoid fantasies, the three North American executive powers are secretly plotting to surrender everything they hold dear about the good ol' USA. The U.S. borders, the flag, and even the almighty American dollar would disappear as the country is submerged into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

Check out amerocurrency.com, whose creators are convinced that while the SPP hasn't replaced the dollar with a North American currency just yet, the switch is right around the corner. To raise alarm bells, these folks have gone ahead and designed our future money themselves. The cost of purchasing uno "amero": $10.

From the always imaginative John Birch Society, you can order a poster featuring our future North American Union flag, a collage of the three countries' current emblems with -- gasp! -- the socialist maple leaf dead center.

After an intro image of North America bursting into flames, Stopspp.com offers screeds by anti-immigrant Minutemen about how the SPP will fling open U.S. borders to terrorists, drunken Mexican truck drivers and tens of millions more illegal immigrants who will infect us all with tuberculosis.

The video "North American Union and Vchip Truth" cranks things up another notch. Viewed more than 4.8 million times, it presents the SPP as a big step towards a single world government, with David Rockefeller preventing any resistance by implanting us all with Vchips. We can only hope this is satire, but the 10,000 comments by Youtubers suggest that many viewers aren't getting the joke.

All this would be simply entertaining if it weren't for the fact that the SPP truly is a dangerous initiative -- but not for the reasons cited by the xenophobes.

Launched in 2005, the SPP is an ongoing process of negotiation between the three countries' executive powers to change regulations and other policies to boost business and support the U.S. War on Terror. Twenty SPP working groups on everything from financial services to intelligence cooperation hammer out details in between the annual presidential summits.

In Mexico and Canada, progressive activists are already highly mobilized on the SPP. And while the far right has dominated the U.S. discourse, this is beginning to change. A half dozen U.S. progressive groups organized a strategy meeting in Washington, D.C., in March with activists and legislators from all three countries. Together with local activists in New Orleans, the site of the fourth SPP Presidential Summit on April 21-22, they are planning a Peoples Summit and a trinational meeting of energy sector workers.

Here are 10 reasons why progressives are paying attention to the SPP:

1. No democratic oversight. Although elected officials in all three countries have demanded transparency, they continue to be excluded from the SPP Presidential summits, ministerial meetings and working groups. Legislators have formed a trinational task force to stop the SPP.

2. Secrecy. The SPP excludes civil society organizations and the media from all meetings. During a peaceful demonstration outside the last summit in Canada, the government sent in undercover agents posing as rock-wielding protestors. After being confronted with video footage, authorities fessed up to the scheme.

3. Only big business has a voice. Wal-Mart, Lockheed Martin, and 28 other corporations and business associations are part of an official SPP advisory body called the North American Competitive Council. The council made 51 proposals to SPP negotiators in February 2007 on issues as varied as taxation and patent rights. Six months later, they boasted that "all three of our governments have committed themselves to taking action on many of our recommendations."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: nafta, nau, conspiracism, spp

Manuel Pérez Rocha is an associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies, where he is leading an initiative on the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Sarah Anderson directs IPS's Global Economy Project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Excellent Article ... And there are other issues as well.
Posted by: mmckinl on Apr 9, 2008 12:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only defense we have against multi national corporatism is our sovereignty. All these free trade deals, NAFTA,CAFTA and the rest subvert our sovereignty as well as the people of the cosigner nations.

We must rescind all these trade agreements along with the WTO otherwise we are second class citizens to the multi nationals and their super sovereignty guaranteed by the WTO We are already learning that many environmental initiatives are illegal under the WTO, decided by the extra national WTO court and enforced by the Bank of International Settlements or BIS.

All countries need tariffs to protect themselves against unscrupulous and unlawful tax avoidance schemes, product dumping, environmental damage and labor arbitrage of the multi nationals.

The multi nationals are buying governments everywhere through the auspices of the IMF and the World Bank that enrich each countries oligarchy while impoverishing the middle and working class, causing desperation among the poor while emptying the country sides to pillage natural resources and farmland. It is no accident that while said countries GDP does very well only the top 1% do very well while the rest of the population suffers. This is now happening in the United States. We saw it from 2002 until last year ... our GDP went way up while real wages were stagnant or declining.

