…time on my hands, one thing I did to keep myself entertained was watch a lot of movies. One of them was Covert One: The Hades Factor.

I never saw it the “first time around”, as it were, and when I ran across it and saw that it was based (though loosely) on work by the late suspense/espionage novelist Robert Ludlum, I thought I’d buy it. So I did.

The premise of the film boiled down to Islamic terrorists smuggling a biological agent into the United States…by infecting themselves with it prior to entering the country, then coming into the U.S. before the symptoms became visible.

Had the bad guys been along the lines of, say, Nicholas Baader (though he reportedly, as did his girlfriend and co-terrorist Gudrun Enslin, hung himself in his prison cell at the end of things) most IRA types or the various and sundry terrorist groups in South America, I’d have done what I do with a lot of action films — let it go in one eye and out the other and enjoy the story and the action as intended, for its pure entertainment value.

However, most western fanatics plan and execute their operations with the intention of surviving them. They will place their explosive devices and then get out of Dodge before the big bang or they will open fire on their targets from safe vantage points and have their escape routes planned. They will kidnap and demand ransom or political concessions, or they will kidnap and murder. The ones with the brown curduroy pants, burgundy sweater vests and coke bottle glasses might email computer viruses to their “oppressors” while the eco-terrorists burn down peoples’ houses or hammer nails into trees so as to cause grave injury to loggers.

But they all have one thing in common: They don’t want to die in the course of “championing” their causes.

Islamic terrorists, however, thrive on the concept of murdering themselves along with the soft targets they specialize in killing.

The U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut over two decades ago. The scores of Muslims who strap on suicide vests in the name of Allah and walk into crowds, restaurants, hotel lobbies, board buses, etc and happily blow themselves up along with the people around them. The 9/11 hijackers, who knew long before that terrible day that when it arrived, they would be crashing airplanes into buildings.

Professionally, I’ve long considered the probability (as opposed to possibility) that al-Qaeda or affiliates thereof would one day lay hands on biological weapons. Looking at it from their point of view, a bio attack would be far more logistically feasible than one involving a suitcase nuke — radioactive materials are far more easily detected than are micro-organisms, and the technology used to address the former concern is abundantly deployed beyond, for obvious reasons, the radar of the mainstream media. The NYT would publish instantly, under the pretext of outrage that the jackbooted thugs of the Bush regime were invading the privacy and human rights of innocent Americans (including the children) by monitoring their radiation levels, or some such idiocy (liberals don’t pay much attention to the logic or intelligence employed in the course of their diatribes, they just spew whatever it is they spew and assume that those on the receiving end will perceive it as mature, sane and logical).

Back, however, to The Hades Factor.

Early on, the main character, played by Stephen Dorff (actually, to me the main character was Mira Sorvino’s, but that’s just me), an expert on biological warfare, is asked at a conference, as a speaker, if a bio attack is preventable, and he replies in the negative.

He is absolutely correct.

From Osama’s POV, while a mushroom cloud over Manhattan would be great PR, well, as a default scenario, millions of Americans writhing in the purest agony, emergency rooms overflowing and American cities and the commerce within paralyzed while the government scrambled helplessly and ineffectually to do something about it would be just fine. Hell, break open that bottle of non-alcoholic Piper-Hiedsieck and let’s party! C’mon, let’s get some good tunes playing in this damn cave, let’s dance! Eat hummus, be merry!

What’s to stop such an attack, once the bad guys get their hands on a bio agent, from happening? If a guy (or gal, for that matter) has no problem self-detonating anyway, why not simply become infected with an easily communicable virus and distribute it via the simple means of coming into contact with other people and infecting them as well? Ten family members alone would infect 30 or 40 people (spouses, children) who would in turn spread the bio agent to classmates, fellow PTA members, neighbors, employees at the grocery store, etc…

If there are a few hours or a couple of days before the symptoms become evident, the bearer of these grim tidings needs only pass through Customs and Immigration with a legitimate front. Yeah, yeah, there’s a terrorist watch list and all that. Right. They search Habib’s luggage and find nothing, because the national security threat is flowing through his veins or his lymphatic system or whatever.

Imagine 100 or so such terrorists entering this country as tourists, students or businessmen, deploying into all of our largest cities.

I’m not trying to be an alarmist here, I’m simply pointing out a very real, very grim reality.

