OPPOSITION RISING IN STATE LEGISLATURES AGAINST THE STEALTH
IMPLEMENTATION OF A 'NORTH AMERICAN UNION'
The following article was published by The New American on their website: the author is Dennis Berheandt --
The architects of the fledgling effort to create a North American Union (NAU) — the joining of the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a union like the European Union — didn’t count on JoAn Wood. A legislator serving in the Idaho House of Representatives, Wood chairs the Transportation and Defense Committee where her diligence in stopping mischievous legislation has earned her the nickname “JoAn Wood(n’t)” from the Idaho Statesman.
Wood was one of several legislators contacted by grass-roots activists concerned about the federal effort at the executive-branch level to further integrate the United States with Canada and Mexico in an embryonic union through the Security and Prosperity Partnership that was created by President Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in 2005. Once Wood was apprised of the threat posed by the SPP, she wouldn’t allow her state to sit idly by while the federal executive branch continued its policy of selling out America’s independence. Instead, she introduced legislation in the Idaho House of Representatives opposing the SPP and calling on the federal Congress to do the same.
Wood’s actions in Idaho were the first successful and visible manifestations of a groundswell of opposition to the NAU that has materialized in recent months. Led by members of the John Birch Society (of which this magazine is an affiliate), concerned grass-roots activists have succeeded in raising awareness at the local and state level of the dangers presented by the SPP and the move toward further North American integration. As a result of these efforts, resolutions opposing a North American Union have been introduced in 18 states as we go to press. So far, resolutions opposing the SPP and NAU efforts of the federal government have been passed by state legislatures in Idaho and Montana. But it is in Idaho that opposition to the SPP had its first great success.
Opposing the NAU
On March 12, the Idaho resolution opposing the NAU passed overwhelmingly in the Idaho House by voice vote, and, on March 22, it passed in the Idaho Senate by a 24-10 vote. The measure, House Joint Memorial No. 5, “A joint memorial to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress,” found, essentially, that elements of the federal executive branch had worked, through crafting the SPP, to subvert the laws and independence of the United States. According to the resolution, “Reports issued by the SPP indicate that it has implemented regulatory changes among the three countries that circumvent United States trade, transportation, homeland security, and border security functions and that it is the intention of SPP to continue toward a North American Union in the future.”
Moreover, the resolution noted:
that the SPP “makes the United States-Mexico border less secure and more vulnerable to possible terrorist activities”;
that “regulatory and border security changes implemented and proposed by the SPP violate and threaten United States sovereignty”; that the “NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union to facilitate trade between the SPP countries”; that the “trilateral partnership to develop a North American Union has never been presented to Congress as an agreement or treaty, and has had virtually no congressional oversight.”
The resolution concluded by calling on Congress to vigorously oppose ongoing efforts to create a North American Union. The measure urges “the Congress of the United States and particularly the congressional delegation representing the state of Idaho to use all efforts, energies and diligence to withdraw the United States from any further participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America or any other bilateral or multilateral activity that seeks to advance, authorize, fund or in any way promote the creation of any structure to create any form of North American Union.”
According to Rep. Wood, grass-roots activism played a leading role in getting the measure introduced and adopted. “The work that was done by the John Birch Society that contacted local members and also the ones who gave me copies of the Lou Dobbs program [on the work to build a North American Union],” was instrumental in helping to raise awareness of the issue, Wood told THE NEW AMERICAN.
Using the materials and information supplied by concerned citizens, Rep. Wood brought the issue to the attention of the state legislature. Her efforts received a substantial boost as well by documents she received from the federal Department of Transportation during a meeting in Washington, D.C. Those documents provided corroborating evidence supporting the claims made by concerned citizens back in Idaho. “The Lewiston Tribune wrote a really scathing article about me and about this — you know about black helicopters and this stuff about being with far-right crazies and that type of thing,” Wood recalled. “And so I pulled this out of my material that I got in Washington, D.C., and right in it there’s the Trans-Texas Corridor. It came out of a brochure from the Department of Transportation on the federal level.”
With documentation aplenty to counteract the unfair criticism, Rep. Wood found a receptive if somewhat skeptical audience among other state legislators who had been growing increasingly concerned about drugs, illegal immigration, and the deterioration of the existing interstate highway system — apparently disparate issues that are all heavily impacted by federal plans for the further integration of North America.