These agreements are the backbone of the neoliberalism that has brought us ruinous trade and budget deficits while subverting our Bill of Rights, our citizenship and our government.

This is about more than the SPP, it is about the corporatism that is demolishing our rights, our jobs and our future. We must protect our sovereignty!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it "paranoia"?
Posted by: mwildfire on Apr 9, 2008 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservatives may be worrying about some of the wrong things most, but their anxiety and outrage are not misplaced. Maybe they worry about the "illegals" a lot, largely thanks to Lou Dobbs and others I believe made a deliberate decision to create a big issue out of this for scapegoating and distraction purposes...but their main worry is that democracy and sovereignty in the US is threatened by secret deals. I'd worry also about Canadians and Mexicans, but they're not wrong about the threat to US sovereignty--and they ARE aware of corporate control. My sister is a Bircher, and sends me things that vary from laughable absurdities (global warming is a hoax) to a push to pass a bill sponsored by Ron Paul which would outlaw signing statements, renditions, etc--I think of it as the Restore the Constitution Act. And they worry, rightly, about the Real ID Act. So keep your eyes open but accept these people as our allies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is it "paranoia"? Posted by: Pax99
» RE: Is it "paranoia"? Posted by: willymack
» RE: Is it "paranoia"? Posted by: mwildfire
This could work if Mexico raises its game
Posted by: Bobsays on Apr 9, 2008 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with Mexico isn't its culture (which is amazing), its food (which is amazing), nor most of its people. It is the whole atmosphere of corruption and desperation that inevitably brings down anything it comes close to: and that to date has been the US.

Just as has happened with the European Union, Mexico would need to go through a process of learning how to behave if it wants to integrate with the US and Canada. So that means no hang-dog faces standing at road sides trying to undercut local wages, no grouping together and running drug gangs with acres of 'hommies'.

Canada is a very civilised country, and I don't think Canadians would like importing the sort of trash you see in LA etc. And hair nets don't go well with toques.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The problem with Mexico... Posted by: buffeliscious
The crazies are not as crazy as you would have them be.
Posted by: leland61 on Apr 9, 2008 4:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is that NAFTA and other such programs are designed with a purpose of getting rid of any pesky democratic modalities that interfere with the operation of large corporations.

It is working. NAFTA is responsible in large part for the amazing increase of undocumented workers coming from Mexico. Bill Clinton made this happen when he greased the track for NAFTA. It destroyed the livelihoods of about 4,000,000 farmers in Mexico, their families and related businesses dependent on their purchasing power. Why? NAFTA allowed taxpayer subsidized cheap grains to supplant locally grown crops in Mexico. It did not produce any appreciable increase in other employment opportunities in Mexico. Those people were desperate and starving - they crossed the border to work to eat.

The USA made this happen. Bill Clinton and the idiot Congress made this happen. It is a direct assault on the working classes in all three countries - the rich know that. Their totally owned and controlled "mass media" will not talk about it.After all we have had a class war going on in this country since the beginning - only people are unwilling to call a spade a spade.

NAFTA, GATT etc are all attacks by the rich and powerful on democratic government around the world. Whenever W. talks about expanding freedom around the world he means freedom for the corporate rulers to own the rest of us. He is talking about the modern equivalent of serfdom for the billions and ownership by a few million.

Bill and Hilary are on the same page. I suspect that unless you are on the same page you will not be elected president no matter which of the two labels you wear. After all there is only one real party in this country and that is the party of the corporate kleptocrats who pull the strings and run the media propaganda machine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» minor conspiracies, major impact Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» no conspiracy-monger here Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Check out Council of Canadians: INTEGRATE THIS
Posted by: Tigana on Apr 9, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Canadians don't WANT to be part of this deal - with good reason.
Find out why here: http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scary, Spooky
Posted by: Mexitli on Apr 9, 2008 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But the writers think the U.S. as an empire will las forever, which it will not.