The threat, however, doesn’t end with the above. Rather, it is enforced by our own legal system or, to be more precise, the liberal attorneys (think ACLU and that ilk) who are more concerned with defending the rights of our enemies than they are with protecting the very lives of Americans in America.

These cowardly folks of low degree simply assume that the government they assail will protect them from the disastrous results of their arguably treasonous lawsuits. Stupid idea. You don’t disable your protection and then expect to be protected.

To be blunt: Our most lethal and most immediate enemy consists almost homogeneously of Arab Muslims, and they demonstrated, on 9/11, that they are highly skilled at entering our country legally, studying the means of executing a terrorist attack against us in our own learning institutions and then carrying out their plan.

The Bush Administration has done a fantastic job of protecting the United States and those of us living here from terrorism for over six years, but…Dubya’s done so under artillery fire from the MSM, who have done all they could to undermine his efforts.

The long and short of it is that in order to at least attempt to prevent a bio attack, the administration (not only this one, but all those that follow until we’ve decisively beaten Islam in this war that our own government misnames “The War On Terror” –we are not at war with some guys in a cave, we are at war with a faschistic political system disguised as a religion) needs to become as tough, if not tougher, than the Israelis are when it comes to letting people fly into their country or even board one of their commercial airplanes.

Remember that old Bob Dylan line I quoted some time ago?

“And if my (thought) dreams could be seen

they’d probably put my head in a guillotine…”

Well, I know exactly where he was coming from….

…defines, in this column, the true source of the “War On Children”.

Put as succinctly as this, any logic blessed American voter reading the column should stop and ponder:

1. Why aren’t the Democrats in Congress thinking about the future their social programs will leave to “the children”, who will grow up to be tax-paying adults? Why do they attempt to emulate failed European policies while ignoring the negative results of same?

Could it be that they’re only concerned with the politics of the now rather than the realities of the future?

2. Assuming they are concerned about the future of our country and about “the children”, is this simply a case of the Democrats being incapable of assessing the down-the-road ramifications of policies they set today?

Are political leaders who lack even an iota of perspicacity qualified to lead the country?

The United States of America is a perpetually ongoing concept, yet the Democrats treat it as though it is a political Busy Box whose attention span needs only to extend from one Election Day to the next.

If the Democrats feel the need to invoke “the children”, they need look no further for invokees than those occupying seats to the left of the aisle.

…this looks too much like a hundred eighty degree turn to me, abouuuuut face!

The Bush administration plans to step up immigration enforcement by raising fines on employers who hire undocumented workers, overhauling temporary worker programs and speeding up deployment of border agents, according to a summary of the plans.

More precisely,

An outline of the announcement, obtained by The Associated Press from a congressional aide, said the administration plans to expand the list of international gangs whose members are automatically denied admission to the U.S., reduce processing times for immigrant background checks and install by the end of the year an exit system so the departure of foreigners from the country can be recorded at airports and seaports.

In addition, employers will face possible criminal sanctions if they don’t fire employees unable to clear up problems with their Social Security numbers.

Also, the Homeland Security Department will ask states to voluntarily share their driver’s license photos and records with the agency for use in an employment verification system. The sharing is meant to help employers detect fraudulent licenses, according to the summary.

I’m sorry, but I can’t see a President who has so aggressively pursued amnesty and so failed to support the Border Patrol adopting this abrupt tooth & nail immigration policy unless he’s trying a new approach, some sort of stealth implementation policy. While I remain a supporter of the President on Iraq and the rest of the War On Terror, I take umbrage with his performance on immigration enforcement issues and the policies he wishes to engender granting amnesty to potentially millions of people whose very presence on our soil constitutes federal crimes.

Therefore, this is particularly ludicrous:

Chertoff alluded to the new enforcement tactics in a speech in Boston on Wednesday, calling to it “tool sharpening.”

“We shouldn’t have a patchwork of laws. We should be doing a comprehensive federal solution, but we haven’t got that thing done,” Chertoff said. “What I can tell you is we will certainly use every enforcement tool that we have, and every resource that we have available, to tackle the problem.

Considering that a Republican President might have a stealth agenda is a fairly new concept for me, that is usually a Democrat phenomenon, and it applies not only to their POTUSes, but to pretty much all of their politicians — dubiously in their defense, they have little choice; telling the American People their true intentions would lose them more votes than they’d like to contemplate, for unbeknownst to them, most Americans are both patriotic and smart, certainly more intelligent than today’s mainstream media and Democrat politicians apparently believe us to be.

