American Free Press | March 31, 2007
By Mark Anderson

THE STATES WHICH, ONCE UPON A TIME, created the federal government under the Constitution are trying to give their arrogant “offspring” some direction. But over the long haul, the very-wealthy and well-connected, through their media empire, think tanks, foundations, banking schemes, lobbying outfits and other means, have led that offspring astray, severely corrupting it while sharply eclipsing the average person’s influence on the federal government.

Stepping up to the plate, Idaho has now become the first state to pass a legislative resolution, House Joint Memorial No. 5, in an effort to direct the U.S. Congress to drop out of the North American Union, or NAU—a proposed economic-political merger of the United States, Mexico and Canada. The resolution also calls on Congress to withdraw from any further participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, an initiative designed to lay the groundwork for the NAU.

The NAU is approximately modeled after the European Union, or EU, which is comprised of formerly independent nations and is largely ruled by a centralized bureaucracy in Brussels.

The 13 states besides Idaho urging Congress to nix the NAU/SPP are: Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, Illinois, Oregon, Montana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Virginia.

Some of the state resolutions oppose the creation of North American Free Trade Agreement “superhighways” like the Trans-Texas Corridor, or TTC, a super-wide highway, railway and utility system slated to be built parallel to Interstate 35 from Laredo, Texas, north to the border with Oklahoma, with concrete tributaries and other tollways rippling through Texas as part of a continental cargo transport system.

According to a care2.com, passage of Idaho’s detailed resolution was credited to grassroots activists. The resolution itself makes several points, such as, according to the U.S. Commerce Department, U.S. trade deficits with Canada and Mexico “have significantly increased since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement . . . and the volume of imports from Mexico has soared since NAFTA, straining security checks at the U.S. border” and “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 among the SPP countries.”

Furthermore, echoing recent reports in AFP and other sources, the resolution acknowledges that huge ship cargos will be unloaded at Mexican Pacific-side ports so the cargo can be trucked and sent by rail through Mexico and into the United States via the TTC. However, it also adds that “plans of Asian trading powers to divert cargo from U.S. ports such as Los Angeles to ports in Mexico will only put pressure on border inspectors, interfering with their already overwhelming job of intercepting the flow of drugs and illegals flowing into this country.”

The overall TTC plan calls for numerous other new tollways and conversion of regular highways to tollways that, if built, would ripple through many parts of Texas. The statements and diagrams of Kansas City SmartPort and other organizations amenable to NAU/SPP show that the envisioned network of NAFTA superhighways, including the TTC, is ideal for physically integrating the United States, Canada and Mexico and would greatly facilitate the open migration of goods, people and capital across the three nations’ formerly sovereign borders, if this overall scheme is not defeated.

The recipient of this and the other state resolutions—the U.S. House of Representatives—itself has House Concurrent Resolution 40 in its docket. Introduced by Rep.Virgil Goode (R-Va.), H.C.R. 40 has 12 co-sponsors.

On Jan. 22, 2007, it was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. HCR 40 would put Congress on record against the NAFTA superhighway and the NAU.

It reads like a pared down version of Idaho’s resolution. Not everyone is convinced that these state resolutions deserve a rousing applause. Some comments posted at ImmigrationWatchdog.com see the resolutions as theatrics or as well-meaning but somewhat toothless gestures. 

Some suggested impeachment proceedings against President Bush and others for supporting the NAU. Such support is seen as treasonous and, therefore, impeachable. Other posted comments, however, say the resolutions are tangible, welcome progress. 

ANOTHER APPROACH

Coming at this issue from another perspective, the We the People Foundation reports filing a “petition for redress regarding the North American Union.”

A strategy outlined on the foundation’s web site notes, “We must take the first step. We, the People, must Petition the United States Government for Redress of Grievances regarding the North American Union.”

It was reportedly served on every member of Congress and the president on March 15. A transmittal letter was to be served with each petition. On March 30, citizens involved in this movement assembled at Lafayette Park opposite the White House that early afternoon, to await the president’s response and that of the Congress. The letter informs the president and Congress that “should they fail in their constitutional obligation” to promptly respond to the petition, then, “the people will not be filing tax returns for 2006 and will retain their money until their grievances are redressed.”

This approach follows a long-established principle, foundation members say.