I think what we'll see here in what's called the "Continental U.S." is U.N. troops patrolling in order to stop all the countries from seeking revenge on the general Gringo public.

I also think that the people of Mexico, I mean the REAL PEOPLE OF MEXICO, not the Euro-elites, will eventually rule the country.

Also, the is very little incentive for the ruling Euro-elites in MX to cut the U.S. in on it's cash cow.

One good thing about them, and it's the ONLY good thing about them, is that they dont like "Euro-Americans."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Niether do Mexicans
Posted by: Mexitli on Apr 9, 2008 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article may as well be about colonizing Mars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SPP is Fascists
Posted by: HBoyer on Apr 9, 2008 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SPP is a prelude to Fascists Government run by Corporate dictators. Once we give SPP power, the NORTH AMERICAN UNION will be formed and democracy as we know it will perish.

"Profits Before Democracy" will be the national
motto.

Remember, corporations brought you child labor, pollution, peasant wages, corrupt government, and supported dictatorship and fascists governments all over the world.

General Motors, Dupont, the Bush family helped Hitler build concentration camps.

Thank you for providing talking points against the SPP and the North American Union

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While some rage
Posted by: JSquercia on Apr 9, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While some rage at our loss of sovereignty to the UN most are unaware that Organizations created to encourage "Free Trade" such as the WTO and NAFTA are able to overturn domestic laws if they find them in conflict with said organization .There was an incident where the Clinton Administration sued the government to overturn laws enacted by the Congress . The suit was brought on the basis of Mexico's objecting to some law passed (I think it was environmental). So we had the spectacle of Mexico telling the US Congress they could NOT pass a Law and Worse Still we had the Executive Branch siding with Mexico .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is There Anyone Out There
Posted by: Southern Gal on Apr 9, 2008 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there anyone out there who does not belive that corporations control the world? Money and power are the bottom lines and it doesn't matter what the people of these countries think or want. We have better and faster communication through the Internet, so more people are aware of what's going on. The problem is that we seem powerless to stop it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

STOP shopping!!!!!! (as much as possible)
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 9, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
STOP shopping!!!!!! (as much as possible)

Vote with your dollars (what's left of them).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Action relevant now against this!
Posted by: mutualaid on Apr 9, 2008 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't the authors mention Plan Mexico currently being considered for $ by the U.S. Congress?

Guess they just want to be 'concerned' without defeating an SPP initiative that's actually moving now before our legislature.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stop Plan Mexico! Posted by: no$forviolence
» Annex Mexico? Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Annex Mexico? Posted by: Mexitli
» Mexitli---Aztlan Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Annex Mexico? Posted by: john mont
Did I miss something?
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 9, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Authors Rocha and Anderson describe Lou Dobbs of having "paranoid fantasies," then list nine reasons out of ten that indicate he is very much in touch with reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Did I miss something? Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: Did I miss something? Posted by: kellysgarden
» Seems that way. Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Seems that way. Posted by: mmckinl
Wow.
Posted by: Scientz on Apr 9, 2008 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The comments for this article are a fascinating lesson in hyperbole and paranoia.