However, since learning about George W. Bush’s leadership role in the very stealthy trilateral North American Union (NAU) agenda, promoted for obvious reasons as the Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), I have paid a lot of attention to his unrealistic and anti-Republican stance on illegal immigration.

In the event of the United States, Canada and Mexico becoming a three-country version of the EU, we would inevitably have to sacrifice nearly every aspect of our sovereignty to a higher Congress that includes decision making equality for politicians from two other countries, one with a predominantly socialist government, the other a grossly corrupt one that presides over millions of citizens who feel the need to flee their country in order to feed themselves and their families, or simply struggle unendingly in environments of squalor and disease.

The U.S. Constitution would become moot, as would the Supreme Court.

But back on track, the defeat of the latest immigration bill was a major setback for the Bush/ NAU amnesty aspirations (to say nothing of those of the Democrat persuation), and (Curses, foiled again!) — why spend billions of dollars securing our borders when they’ll be nothing more than turnstiles by 2010?

Let’s take another step here…it’s inevitable that as continental unions come together, for better or, more likely, for worse, they will fall under auspices united under a U.N. umbrella (the United States shouldn’t even belong to an organization represented most by dictatorships and socialist governments, in fact dominated by the latter) — it doesn’t speak very healthily for a world whose majority of nations seek, in a most avid manner, to bring down the one country among them that most supports their economies and is most willing to risk every kind of military assets, including the lives of our young warriors, to protect their rights.

The true decision-makers at the U.N. are like members of the Khaki Mafia were in Vietnam.

Uncle Sam (We, The People are supposed to tell him what to do) tends to surrender all too often to anti-America rhetoric at the U.N., wherein nations that support Islamic terrorist organizations, far-leftist regimes and brutal despots are considered credible global policy debate participants.

The MSM forever neglects to explain the non-military power we command throughout the globe, and our membership in the U.N. diminishes whatever the media misses. Today, using a shamefully distorted series of “reporting”, omission fraught accounts and outright fabrications on Iraq, they are suffering significant decreases in circulation, yet they perservere in carrying on the propaganda debate that glorifies the abandonment of the American way of life, a school of thought that’s been becoming increasingly unpopular among Americans.

Do I digress, or what?

Yeah, yeah, I know…

…but I’m not operating on the Conspiracy Theory plane, I’m looking at political “action and reaction”.

One piece of information that has sent up a flag in my “domain” is that while the Administration is suddenly going “great guns” on enforcing immigration laws, the President is going to meet, in Ottawa, with his counterparts from Mexico and Canada later this month. “What a coincidence!”

I think the term reverse revolution pretty much defines a situation in which the United States Government mutinies against We, The People for whom, according to the Constitution, the government works.

My case in point is the ongoing immigration kerfuffle.

To simplify what politicians tell us is a complex issue, it’s really quite simple; There are upwards of 12 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States, most of them from Mexico. One reason they are here is that the government failed to do their job, over a long period of years, of securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws concerning those criminal aliens already here in any way that can be called anything but lackluster. However, that’s moot, what’s done is done and we are now paying the price in terms of legal U.S. citizens being displaced in employment markets by the under the table coolie wage crowd, by our tax money funding social services provided these felony trespassers, by copious criminal activities on the part of same, by quality of life degradation that devalues property in neighborhoods across America and by illegal laborers sending large portions of their untaxed incomes to their families back home, thereby taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the U.S. economy rather than recirculating the money to keep the economy strong.

Most Americans want our southern border secured, the continuous influx of illegals halted and those already in the country deported and compelled to apply to enter, work in and achieve citizenship in the U.S. through legal means.

Most of our elected government officials, however, are pushing a different solution: Amnesty. Many label it under other names and provide transparently false justifications for doing so. This includes the bulk of the Democrat majority in Congress, a truly sickening number of their Republican colleagues and even the President.

Despite the majority of Americans giving a strong “thumbs down” to any version of amnesty, the government is intent upon going through with it. They are, in effect, and again, this includes President Bush, telling We, The People to go to hell.

Mutiny? Reverse revolution? We, The People no longer control the government, they have in effect established themselves, on a bipartisan basis, as rulers, rather than representatives of, the citizenry.

A column from 20 May by Mark Steyn pretty well describes, with that columnist/author’s famous wit, the whole enchilada of government intent.

