The government keeps telling us there is no such thing as a North American Union. Depends on what you mean by "North American Union." If you mean an actual organization called "The North American Union," maybe you're right. But if you aren't mincing words and actually talking about a criminal consolidation through an undemocratic conspiracy there IS a North American Union.
While George Bush laughed at the idea of a "North American Union," the policy was already decades in the making and being implemented incrementally even throughout his administration. Now you would think that something like free-trade would represent a partisan issue. But amazingly free-trade and economic integration at the expense of our local economy has been an issue every president from George Bush Sr. to Barrack H. Obama has unanimously backed.
International superstates go through several phases. They generally start out as a series of free-trade agreements which then end up becoming a regional "community." Finally they form a "union" superstate where a single government disseminates policy to all member states.
The European Union began as first, transnational industry unions, then the European Economic Community. Next it became simply the European Community, and now finally the European Union.
The African Union (Yes, there is an African Union) started out as the Organization of African Unity in 1963, then was joined by the African Economic Community in 1981, then in 2002, both were abolished and replaced by a full fledged African Union.
In Asia, we have ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) created in 1967, and though it is "Southeast Asia" by name, "plus three" meetings end up including Korea, Japan and China (the rest of Asia). In 1993 the first meeting of APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) was held. Carlyle Group USA member and former Prime Minister of Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra proposed an "Asian Cooperation Dialogue" in 2002 as a framework for an EU style Asian Union. There is no Asian Union yet, but it is openly on the drawing board.
So what about the United States and the North American Union? We have our free-trade agreement set in place with the nortorious NAFTA. It was passed in 1994 by President Clinton on the back of the efforts of George Bush Sr. Now we have the CFR calling for the creation of a "North American Community" which includes a single border around the outer perimeter of the US, Canada, and Mexico. Integrated economic policy, security forces, and even legislation are being proposed.
But many of these proposals are already being implemented quietly out of the public's tragically short attention span. Mexican troops are allowed on US soil, US troops are patrolling in Canada and off the Canadian shores. Training exercises are done in tandem with Mexico and Canada, and border checkpoints are being set up not on the US border, but well within the US. What sense does that make? Makes lots of sense if you are trying to erase the borders. How is this any different than a full fledged "North American Union?" I assure you, in words only.
(The document is a PDF file, if you don't have Adobe Acrobat and would like an alternative that doesn't prompt you for updates every 5 minutes, try the free PDF-XChange Viewer at http://download.cnet.com/PDF-XChange-Viewer/3000-10743_4-10598377.html?tag=mncol )
Back in high school we probably saw some chart explaining the workings of our government, complete with the House of Representatives, the Senate, Executive Branch, and the Courts. We saw a lot of arrows going back and forth showing the flow of the people's mandated policy in action.
As we get older and we realize that these elected representatives never seem to actually do what we voted them into office to do (Pelosi not ending the wars nor holding the Republicans accountable, or the Republicans' failure to minimize the bloated socialist empire Clinton built over the course of 8 years). In fact, we start to notice that American policy seems to be moving in a linear direction regardless of who's in the White House. So who ARE the politicians getting their orders from if not the people?
"Money makes the world go round," "everyone has their price," "money is the root of all evil," yes, yes, cliches we can all agree are true to a certain degree. So billionaire industrialists and banking houses - with the majority of the world's wealth in their hands, would be "making the world go round." If "everyone has a price" how hard would it be for billionaire industrialists or bankers to make a reasonable bid on just about anyone's integrity? And if money is "the root of all evil," wouldn't those with the most stand to be capable of the greatest evil?
Cliches aside, our policy is not decided by our elected representatives. They are nothing more than a proxy between special interests and the masses. Let's take a look at a more "realistic" postulation on how power and policy is distributed and implemented. Remember, this is a "postulation," and there is plenty of room for debate.
#1. The Bilderberg Group is a yearly meeting between the world's most powerful leaders and policy makers, along with executives from the largest companies on earth. They make decisions at these yearly meetings, which are then passed onto either #2. the already existing cogs of world government, the WTO, UN, or World Bank - or onto #3. & #4., regional think tank groups chock-full of elitists and policy wonks. Here they work out the details for implementation as well as how politicians will sell these policies to the public.
#5. Here we have the government - who sells the policy to the public as well as making it "legitimate" via law. We also have corporations that are used either to exploit the policy or at times help implement it. These corporations generally have members of the elitists and think tanks sitting on their boards of directors.
#6. Recruitment. Corporations, media groups, the military, and universities are a buffer zone between the people and the elitists. They draw from the masses into their lowest ranks many people to serve their designs. They also serve as mouth pieces for the elitists, justifying and legimizing the policy being handed down. Talented individuals are often cultivated or co-opted by the elite as they rise up through the levels of this machine and approach the levers of power. By the time they reach real power, the establishment has enough dirt on them, enough leverage over them, to keep them in line and policy on course.
I'm sure there is a lot of room for disagreement here. It is a work in progress, but one thing is for sure, it goes much further explaining why the world is in the state it is than that homely diagram in my social studies textbook back in high school.