Supranational governance is coming. Everywhere. And there's not a damn thing ANY of you can do about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow. Posted by: Pax99
» RE: Wow. Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Wow. Posted by: mmckinl
Fuck that
Posted by: davesilvan on Apr 9, 2008 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not MexiAmeriCanadian, I'm American, and this country would be just fine if we could get it's people to follow the fucking Constitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fuck that Posted by: Pax99
» RE: Fuck that Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: Fuck that Posted by: Pax99
» LoL! Posted by: Mexitli
» The Constitution Posted by: Ignatz deFyre
» pfft! best reply so far Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
NAU?
Posted by: sre on Apr 9, 2008 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that a union of the three countries mentioned wouldn't be good as the scene is currently unfolding. My question is, as a loyal and patriotic American: Why not allow Mexico and Canada to join the U.S. under the rules of statehood? They can petition for statehood just as in the past the other territories did and they would have to meet the same requirements as far as population, language, etc. That's not a complete solution but it's a start. Maybe we should proceed on that premise if the other two countries on this continent want that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NAU? Posted by: emmas
» RE: NAU? Posted by: Pax99
» 'Scuse me...? Posted by: CanuckKid
» RE: NAU? Posted by: doubter
» RE: NAU? Posted by: buzzsaw
» RE: NAU? Posted by: doubter
» RE: NAU? Posted by: Cybershaman
» American Exceptionalism Gone Wild! (NT) Posted by: Joshua Holland
» history/government lesson... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: history/government lesson... Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: NAU? Posted by: cns
Who woulda guessed?
Posted by: Axiom69 on Apr 9, 2008 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A topic that puts Progressives and Conservatives on the same side. Maybe for different reasons but still on the same side. Perhaps this will start an era of cooperation and we can start working together on issues like holding our elected officials accountable for crimes instead of making excuses for the ones on our side and blasting the ones on the other for doing the same thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who woulda guessed? Posted by: BCcovers
Stop Shopping?
Posted by: Mexitli on Apr 9, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amen to that!

start saving and cash out your dollars asap for tangibles!

(ehh, not the depreciating consumer tangibles)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Any larger governing body should have representatives elected by the people.
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Apr 9, 2008 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the biggest problems I have with talk of a North American Union or World Government is the implication that the President and possibly Congress gets to choose who represents us there.

We the people should elect any representatives that make up such a larger governing body.


That said I also have a big problem with any kind of North American Union or World Government tax. Soon enough such taxes will be used for income redistribution which will lead to ever larger governments requiring more and more of our money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hint: Xenophobic right-wing conspiracy theories about a mythical North American Union are not among
Posted by: aonghus36 on Apr 9, 2008 9:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it a right wing idea? I think that is a very divisive conclusion, and a false one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same difference
Posted by: Habaro on Apr 9, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Weren't the author's fears essentially just a watered down version of the "xenophobes'"? Of course it wouldn't start off so extreme--its all about ratcheting gradualism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ACLU on RFID(V Chips)
Posted by: aonghus36 on Apr 9, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ACLU is hardly a bunch a right wing nut cases. Here is there position on RFID chips.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17423pub20031130.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ACLU on RFID(V Chips) Posted by: Joshua Holland
Speaking as a Canadian
Posted by: wolfgangmo75 on Apr 9, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this is a horribly bad idea. If we open our borders to illegal "yank-backs" they'll take all of our union jobs and demand access to our universal health care and quality of life. They will overrun us and infect us with TB.

We need to build a big damn fence or next they'll be playing hockey!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Speaking as a Canadian Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: Speaking as a Canadian Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: Speaking as a Canadian Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: Speaking as a Canadian Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: Speaking as a Canadian Posted by: cbishopp
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Divide and conquer is alive and well at AlterNet
Posted by: LeftWright on Apr 9, 2008 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are you surprised?

It's the oldest game in the book and as long as people keep falling for it...

Well said, pfeifer999.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Unnecessary ideological divisiveness
Posted by: buzzsaw on Apr 9, 2008 6:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Agreed. Without our sovereignty we have nothing. The only reasons the United States exists is stated by the preamble to our Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Anything that the United States does that is incompatible with this statement of purpose should simply not be done.

When it comes to treaties, the following is from Article VI of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

What happens if a provision of a treaty is contrary to the Constitution? What if we sign a treaty that requires us to give up fill in your favorite constitutionally-enumerated right here? It is unacceptable to have any authority outside of the people of the US telling Congress what it can and can't do. We need to amend this so that any treaty provision that is incompatible with our Constitution is unenforceable within the territorial confines of the US. Ratification of such a treaty would require amending the Constitution. However, the Kyoto Accord would be (had we ratified it) an example of a treaty that might require Congress to pass laws regulating our behavior, since pollution doesn't stop at national borders, but harms everybody in the world. There is no constitutional right to pollute.

