Take the European Union, for example. Its roots go back to 1945 when European communities were made based on the facilitation of trade in steel and energy. As the years wore on, the communities instituted more powerful trade partnerships, opened their borders, and shared environmental policies — setting the stage for the creation of the EU in 1993. In just the past 17 years, the countries in the European Union have developed shared currencies, governance, laws, and courts — with each participating nation being stripped of sovereignty and any self-rule it once possessed.
Certain individuals and groups within the United States — The John Birch Society being first and foremost — have fought the development of a similar regional government on this side of the Atlantic, the North American Union, which would bring together America, Canada, and Mexico under one rule. Although the NAU is often identified by the mainstream media as some sort of fantastic and unrealistic conspiracy theory, it is nothing of the sort. It began in earnest with the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on December 17, 1992 — an ignominious event that has done much to destroy the quality of life in the United States by escalating the exodus of manufacturing jobs from our country. In the years since 1992, North American leaders have held periodic meetings about the furthering of the NAU under the guise of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), an endeavor to find common ground not only in economics, but in security as well.
The ideas thrown around in the SPP are now coming to fruition, furthering the realization of the NAU. On February 4, President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced their deal to establish a trade and security perimeter encompassing their two nations.
In his speech, Obama outlined three major initiatives to make this a reality. The first is something along the lines of open borders. As he has mentioned in his recent economic harangues, he is driven to double U.S. exports as a means of saving our economy. To do that, he claims we must allow the free flow of people and products between our borders — something the federal government has basically been allowing uncontested on our southern border, facilitating the infiltration of nearly 20 million illegal aliens so far.
But, in order to have truly open borders between the United States and Canada, Obama claims we must strengthen security and endorse modern technology — instituting a means to track travelers through (as well as in) our borders with advanced biometrics. According to Canadian columnist John Ivison, "The intention is that fingerprints and retinal scans will become routine, leading to the evolution of an integrated entry-exit system, where entry into one country serves to verify exit from the other. This would require an unprecedented exchange of personal information.”
It’s safe to say our movements will be monitored domestically as the federal government deploys this science-fiction nightmare that is becoming a reality. It will be an assault on our sovereignty as much as it is on our existing rights as American citizens, despite the two countries' claims that it will promote principles of human rights, privacy, and civil liberties.
President Obama also cited the need for the development of a new council to sweep away regulations that stifle trade and job creation. Such a council should make all people cringe. It mirrors what the federal government has done in the United States, where it abuses the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Through the development and strengthening of entities such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration — and the subsequent creation of countless regulations — the federal government manages the minutiae of our lives, dictating what we do and how we do it, far outstripping what the Founding Fathers intended for the federal system. Now, imagine such an unaccountable entity — one with no public input whatsoever — overseeing all economic activity that occurs in and between our two countries.
Fortunately, these plans have not been without criticism. Whereas the U.S. press and elected officials have been more than willing to support the NAU, this has not been the case north of the border. The National Post, something comparable to a Canadian version of USA Today, identified the Obama-Harper deal as an “ambitious border declaration — the product of several months of behind-the-scenes preliminary work — foresee[ing] the most significant changes in the Canada-U.S. border relationship since the North American Free Trade Agreement.”
It was interesting that the Canadian press did something that the U.S. press would not: acknowledge what the NAU theorists have been saying all along — that this partnership has long been devised in secret, behind closed doors and away from congressional and parliamentary (and therefore public) oversight.
Such coverage reflects the general sentiment over this matter in Ottawa. Paul Dewar, a member of parliament, was livid over the deal, thundering, "All we're asking for is a little democracy. [Harper] hasn't informed Canadians what he's up to and he hasn't consulted this House." Canada’s Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was just as concerned, accusing the Prime Minster of "talking with President Obama about things he's not prepared to talk to Canadians about." Many more Canadian elected officials are equally frustrated by the usurpation of their rights and all things Canada.
The big question is: Where is such an uproar in America? It seems that most of our citizens have been blinded by the effects of the well-oiled incrementalism machine. A bit here, a bit there — and they’re still unaware of the impact that the NAU will have on our lives. They fail to see that once the economy and security are scratched off the list, all that would remain would be our money and our courts. Before most Americans know it, we will have lost them, too. With them will go our identity, our sovereignty — and above all, our rights.
Though it won’t be told by either our controlled major media or mostly unconcerned Congressmen — this is a defining moment in our history. If we allow ourselves to consolidate with a neighboring nation on such key issues, we will truly have set the America we've known on the path to dissolution. Oh, we will remain the United States of America, but we will be that in name only. Instead, we shall become a people beholden to the North American Union. Through the powers of incrementalism, that will be just a further step on the path to a global collective.
