Tammy Bruce: Jerome Corsi on The North American Union

Jerome Corsi on The North American Union

Jerome is probably best known to all of you as the author of "Unfit for Command" the Swift Boat vet book that exposed John Kerry during the 2004 election. Jerome was kind enough to join me on Tammy Radio today to discuss his Human Events article about the secret North American Union plan devised by Bush, Fox and Harper, which includes the creation of a singular currency called the "Amero," a unified court system, etc.

This is not a paranoid theoretical musing. Jerome has the facts and the links. In a day when the president's actions regarding illegal aliens seem wholly inexplicable, this expose helps to make sense of it all. In other words, the president is a Globalist and means to erase North American borders. Of course, it also means we have to stop him.

The Plan to Replace the Dollar With the 'Amero'

The idea to form the North American Union as a super-NAFTA knitting together Canada, the United States and Mexico into a super-regional political and economic entity was a key agreement resulting from the March 2005 meeting held at Baylor University in Waco, Tex., between President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin.

[...}

If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero,” we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election. Pursuing any plan that would legalize the conservatively estimated 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States could well spell election disaster for the Republican Party in 2006, especially for the House of Representative where every seat is up for grabs.

Jerome doesn't just talk at you in this article, throughout the piece he provides links to the government agencies working on making this happen. Please read the whole article. It will help clarify the president's seeming obsession about opening our borders and his peculiar relationship with Fox. Now we know it's about establishing essentially an entirely different country, eliminating the sovereignty of the U.S.

Never forget the liberalism of the Bush household. George H.W. Bush ran for president against Reagan as the pro-choice candidate. He only declared himself pro-life, a condition of Reagan's, in order to get the VP position.

George W. Bush is his father's son, not Reagan's. And he is indeed a Globalist.

Posted by Tammy · June 5, 2006 10:44 AM · Permalink
Big Government | Border Security | Homeland Security | The New American Revolution

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://tammybruce.com/mt/pings.cgi/603

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jerome Corsi on The North American Union:

» Roveing Roundup from Classical Values
In what has to be considered huge news, Great Satan Karl Rove is not being indicted. Stephen Green says, It's really too bad this news didn't come out on Friday. The reactions from the wackos at the Kos Konvention would... [Read More]

Tracked on June 13, 2006 08:34 AM

Comments

As with a lot of this type of stuff, like Y2K, the Annunaki, Roswell and human-caused global warming, my first thought is "paranoia". I have been puzzled by GW's softness on illegal immigration, but doubt that this is the explanation. For me, the giveaway is the "Amero" part. Why would we give up the world's main currency for any reason? Both the Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso are weaker currencies, so it would only be a weaker currency than the existing dollar. The Euro was created to compete with the dollar, but what reason is there for the Amero? It would be an extremely bad decision, economically. Annexing Mexico into the US might work, but would also have no advantage to offer us. Will need a lot more evidence on this one.

Posted by: robert108 at June 5, 2006 01:57 PM

Didn't George W Bush swore to uphold the constitution? hmmmm?

Unbelievable!!!

Posted by: pjb at June 5, 2006 02:13 PM

At first I thought this was some kind of prank. Well, so much for my happy week of no head explosions. Tammy, I am really sorry now that I missed your show today. I'm stunned and sick at my stomach.

I've believed a long time that there were those unknown men in the back rooms of government and business that want to bring America under their control, but I never dreamed that it would happen this way, or so soon. ("...a plan to create by 2010 a redefinition of boundaries...")

Everything has been lie. I will never believe another thing that Bush says. He hid who he really was to get elected. ~~(insert your own expletives here)~~
We found out he was a Corporate Globalist, now we know it's even worse than that. Here's a newsflash for them--- we will not just look away while they destroy our national sovereignty. This is not Europe.

Why are we only now just finding out about this???

Also Tammy- I guess this answers why he never said anything about the Kelo decision huh?

Posted by: Tink at June 5, 2006 02:29 PM

This just makes me sick...the only thing that saves my sanity is that Ted Kennedy and that bunch will oppose anything that Bush wants...I don't want to believe that John Kerry would have been a better president, but now I wonder...

Posted by: Marie at June 5, 2006 04:17 PM

Robert108--- check out all the links in the article, you'll find plenty of evidence. Of course it wouldn't make sense now. But the borders will go first, then the justification for the Amero will fall (seemingly) naturally into place.

Look at the members of the CFR's "Building a North American Community" task force. The usual triumvirate of tyranny---business, politics, and academia. Here's an interesting one: "Raul H. Yzaguirre...recently retired as President and CEO of the National Council of La Raza in Washington D.C."