"a society that measures a human's value in terms of their ability to spend and consume." It already is this way! When did "consumer" start to be used more often than "citizen"?

buzzsaw-Unfettered Corporate Capitalism may be worse than Communism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While the xenophobes go BONKERS for borders,
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 9, 2008 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FTAA is right around the corner.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/ftaa/

At this point, the border fences will be there and not there. Get the picture?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NAU? Right On! ('cept maybe a nicer name like Turtle Island)
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 9, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forget that corporate-aristocratic-feudal bullshit (SSP)! A meal with too many rich fuckers just gives me gas.

I'll take a continental "state" please with:

• one double helping of a human-rights based Constitution for the continent's inhabitants

• one generous helping of a truly Continental Congress (proportionally represented by bioregionally elected sane people--no RWA, religious fundies, no corporatists or corporados, no aristocrats or those that are fond of such stoopidity)

Bioregional "departments," "states" or "provinces" using real biotic boundaries instead of the politically motivated fuckup idiocy that passes for geopolitical boundaries

• one currency with a participatory economy (hell, Amero has a nice funky ring to it: ironic, mimetic, paradoxical...)

and on the side:

• a continental futbol/soccer league with relegation-promotion qualities so the hometown hero sides can make it to the big show and the spirit of competition and healthy localism has a safe-haven venue. Hell, why not a continental sport-federation with grid-iron, hockey, basketball and baseball too... well maybe not baseball that game is almost as fuckin' stoopid as gridiron.

• a continental maglev transit system so we can all hang-out together

And for the RWAs, white supremacists, aristocrats, nationalist zealots, fundamentalists, corporatists, no soup for you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Globalization is Corporatism
Posted by: Ghoulman on Apr 9, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... that is, the NAFTA, WTO, IMF, and now SPP are the wider plans that allow for Globalization.

Which is, I believe, the point here. No, I don't care how bigots like Luo Dobbs feel nor do I give a rats arse about typically American xenophobia. It was better when they didn't have websites, back in the day 'The Crazies" could be ignored more easily.

Of course these bi and trilateral treaties (that's what they are) are done in secret, the protests (and violence from the police who create 'rioters' with their under-cover ops) caused the cowardly meetings to become more and more secretive to avoid providing the protesters a voice on the 6 O'Clock news. It's clear to more and more people that all of these "Free Trade" deals are not of benefit to the economy of the People but the economy of the Corporations who rule Wall Street.

What about the People?

Well, if you watch the financial news apparently there isn't even a Recession right now. Do you believe that? I don't. I know that for the last 20 or so years of Free Trade and corporate policy made in the halls of power have left us all in the mess we are in right now.

Yet, the Corporations keep telling us jobs are up, life is good. And they will continue to say these things. After all, it's their TV station. They own it.

The threat of Al Queda, whom the government insists is a world ranging terror organization (not even close to true) will be the excuse to forward more NAFTA policy from Corporations since anyone who objects will be attacked as a terrorist themselves. You're either with us or... you get the idea.

As it stands, Globalization is an agenda where corporations might believe they use the corruption as an advantage over 'foriegn interests' but the affect seems to have been to turn North America into a poorly educated McCountry. Which is what America looks like today considering the school system, economics, debt, and government complicity in massive international crimes (like paying off the lending institutions that lost all that sub-prime money, which cost people their homes and savings).

Is it really acceptable, or moral, to accept the agenda of Globlization considering the demonstratabley bad effect it has had on we the People??? Now, with the SPP going on in secret, one has to wonder just who the enemy is. Let me tell ya, I've no fears of terrorists blowing me up. Just fears of retiring in a cardboard box. In the (acid) rain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Don't Get The Title
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Apr 9, 2008 1:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Busting Paranoid Right Wing Fantasies" which then goes on to list all the right's talking points about the proposed North American Union (or SPP, whatever the Powers That Be are calling it) while denigrating the source. Remember, the populists and right-wingers were on to this a long time before the left even noticed it was happening, and they were dismissed as kooks.

Plagiarism is so tacky. At least credit the right-wingers for publicizing this plot in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I Don't Get The Title Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: I Don't Get The Title Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: I Don't Get The Title Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: I Don't Get The Title Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: I Don't Get The Title Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Giraffes vs Ponies Posted by: bcgirl125
» RE: Giraffes vs Ponies Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Giraffes vs Ponies Posted by: mwildfire
» RE: Giraffes vs Ponies Posted by: Joshua Holland
Exactly what was the point of this article??
Posted by: Libsrule on Apr 9, 2008 2:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry but I don't get it. Is the article claiming there is no such thing as an attempt to create a North American Union?

OR is it saying a North American Union is a GOOD THING (which it is not)?

I like to think I am reasonably intelligent but exactly what was this going on about?

Corporate fascism is alive and well and if given the choice they would get rid of all labor laws, union, and health and safety codes. They would be happy as hell to bring back child labor and using the police to kill union organizers.

Opening up the mexican border to allow the millions and millions of poor mexicans to come here would only submerge the U.S. into a third world economy.

Mexico has unfortunately the most corrupt and evil government in the civilized world and allowing them full and equal say in how things are done would be the downfall of our country.

So what is this article about?

Don't know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's easy Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: That's easy Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: That's easy Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: That's easy Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: That's easy Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: That's easy Posted by: mmckinl
Canada would prefer to join the EU
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Apr 9, 2008 2:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If asked, I think most Canadians would agree that we have more in common with the EU and reject the corporatist values currently espoused by the USA administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those crazy Canadians!
Posted by: LonewackoDotCom2 on Apr 9, 2008 2:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The left in Canada sees this issue much more clearly:

canadians.org/integratethis
tinyurl.com/5dmgw8
tinyurl.com/6gg7jw

The last two are to Canadian bloggers wondering why their U.S. cousins have their heads in the sand. I believe part of it is due to a desire for race-based power, and part of it is due to a reflexive calculation: if the right is against it, it must be good.

Note also that Barack Obama supports Bush's SPP, he just wants to fluff up the pillows a bit. He also spoke in code when coming out for that scheme. See also this Barack Obama video where he lies about the CFR, pretends not to know what the NAU is called, and describes something that sure sounds like the NAFTASuperhighway while denying it's being planned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A few things wrong with this story.
Posted by: regans on Apr 9, 2008 4:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee! Sounds like 10 things that could seriously threaten the sovereignty of a nation. And will everybody get off Lou Dobb's back. I don't agree with him on everything, but why is it that an American who still thinks there's something wrong with the "illegal" part of "illegal immigrant" is automatically a xenophobe. Maybe he finds it a little disturbing that American citizens (not including presidents and vice-presidents, of course) are expected to obey the laws of our country, but foreigners aren't. And I don't think it's xenophobic to be concerned about the very real dangers of pressure-hosing Americans with cultural change. Immigration is wonderful. Can we just manage it responsibly? By the way, how bad can the terrorist threat really be if it's so easy to cross our borders without documentation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The SPP is Fascism and Rockefeller's Fascist Wet Dream..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Apr 9, 2008 4:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are a lot of good comments here and what stands out to me is that many people are becoming more and more aware that America is on the auction block, and the American people and the American Republic is being betrayed...and abandoned by those corporations the sweat and toil and sacrifice of the American people created..it's not outsourcing it's abandonment..!

As for the SPP it is Fascism and David Rockefeller and the swine of the Bilderberg Group are directing the betrayal of America's sovereignty and self interest and the best interest of the American people..

Also our Congress and the U.S. Senate have no voice in this fascist agenda which is being decided and agreed upon by the Unitary Executive our Dictator..as he chooses to be treated and considered.."I'm the Decider" or I am The Dictator..!

Between the Bush and Rockefeller family along with that ever more fascist traitor greed ridden multi billionaire Bill Gates who needs al-Qaeda..?

I personally think it's already too late..we are already operating as a fascism just look at The FISA Issue and how the Republican Fascists put corporate interests over our most vital national security..!