“We’re having a lot of trouble in our state with illegal aliens and drug problems and I did mention that and of course that was the one criticism that I got — that I was being racist by saying that we were very concerned about homeland security and then having an open border like we would be having with the Trans Texas project,” Wood said. Her presentation of the dangers posed by the SPP and North American integration proved convincing despite this criticism.
“The reason that I was able to be convincing on this is because of the page that was in the material that I got in Washington, D.C.,” Wood continued. “I did show that and I ran off copies of it and I gave it out to the committee members as I was giving them the presentation.” According to Wood, what she showed her fellow lawmakers contained information “from [federal Transportation Secretary] Mary Peters and [former Transportation Secretary] Norm Mineta both talking about opening up the border for Mexican trucks in here and how that is part of the agreement that we made — or that the president made — with the other two countries and particularly with Vicente Fox for allowing Mexican trucks” in the United States.
Wood’s presentation to her fellow lawmakers proved effective. “I just didn’t have any problem at all in getting people, in either the House or the Senate, to accept that my major concern was homeland security and the dollars that would be spent on those projects that would then be recovered by a foreign conglomerate,” she said, referring to contracts to be given to large companies in Spain and Australia to build and manage the super corridors of what some are calling the NAFTA Superhighway.
Growing Discontent
The measure was introduced in the Idaho Senate by Senator Monty Pearce where, despite Wood’s efforts in the Idaho House, it was first viewed with a bit of apprehension. “There was a little nervousness,” Senator Pearce told THE NEW AMERICAN. “The Democrats, some of them opposed it because they misunderstood it,” said Pearce, who emphasized that there has been a growing awareness among his constituents that the SPP and the drive for North American integration represent a real threat to security. “We have local people that have picked up on this and they are really excited and upset about it — amazed that it would even be an issue we would need to bring up. I think it’s what’s been talked about for a long time. It’s real and it’s there.” Senator Pearce was also eager to express his thanks for the groundbreaking work done by Rep. Wood. “I think this was an excellent piece of legislation. It was timely. It was really a timely piece of legislation,” Pearce said.
Even at the federal level, opposition to the integration of North America is emerging. Dallas Morning News business columnist Jim Landers noted in his column on April 17 that several congressmen from Ohio oppose the Trans Texas Corridor project because it will mean severe job losses in America’s manufacturing heartland. According to Landers, “Rep. [Marcy] Kaptur told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that she’s concerned about Asian cargoes carried on Mexican trucks costing the jobs of American drivers and longshoremen. Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio) is co-sponsoring a resolution opposing a NAFTA superhighway crossing the nation’s midsection. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has said he wants to hold hearings about the highway.”
Legislation similar to that passed in Idaho continues to make its way through several state legislatures. In Montana, the House passed HJR 25 opposing the Security and Prosperity Partnership by a wide margin of 94 to 5 on February 23. The state Senate followed suit on April 18, where the vote was 32 to 18, making Montana the second state after Idaho to officially oppose further North American integration.
The Montana resolution “is one of the most significant pieces of legislation we’ve passed this session,” Montana state legislator Rick Jore, a cosponsor of the measure, told THE NEW AMERICAN. Jore emphasized that the measure was only a first step. “In these situations it’s important that legislators continue to hammer on our congressional delegation, because now its up to them,” Jore continued. “This resolution is to the president and to the Congress and in my view there’s been too many instances where congressional delegations, at least from Montana, have disregarded resolutions from their state legislatures.”
Attorney George Detweiler, former assistant attorney general for Idaho, agreed that the measures in both Idaho and Montana laid the groundwork for future efforts to halt the integration of North America. “I think they’re both beginning steps which other states need to follow in order to send a message to the administration that the SPP is not in the best interest of the nation and to pull the plug on the NAU and ultimately on NAFTA itself,” Detweiler told THE NEW AMERICAN.
Counting Idaho and Montana, measures opposing the SPP and NAU efforts of the federal government have been introduced in 18 states. The Arizona Senate, Oklahoma Senate, and Utah House have passed measures opposing North American merger. Other states where similar measures have been introduced in state houses and/or senates include Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.
The grass-roots activism that has resulted in these state initiatives can have a substantial impact on public policy at the national level. In Idaho, it is hoped that the passage of HJM 5 will spur other states to action and cause the members of the U.S. Congress to begin paying attention to the situation. “I do hope that it will get the attention of our congressional delegation,” JoAn Wood concluded.
www.thenewamerican.com/