In more recent days, President Bush himself has resorted to shameful rhetoric aimed at his detractors, including many who have been staunch supporters of both his political campaigns and most of his other policies.

“If you want to kill the bill, if you don’t want to do what’s right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it, you can use it to frighten people.”

Right.

Washington Times Editor-In-Chief Wesley Prudin weighs in.

Peggy Noonan has written an OpEd piece, rather strongly worded, condemning George Bush for what she considers his sellout of his conservative base and the Republican Party on the issue, which can be read in a link from this excellent post by Old Soldier.

In my personal opinion, in this battle of the Reverse Revolution, the government, by sheer force of Congressional votes and Presidential support, is going to defeat We, The People, no matter the volume of telephone calls, emails and letters we flood their offices with.

I lived in New York for a time when Rudy Giuliani was the mayor, and as far as I’m concerned, he did a great job not only on crime, but also on quality of life and other issues that made the city not only safer, but more pleasant to live in. His handling of the 9/11 aftermath was masterful.

He was the perfect mayor during the years he served New Yorkers in that office.

He is, however, not my choice for the Presidency (I support Tom Tancredo).

His two greatest weaknesses among conservative voters are his anti-gun and pro-abortion stances, but there is one other reason, whose very magnitude dwarfs the first two, why I would not consider him as a viable candidate for the Oval Office, and though I hesitate in some ways to use the T word, that at the very least borders on treason.

GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani has extensive and deep ties to the NAFTA Superhighway and the construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC). Giuliani’s law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, is the exclusive legal council for Cintra, the Spanish firm chosen to operate the I-35 toll road in the TTC.

Okay, I know that’s a profoundly harsh word to use, the above quoted paragraph notwithstanding, but an August Review article by Cliff Kincaid more than adequately explains my choice of words here.

Evidence shows that NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement involving the U.S., Canada and Mexico, is being expanded without congressional approval or oversight as part of a plan to create an economic and political entity known as the North American Union.

Brit Hume said on the Fox News Sunday program that it is possible that Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani could overcome his convoluted posturing on abortion and secure the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But Giuliani has some other major problems. These include foreign clients, one of whom is constructing part of the “NAFTA Superhighway” project that has people in Texas and around the nation up in arms.

Hume, the moderator of Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, will be in a position to ask Giuliani about it. Questions will also be posed by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace and White House correspondent Wendell Goler.

Evidence shows that NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement involving the U.S., Canada and Mexico, is being expanded without congressional approval or oversight as part of a plan to create an economic and political entity known as the North American Union ( NAU). Federal documents uncovered by Judicial Watch quote participants in the scheme as saying that an “evolution by stealth” strategy is being used to put the pieces into place. Documents also speak of developing a common security perimeter and a common identification card for citizens of the three countries.

With the exception of Lou Dobbs of CNN, our national media have ignored not only the process that is well underway but the growing outcry over what is happening. Resolutions against the NAU have been introduced in 14 state legislatures-and have passed in two-and thousands of people have turned out in Texas to protest a Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) highway system, which will link the U.S., Mexico and Canada. Critics say the project is being funded by foreign interests, could run roughshod over private property rights, and could facilitate illegal activities, such as the trafficking of people and drugs, from Mexico.

I’ve been posting about the NAU, on and off, for some time, and readers here know that I take all evidence of this behind-the-scenes manipulation quite seriously, rather than as the nutjob conspiracy skeptics brand it as. It is an early and rudimentary element of the covert process that is intended to consummate in full globalization; We would no longer be Americans. We would be citizens of the world.

I was born and raised in America, cherish America and don’t particularly feel the need to spend my golden years in a non-sovereign, micromanaged, shadow-of-its-former-self America.

Read Cliff Kincaid’s entire article.

The target year for the NAU to assume its official position is 2010. Do we really want to see one of its major players and profiteers, a man who, despite his great public stature and his claims of patriotism, is willing to sell out his country as a sovereign entity, serve a term as POTUS that both includes and surrounds that year?

I don’t think so….

Hat Tip and considerably more to Cubed.

… I’m still harping on such issues that you say will never come to fruition, such as a North American Union or a Global legislature.

However…

The agenda items of particular interest to NHF at this meeting included discussions on the World Health Organization’s Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, nutrient risk assessment, health claims and Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs), the latter of which currently seems the most likely candidate to replace Recommended Daily Allowances of vitamins and minerals on food, dietary supplement and functional food labels. The NHF has been taking an active part in the Working Group on risk assessment, a discipline which is set to become the key scientific justification for potential future bans on dietary supplements. Current risk assessment methods are flawed and biased, so methodologies that are scientifically rational are urgently required, and were central to the NHF’s interventions during this year’s meeting.

So what’s happening here? It sure looks to me like we’re allowing foreign countries to have a say in our nutritional policies. Does this mean that, in short order, someone in northern Greenland who lives on whale blubber will be allowed to tell me I can’t dine on a porterhouse, or that the Stresstabs vitamins I take every day are verboten because they contain too much Vitamin B-12? The United States is a sovereign country based on personal liberty, why are we talking to other countries about what’s best for us?

And what about this?

An international organization that proposes a global taxation system and is critical of the U.S. tax structure receives nearly one-fourth of its $400 million budget from the American taxpayer, a situation one Republican senator hopes to end.

“It’s ridiculous that we would support such a group,” Sen. Jim Inhofe said Friday of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based grouping of 30 of the world’s most developed nations.

In a press release, the Oklahoma senator said the OECD “receives 25 percent of its budget from the U.S.” and has used that money “to encourage and support higher taxes on the American taxpayer.”

We are being pressured into a world government situation by socialist entities, led by the U.N. Do we really want this?

I, for one, don’t!

H/T Cubed

…. to be concerned about, we now have the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership looming on a horizon of uncertainty.

The stated goals of this entity are to “enhance security, prosperity and opportunity” for the North American community. Hmmm.

According to the Welch Report,

The CFR Task Force calls for the “creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March, 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders (of the three nations) that ‘our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.’ Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within the movement of people, products and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe.”

To those ends, the CFR report called for establishment of a common security border perimeter around North America by 2010, along with free movement of people, commerce and capital to be facilitated by the establishment of a North American Border Pass that would replace a U.S. passport for travel between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Also envisioned by the CFR task force include a North American Court, a North American inter-parliamentary group, A North American Executive Commission, a North American Military Defense Command, a North American Customs Office and a North American Development Bank.

The task force report is important to the debate over the official Security and Prosperity Partnership because the language used in the CFR task force report and SPP documents, so far, have proven to be nearly identical. Clearly the CFR task force report is being used as the blue print to establish the North American Union.

CFR is the U.S. Committee on Foreign Relations.

That doesn’t sound like there is a whole lot of remaining room in the deal for any picayunes, like, perhaps, U.S. sovereignty, does it? It sounds more like that economic failure across the Atlantic, there, the one they call the European Union. In fact, the only difference I can see is the number of countries involved.

The name Security and Prosperity Partnership is employed, obviously, because North American Union would be a whole lot less palatable to Americans who have already seen what such a compromise of national political determination and sovereignty has done for to the countries of Europe.

I had known about this for some time, at least peripherally, but only seen a few brief articles on it — the entire project has thus far excluded the media and Congress, has been a “private” project of President Bush and the leaders of Mexico and Canada. Yesterday, while following a link on an unrelated matter, courtesy of informed and astute commenter Civil Truth, I ran across the above link at the same site and that clinched it, I felt the need to look at it more closely.

What we are looking at here is a plan, to be fully executed in less than half a decade, to incorporate the United States, Canada and Mexico in the same way the EU has incorporated the nations of Europe. If you read the “myths” dispelling page of the SPP website, also linked above, you’ll find the same sort of bland, you-American-voters-are -stupid-people-so-believe-this language the administration used to try to convince us that amnesty for criminal aliens would be the best thing that could ever possibly happen to the American people.

This plan would place yours and my freedoms in the hands of Canadian socialism and Mexican whatever it is they have down there that doesn’t work. Billions of dollars of our tax money would be invested in Mexico to try to fix their failed economy that doesn’t work only because they have a corrupt government that is only interested in the richest of the rich and couldn’t care less about the common man, and because their citizens, at least those who aren’t wealthy enough to buy them, don’t enjoy the rights we do here in America. Politicians of that same government would have a say in our lives and our rights.

To date, Congress has passed no specific legislation to authorize the activities of the SPP, nor to funds it is spending. Congress has had no official involvement in the process and has no oversight.