Posted by: Tink at June 5, 2006 06:05 PM

This is indeed scary but I don't see how the hell they will be able to get away with it. The American people would never let it happen and yes we have to stop him. If this is so is does explain why Bush has been so lax with the borders. Kelo also scares the hell out of me. That error needs to be reversed NOW. This sounds like the makings of a spy/thriller/nightmare novel. One world order , one nation under what ???

Posted by: Carpediem at June 5, 2006 06:10 PM

The article talks about Liberal Canadian PM (and crook) Paul Martin, NOT Stephen Harper, who I completely could not see signing onto such a project. His power base is the Canadian west, and especially staunchly conservative ever-more-independence-minded Alberta; this is very much in line with the tranzi mindset of the Liberal Party, but not either the Reform Party or the old "Red Tories," the two halves from which the modern Canadian Conservative Party were formed.

And it'll never happen, thank God. You can't introduce crap like this by stealth. The European Union, presumably the model for such insanity, is already on the verge of coming apart at the seams (and the sooner the better), and Americans are fortunately far more conscious and prickly about such thngs than most Europeans are.

Posted by: Dave J at June 5, 2006 06:19 PM

Tink: I have generally found links to be self-serving, in that no one links to anything that disagrees with their point. For me, things have to make sense, and this one doesn't pass the smell test for me. There are too many leaps of faith required. Remember how Y2K sounded so reasonable? It went on for over a year, with one fantasy piled on another, and in the end, it was just thin air. This one doesn't have as much going for it as Y2K did, but then I'm generally suspicious of conspiracy stuff. I never bought that old Trilateral commission stuff, either. Oh, yes! Then there's that one about the Illuminati.

Posted by: robert108 at June 5, 2006 07:35 PM

fnord, Robert108. Ia ia Cthulhu fhtagn! Klaatu barada nikto. ;-)

Posted by: Dave J at June 5, 2006 08:15 PM

I don't know. It sounds like a lot of paranoia to me. Some of it makes sense....securing our continent (not just our border), common external tariffs, Canada and US investing in Mexico to lift it from poverty and strengthen it within the shared continent, etc.

This article puts a little better spin on it:

"To make North America more competitive and secure, the three leaders should announce a plan to establish a North American security and economic community by 2010. The aim of this community would be to guarantee a free, safe, just and prosperous North America. The boundaries of the community would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter, within which the movement of people and products would be legal, orderly and secure. To meet these objectives, three broad challenges must be addressed....."

The article then goes on to describe the challenges (common immigration laws, etc)

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7955/north_america_the_beautiful.html?breadcrumb=default

No one would agree to giving up sovereignty; nor, do I think that is the intent. But, with any agreements we make with other countries each step needs to be analyzed carefully.

Most of the sources in the article are simply books/articles by forward thinkers. I wouldn't exactly call that proof of anything.

Posted by: Frogg at June 6, 2006 12:03 AM

The details are vital. The United States was born with a relatively weak central government, and the states were relatively autonomous. In fact, the first Federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, was weak to the point of being ineffective. The Constitution we have was our second attempt at a national government, and we all know of its success, but it was still relatively weak compared to other central governments. Of course, we all know that governments tend to consolidate their power, and so our government has grown almost unstoppably, in spite of that silly amendment which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Next time you hear of the government contemplating a new program or control (such as socialized medicine), ask yourself how exactly it was delegated the power to do this thing. As you see, the Federal government is only constitutionally allowed to do what it is explicitly permitted. For example, the original income tax was declared unconstitutional; they had to go back and get an amendment in order to delegate the power to tax income. Those were the days! (There's this unfortunate sentence called the "general welfare clause" that seems to have become, over the last century, the hook under which the government can do anything it damn well pleases.) And in a war or crisis such as the Depression, the citizens are willing to ignore the formal rules, and the government is permitted to go wild. Sometimes this is essential for our immediate survival. But once the crisis has passed, we've gotten used to the bigger government, so the principled objections fall upon deaf ears. The precedent has been set, and the lawyers argue that the precedent has made a de facto amendment, so that whatever stupid thing was done once can be done again. This is part of what the people (mostly Democrats) who refer to the Constitution as a "living document" are talking about. I strongly favor (and by the way, George Bush promises to appoint) judges who call themselves "strict constructionists".

Anyway, in theory, a North American authority could be like the United States once was (and to some extent still is), that is, a relatively weak structure that respects the autonomy of its members. Could be. But, yeah, it would likely grow in power.

Posted by: Talkin Horse at June 6, 2006 02:28 AM

I never thought I'd say it, but I agree with Al Gore. Bush has betrayed this country.

Posted by: predoc at June 6, 2006 04:03 AM

Robert108, I must be missing something. I don't understand what kind of evidence you're looking that would prove something is brewing here. The links aren't to opinion pieces.