That's Fascism..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CALLING it BS doesn't make you RIGHT.
Posted by: weslen1 on Apr 9, 2008 5:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you think it's all BS then you better do a little more checking. Ex President Vincente Fox talked about it with Larry King. There are MANY films from Canadian TV anchors up in arms about it. The only reason YOU call it BS and bring up Lou Dobbs, who's own WIFE is Mexican, is because you are so biased FOR open borders and border patrol agents being imprisoned for doing their job and drug dealers going free. The Mexican government wants this deal with a passion. Any particular REASON? On MOST subjects you here at AlterNet are right ON, but on this subject, YOU ARE WAY OFF BASE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Got no problem with cooperating with our fellow North Americans...
Posted by: Tim Brown on Apr 9, 2008 5:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...but as the author makes clear, the devil is in those details. If we could replace corporate sovereignty with people-centered cooperation then those re-written laws could pave the way for that continent-wide security and prosperity the SPP promises. No compromise of national identity is necessary for all of us to prosper and plan for our collective future.

The whole thing hinges on America because as the sole superpower we decide the course taken. It would require politicians who can stand up to international corporate titans and do the right thing for the vast majority.

There's the rub. With all that money flowing into our poltical system we have little influence over the behavior of our politicians. Until we can eliminate that corrupting influence of private money in public politics the laws written here at home and abroad will continue to reflect the will of the fortunate few.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

give your head a shake.
Posted by: Melvin on Apr 9, 2008 6:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a bit fed up witht he constant 'united' North America crap.
NAFTA & it's offshoots are nothing more than trade agreements for the powerful. They have nothing to do with a common political/social goal. Can you imagine for a minute the USA wishing to blend with either Canada or Mexico!
Give your head a shake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LIARS
Posted by: Proud American Patriot on Apr 10, 2008 2:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rocha, and Anderson, the writers, are lying. The Minutemen are not "anti-immigrant." They are anti-illegal immigration. Beware their bias.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LIARS Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: LIARS Posted by: mnatra
» Correct on a technicality Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Pot calling the kettle black Posted by: Joshua Holland
Is this article pro or con?
Posted by: ProfessorPoopyPants on Apr 11, 2008 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The authors of this article have produced a scatological turd that they would have us consume so as to further fractionalize and dumb us down.

The NAU is not BS.....it is deadly serious. There is a worldwide global elite who are inbred psychopathic control freaks with a penchant for buggery and Luciferian overtones....there, I said it and I feel better.

If you are still locked into the Left/Right paradigm, you will never see the forest for the trees. You have been lied to your whole life and your rulers are not interested in anything but maintaining their control. Divide and Conquer is their only directive.

Wake Up America....Fascism is at your doorstep!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is this article pro or con? Posted by: Joshua Holland
overblown
Posted by: doubter on Apr 11, 2008 10:00 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who's going to impose this on Canada? The Harper government just blocked the sale of a tech company to Americans because of economic nationalism. Unlike Bush, Harper can be fired by the House of Commons at any time, no impeachment required. Canadian leftists hate corporations, and Canadian conservatives like to wave the flag.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

lyn
Posted by: tree51 on Apr 12, 2008 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the definition of resonable response to migration?

Is it reasonable for me to uphold my rights under law to not allow strangers into my house when they want to enter on their terms with no intention of abiding by the house rules?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

lyn
Posted by: tree51 on Apr 12, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can I migrate to Canada? I would like to live there under five different names, carrying five different sets of identification and work cash pay only jobs at jobs that Canadians just won't do and be protected by my Catholic church (whoops sorry- I got thrown out for being a 'baby killer' in Vietnam) and have american consulate personnel protecting the rights of american migrants in the local government process.

I will need to participate in the Canadian health care system, and would like to receive housing and aide assistance from the local government structures who do not investigate my migratory status. I should also like to live in Quebec and have the civil rights establishments demand that an english translator be present for my dealings with the french speaking authorities.

I should also like the right to vote in local and national canadian elections while retaining my voting privileges in my hometown and citizenship in America.

I just want to move freely across the land of my ancestors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]