Congressman Tom Tancredo, (R-Colo) has demanded that the Bush Administration fully disclose the activities of the SPP working groups, including revealing the names of the members of those groups. No answers to his demands have yet been received from the Bush Administration, though the activity continues to move forward. NAFTA Super Highway Quietly, the Bush Administration is working to advance a plan to build super highways through the heart of the United States to transport goods from Mexico and Canada. The highways are part of the original North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA). The plan is now being advanced through an operation called “North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc” (NASCO). Since being exposed to the general public, NASCO is now denying it is building the highways, but plans go forward.

Beginning at the southern tip of Mexico, passing through Laredo, TX, the highway heads to an “inland port” in Kansas City, where a “Sentry System” will electronically inspect the cargos, before they head East or West, or continue on North through Duluth, Minnesota and into Canada.

The Super Transnational System includes multiple lanes for cars and trucks. Speed limits will be relaxed as well as safety inspections for vehicles from Mexico and Canada. Trucks will be allowed to carry extra tonnage and be extra long. A Railway system will travel up the center of the highway.

Several such highways are contemplated. Environmental impact studies have already been completed. In Texas, efforts are already underway as 584,000 acres have been targets for takings through Eminent Domain.

Emphasis mine.

An OpEd at Renew America observes,

Recently, Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez Baustista floated a “trial balloon” during a speech at the University of Texas, ominously revealing a possible answer. According to Baustista, Mexico and the United States should eventually become “integrated,” thus forming what can only be construed as the hub of a “North American Union,” no doubt eventually including Canada as well.

President Bush has indicated a disturbing sympathy towards such thinking, refusing to characterize Mexican immigrants as “illegal.” In contrast, he implies illegality by the “Minutemen” who now protect the border, having described them as “vigilantes.”

Conversely, he discusses the actions of the “undocumented immigrants” as “pursuing their dreams,” seemingly indifferent to the fact that Americans will be forced to shoulder the burden of fulfilling those dreams, ultimately at the expense of their own.

In a Canadian perspective, from Global Research,

If the existing system were being respected, why would the planning and implementation be so secretive, and government statements not supported by facts? And if it’s for our benefit, why aren’t politicians, who love to show how much they are achieving for their constituents, promoting it in glowing terms?
DeWeese concludes, “The United States is the most unique nation on earth. We were created out of a radical idea that free people, with their freedoms protected by the government would be happy and prosper beyond imagination. The idea worked. Now, the Bush Administration is ignoring this historic fact to “harmonize” us with Canada and especially Mexico, which is not a free country; has no [right of] property and has just proved its unworthiness of conducting free and fair elections. At risk are our culture, our wealth, and the once proud American way of life.”

Further citing the same sort of stealth among Canadian officials,

Government Secrecy: Canadian officials silent

Organizers of the event in Canada were the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, an elite club of Canada’s richest CEOs, and the Canada West Foundation, a very right-wing and pro-SPP think-tank based in the Alberta oil patch.

We Canadians have been encountering total stonewalling from our own government on the subject. Even recent and current Prime Ministers, who know perfectly well what is going on, have refused to discuss it. And because they have not permitted the issue to arise during any recent election, there is certainly no mandate from the Canadian public to negotiate an agreement to terminate the country.

Stockwell Day, a former leader in the Conservative (or as it was then called, Alliance) party, and now Minister of Public Safety in the Conservative federal government, was an active participant in Banff. His office is flatly refusing to answer questions from journalists.

This was disclosed by the founder of the citizen watchdog group Council of Canadians, Maude Barlow, who has pointed out that it’s the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) which lobbies the government and continually pushes the notion that because the economies of the two countries are already partly integrated, Canadian “domestic laws are essentially redundant.” (Ref. 12). Her concern is that the idea of redundancy of our laws will be extended to the government itself, and that because its government is seen as redundant, Canada itself will be made to disappear.

Now, while I am not a fan of Canada’s political make-up, I will be the first to say that they are an ethical bunch who look out for their citizens’ interests.

Mexico, on the other hand… well, the same way I don’t believe in giving amnesty to people whose very presence on our soil has been a violation of our laws, I wouldn’t even consider giving a government that encouraged its citizens to sneak into our country illegally, just to shed themselves of people they had no interest in helping themselves, a seat at the table where laws and rights in this country are concerned. If the Mexican government has no respect for American laws, who in their right minds would want them to have a say in making laws for us?

And make no mistake, the only way a North American Union could play out would be, in order to consummate a smooth flow of inter-union commerce and security proceedures, if laws in all three member states were adjusted to be on the same page.

We’re definitely running out of time here….

How’s that for something else to be concerned about?