Thread: North American Union strife

North American Union strife

NAU is beneficial if taken out of big business hands
American Republic will cease to exist with NAU in effect

On the surface, what's there not to like about a proposed North American Union?

The merging of the United States with Canada and Mexico has much to offer as the cultures and politics mingle.


ADVERTISEMENT

The U.S. can learn from Canada's compassionate health care system and laws. Mexico can benefit from U.S. influence. Canada can benefit from a broadened North American free market.

Everybody wins, right?
In theory.

What blows holes in that theory is that companies like Ford, Campbell Soup, FedEx, General Electric, General Motors, Merck, Mittal Steel, UPS, Wal-Mart and Whirlpool are huge proponents of the concept because they have so much to gain on the backs of the poor, a scenario that played out since the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect.

NAFTA was supposed to be of huge benefit to the people who populate the continent. More and better-paying jobs, more and better benefits. Better lifestyles. But, that didn't happen.

Just look at Mexico, where these companies have busted onto the scene and exploited the working class with jobs that are far below the salary range they should be. Look at the United States, which lost good jobs. Look at Canada, which has suffered a form of isolationism as a result of its more liberal politics.

The NAU, with roots through both parties - President Clinton was deeply behind NAFTA and President Bush follows in the same steps when it comes to economic possibilities in a unified North America - is based on more corporate greed, more profit for investors with little of it trickling down to the working class heroes trying to put food on their tables and a roof over their heads.

Under those terms, it represents a lopsided system where corporate-government interests rule over a hungry proletariat. It reeks of the philosophy of the Project for a New American Century, which is based on building a New World Order, influenced heavily by the precepts of George Bush the elder, and the group's position, which borders on fascism, that the U.S. should be the one and only military, economic and social power on the face of the Earth.

However, if you trash that concept of the NAU, it could be very beneficial to all concerned.

As it stands, the United States gets most of its oil from Canada. There are rich oil fields in Mexico that have gone untapped. The formation of the NAU would not only open borders, but give the North American continent autonomy with a lessening dependence on foreign oil. The revenue generated by opening the oil fields in Mexico would be a much-needed shot in the arm for the economy south of the border as well until we can wean ourselves off of gasoline. There would be more plentiful jobs, higher wages and a larger gross national product that would shore up the country. Illegal immigration would disappear as a problem.

By loosening itself from the Middle East oil cartels the U.S. shakes off its involvement in a blistering corner of the world that will remain in flames until all life ceases on this planet. It's been that way forever over there and nothing we can do as a nation will end the hostilities.

The argument will be made that the United States could lose its sovereignty.

Unfortunately, U.S. sovereignty has been slipping away since Ronald Reagan was elected.

The royal families of Reagan, Bush and Clinton have slowly stripped our freedoms and placed the real power in this country into the hands of big business and corporate America, allowing the stature of this nation to slip to mediocre status in the world.

The NAU could solve that problem.

Contact Local News Editor Ed Kociela at 674-6237 or e-mail ekociela@thespectrum.com.

The biggest challenge for America in the 21st century may be the push to create an intergovernmental body modeled after the European Union. If the complete integration of Mexico, Canada and the United States occurs, the American Republic will cease to exist.

Whether what has been termed as a Northern American Union is fictitious or not, it is clear there is a movement towards regionalization for capitalist gain. This trinational merger could go back farther than President Bill Clinton, but the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement under his administration is where the momentum really started.

Hailed by some for elevating the flow of goods and services in North America, this trade agreement was more about making Mexico a safe haven for U.S. capital than it was about free trade. Mexicans now face greater unemployment, poverty, and inequality than before NAFTA began Jan. 1, 1994. These people were left with three choices:


Escape through migration;

Make do with the corrupt oligarchy;

Turn to a life of crime.
At what cost has America paid? An estimated 50 percent of the 12 million undocumented immigrants residing here are from this country, and a large percentage have chosen to take advantage of the federal government by living off entitlement programs, such as Medicaid, at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.

NAFTA's failure to protect Mexican workers' rights has permitted employers to manipulate and abuse them. It certainly has done nothing about the U.S. employers taking advantage of these illegal workers by paying them less than minimum wage, but making it lucrative enough for them to remain in the country undocumented.

All NAFTA did between America and Canada was spark more trade disputes, which cost the land of the free dearly in court battles. An example is the long-running softwood lumber battle. The conflict really got heated in May 2002, when the U.S. imposed duties of 27 percent on Canadian softwood lumber, contending that the socialist parliamentary system unfairly subsidized producers of spruce, pine and fir lumber.

The issue went before NAFTA panels and the World Trade Organization repeatedly, actually resulting in rulings in favor of Canada. Would you believe that the quarrel finally ended in April 2006 with an agreement that would require the U.S. to return about 80 percent of the more than $5 billion in duties it had collected on lumber imports?

If you don't think this quarrel had a direct impact on construction costs, compare the cost of a median home in St. George from 2000 to five years later - respectively $143,200 to $208,300. While it is obvious lumber was not the lone culprit to the price of a home nearly doubling, I can't help thinking it did have an influence.

There have also been social and economic consequences from NAFTA since it provides no social regulations. It offers no labor, health or environmental standards. All protections are reserved solely for corporate investors. This is completely contrary to American values that espouse equality, liberty and justice.

While the tides of world globalization are rising, in no way should it intimidate the U.S. into relinquishing its sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Constitution and laws of the Republic. That fabric of what makes America great has been slowly fraying from NAFTA and the subsequent Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) because of corporate greed. It does not need to be eroded further by a North American Union in any shape or form.

If it were to happen, every troop or civilian who ever died defending this country will cry up from the dust: "Was my life given in vain?"

http://www.thespectrum.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /706030319

Yeah, like I really want to merge with Mexico - NOT!

This whole idea sucks the big one, and now that the people know about this "secret", maybe the governments and corporations won't be able to pull it off. Bastards.

I think alot of things that we used to ignore we will be watching now. I just hope we are not too late to save this Country!!

As I was taking a rules review class today for work, we had to review Homeland Security issues (work for the railroad) the Railroads are called North American Railroads and not American railroads.