If the Joint Statement, the plan published by the CFR Task Force, the testimony by task force member Robert Pastor, and the "Security & Prosperity of North America" website of our Commerce Dept. isn't enough I don't know what to tell ya.

Without our borders, without complete and separate autonomy, without adherence to our Constitution, we are not a nation. Nationalism is good and right. Anything that seeks to destroy that is evil. So they're doing through economic means rather than militarily. If they appeal to our desire for security and prosperity they can put one over on the rubes.

Posted by: Tink at June 6, 2006 08:14 AM

A few weeks ago, in commenting of an immigration issue, I proposed the same out come with a different process that would not surrender U. S. soverenty.

Annex Mexico!

Posted by: ahwatukeejohn at June 6, 2006 09:12 AM

Thoughtful stuff, everyone. My orientation is primarily in the field of economics, so I take it from that point of view. Politically, anything is possible. Economically, though, most of this proposition is economically unfeasible. There is no need for the "Amero", and in fact it would be stupid. Our dollar is superior to either the Canadian dollar or the peso, so it would be(in the case of confederation) the ongoing currency. Neither the Canadian nor the Mexican economy is equivalent to ours, by a long shot, so the confederation would be a form of welfare for them, until we pumped them up to our level. Not a good idea for us. Essentially, this is imperialism dressed up in PC clothes, and we already know it isn't a good way to go. We know we are better off doing business with other countries, rather than colonizing them. Colonialism is a bad deal, economically. The infrastructure cost is always greater than the benefits of whatever you might get from that country. I still think this is just an anti-President pipe dream, as is evidenced by Predoc's comment.

Posted by: robert108 at June 6, 2006 10:26 AM

I would suggest everyone who is concerned or interested in the North American Community go to http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/ and read the post "Why the European Union must be destroyed, and soon" by Fjordman. The Europeans have gone there before us....and he discusses the consequences of that move for the average European. The end result is not positive, if you are lovers of liberty and believe in local autonomy and states rights.

Posted by: treehugger at June 6, 2006 12:57 PM

Robert108 said: "...Neither the Canadian nor the Mexican economy is equivalent to ours, by a long shot, so the confederation would be a form of welfare for them, until we pumped them up to our level. Not a good idea for us...." You're darn right "Not a good idea"!!!!! We wouldn't be pumping them up, they would be dragging us down. For many years, if not indefinitely!

Posted by: lnthomp at June 6, 2006 01:34 PM

Being correct on one issue does not validate your position on all issues.

The unification of Canada, Mexico, and the United States into one country is not something you can really plan for. A Canadian-American Union is more likely to happen first. But only after a period of closer economic, military, and (later on) political ties. It may even have to wait for the (re)unification of Great Britain and the U. S.

Mexico is a much harder problem. The culture of oppression and corruption in Mexico is such that it would not profit us to have the sort of ties that would lead to unification. Before we could add Mexican territory we would first have to liberate Mexico from the oligarchy that rules her now.

Don't expect anything like amnesty for illegal aliens to be a signal of the coming union. A far better sign would be offering sanctuary to refugees from corruption. From regimes, such as Mexico's or Nigeria's, so corrupt there is no real way for internal reform to be enacted. Once we start allowing the entry of corruption refugees from Mexico, then you can expect to hear word of plans for the invasion and liberation of Mexico.

Posted by: mythusmage at June 6, 2006 01:36 PM

Almost forgot this part...

Let's say Canada, Mexico, and The United States of America do unite, under the conditions laid out in the article. Who's going to be the senior partner? Who's going to be running things? If not at first, at least in the long run.

Five Amero's will get you three it'll be run from Washington D. C.

(America. Conquering the world one helping hand at a time. :) )

Posted by: mythusmage at June 6, 2006 01:42 PM

LNTHOMP: Gotta disagree with you. We would use the low-priced labor and natural resources to generate more prosperity, which would eventually even things out at a higher level, but it would be less efficient than simply doing business with them under present circumstances. The only thing that can drag us down is socialism, IMO.

Posted by: robert108 at June 6, 2006 02:17 PM

i don't understand how all the right wing and left wing radio people are not speaking out against the north american union,if we believe in america and our freedom, every one needs to challenge the president on this, before the president sells us down the road,why does he even bother wasting millions on tsending the national guard to the border , when in a year or two the borders will be nonexistant. look at the curve balls the right wing throw at american's gay marrige,tax cuts, all things that are designed to keep americans busy dividing themselves so they won't focus or realize their rights are going down the sewer.

Posted by: h200 at June 11, 2006 10:29 PM

By Category

By Month

Jerome Corsi on The North American Union

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment