One thing he mentions is this was originally written about in 2001 by Robert Pastor (ex of the Carter Center) based on an idea advanced by Vincente Fox, so is it possible the John Birch Society came about their writing from this original source?
Rather than pooh-pooh the message and shooting the messenger, I prefer to study this deeper, the source you provided actually give even more definitive information indicating this isn't a sham and we should all take it more seriously.
There is so much flim-flam in government these days that it's always best not to trust, but verify from many sources. BTW, I found it interesting that Amazon doesn't have any interviews on Pastor's book, wonder if it was a dud-seller?
It's a road, Carolyn.
A road.
Get your knickers out of a knot.
Are you kidding me??
Hawkins:
1) Jerome says:
"President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.
The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled 'Building a North American Community...'"
One problem: that report was produced by a Council of Foreign Relations task force, not a governmental entity. Set aside the fact that the report doesn't even call for abrogating, "U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union," and explain the evidence that this is a blueprint George Bush is following. Has he mentioned the report at all? Has he said he'd like to, "dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union?" Where is the hard evidence that George Bush is using this specific report as a "blueprint?"
Corsi answers:
1. Clearly, the Council on Foreign Relations is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that has no binding control on U.S. governmental policy-making. We are equally sure that Mr. Hawkins is fully aware of the influence NGO’s such as the CFR have exerted on U.S. governmental policy-making for decades. Granted, the influence is not always a direct, one-for-one correlation between influential NGO recommendations and U.S. government policy, but the correlation is often sufficiently strong that the direct influence on government policy is demonstrable.
The CFR task force report in question, entitled “Building a North American Community,” was issued in May 2005, two months after President Bush, Mexico’s President Vincente Fox, and Canada’s then-Prime Minister Paul Martin signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005. On page 3 of the CFR report, the task force referenced the March 2005 SPP declaration and wrote: “The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.” Given this sentence, there can be no doubt that the CFR task force stated intent to lay out a plan, or “blueprint,” for how the U.S. government should proceed to “pursue and realize” the partnership the Waco, Texas declaration had put into effect as of March 23, 2005. Now, the only question becomes this: is the U.S. government following the CFR task force “blueprint” as the executive branch proceeds to pursue and realize the goals laid out in SPP? The CFR task force report further endorses the creation of extensive trilateral executive branch “working groups” whose purpose is to forms substantive bureaucratic agreements to be implemented across a broad agenda of topics. To quote directly from pages 23-24 of the CFR report:
“While each country must maintain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence. “The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter.” We next turn to the Department of Commerce’s website devoted to the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Under the first bar to the left, we find the June 2005, “Report to Leaders,” submitted on the exact timetable specified in the CFR report. Reading this document, we find a close correspondence between the cabinet level working groups already set up by the Bush administration under the auspices of this Department of Commerce office and the working agenda specified by the CFR report (note especially pages 24-26). If Mr. Hawkins desires a full analysis, I would be happy to demonstrate out the extensive point-by-point correspondences not only in language, but also in working group methodology and stated purpose, between the working group agenda being pursued in SPP.gov and the “blueprint” specified in the CFR report.
I would also note that the co-chair of the May 2005 CFR report was American University professor Robert A. Pastor. Dr. Pastor’s 2001 book, titled “Toward a North American Community,” alone would qualify him to lead the competition to be designated the “father” of the North American Union, specified as a regional government which would have sovereignty over the U.S.A. We also Dr. Pastor’s testimony in November 2002 to the Trilateral Commission in which he recommended how a North American Community could evolve NAFTA into a regional government. We argue that the specific recommendations that Dr. Pastor makes in writing such as these hold a close correspondence to the action recommendations of the May 2005 CFR report and the reported working group bureaucratic decisions being reached by the Bush administration executive branch in SPP.gov.
If we were to submit these various documents to a scientifically rigorous content analysis statistical test, we are confident the correlations would be more than sufficient to reject the null hypothesis, namely that the documents bear no causal relationship whatsoever in content.
Carolyn, read the bold.
On top of that, Dr. Robert Pastor is a certifiable leftist. Nothing Robert Pastor suggests has any chance of becoming policy.