Global Warming Hysteria to Further North American Union?
Vivelecanada | April 10, 2007
According to a recent article in the American Free Press (March 24, 'GLOBALISTS GATHER IN BRUSSELS') at a recent Trilateral Commission meeting, members of the government and the corporate elite have come up with an innovative solution to the global warming problem. With all the resources available to this group of individuals; government studies, climate reports, and taxpayer dollars; we can all rest assured that the most effective and informed decision was made. What is this wonderful, radical solution that will adequately deal with the threat of global warming? Another tax of course.
And not just any tax, we are talking about a whopping one dollar per gallon gasoline tax as "penance" for causing pollution. Apparently these are the kinds of solutions being recommended at these super secret Trilateral Commission meetings by the ultra wealthy and former heads of the Central Intelligence Agency. But wait, the Trilateral Commission is a committee of private citizens from North America, Japan, and Europe isn't it? Who are they to be pushing additional taxation on the average taxpayer?
The terminology used at this meeting is also suspect. The fact that this tax should be imposed as "penance" should raise a few eyebrows. Penance? Like punishment or discipline? This suggests that this one dollar per gallon tax is simply reparations and not toward any effort to clean up the environment. So where will all this additional revenue go? Will any of it at all go to the environment? If so, who will police this new revenue stream? Can we trust a government with this huge windfall when it has shown such little respect for our hard earned tax dollars in the past?
So as usual the solution to this problem, like every other problem the government has to deal with, is to increase taxes. Problem, reaction, solution. But surely this private group of elites doesn't have the power to lobby for such a tax, do they? Let's dig a little deeper.
According to the same American Free Press article, back in 1991 at a meeting in Tokyo, the Trilateral Commission had called for a 10 cent increase in gasoline taxes. The Washington Post, who was in attendance, immediately followed up with an editorial on the topic the very next day. Would this pattern repeat itself this time? A quick search for "Carbon Tax" on the Washington Post website returns several results including two published on April 1; one entitled "Tax on Carbon Emissions Gains Support" and another entitled "We Can Get Out of These Ruts" which specifically mentions a dollar per gallon gasoline tax, but makes no reference to the Trilateral Commission. Are we to believe that both parties arrived at the exact same conclusion independently? This whole thing reeks of industry and media collusion, no big surprise considering the fact that the Washington Post attends all Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg meetings.
So it appears the writing is on the wall, get ready for a dollar per gallon carbon tax, another windfall for the powers that be. However, the phrase "carbon tax" sounds vaguely familiar, perhaps something else is going on here. Documents from the "North American Forum" which took place in September 2006 in Banff, Alberta have recently been released under Freedom of Information Act and may shed some light on the subject.
For those who are unaware (which is no big surprise due to the media's reluctance to cover the topic), the so called Security and Prosperity Plan of North America (SPP) was launched in March of 2005 by the leaders of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico in an effort to "increase security" and "enhance Prosperity" between the three nations through "greater cooperation and information sharing". More loosely known as the North American Union or NAFTA's big brother, the SPP has enjoyed relative anonymity in the media as it seeks to integrate the governmental, economic, and defense policies among others of the three North American countries.
Getting back to the North American Forum meeting in Banff, notes from the meeting make the statement that there is "significant interest" in climate change, a fact which can be leveraged to impose a carbon tax. This document goes on to state that the infrastructure of the North American Union should be implemented in secret, essentially "Evolution by Stealth". Wait a minute, this is supposed to be government by, of, and for the people, there was never any mention of stealth.
So in summary, we have the Washington Post publicly pushing for a carbon tax on behalf of the Trilateral Commission, and we have the SPP operating in relative obscurity thanks in no small part to the media's willingness to look the other way, privately pushing for a carbon tax to help fund the infrastructure of the forthcoming North American Union. Moreover, we suddenly have the unprecedented consensus between the media and all political parties, spearheaded by a former government official, regarding the threat of global warming, an issue that has only been ignored, obfuscated, and ostracized by politicians and the media in the past. Based on all of this, one can't help but ask the question; is the sudden Global Warming hysteria fueled by politicians and the media really an effort by the corporate elite to impose a carbon tax to fund the North American Union?
Should we be concerned about the fact that the North American Union is being implemented in secret, without consulting congress or the taxpayer? Should we be concerned about our own sovereignty? Is this plan and the shady implementation of it even legal? Lets look a little further into the implications of such an agreement. The Banff North American Forum documents state on more than one occasion of the need to narrow the gap between the average Mexican income and its northern neighbours and that this might be the single most important issue on the North American Agenda. The question is how will they do it? And how much will the average Canadian and American incomes suffer?
One of the methods for achieving parity of North American income levels, according to the documents, involved yearly cash infusions of 10 billion dollars compliments of North American taxpayers for a ten year period in order to set up a North American Investment Fund to be doled out as grants for setting up infrastructure and communications services into Mexico. While this scenario may sound all warm and fuzzy to the contractors who will probably be awarded no-bid contracts to do the work, I have a problem with making a ten year investment designed solely to lower my income levels to be more compatible with my Mexican counterparts. Furthermore, the Banff documents recommend that this fund be managed by the World Bank. The World Bank? Just who exactly will be managing my money and in extension, the implementation of the North American Union?
The current president of the World Bank is a fellow by the name of Paul Wolfowitz. That's right, the same Paul Wolfowitz who served as Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush and who is also a "prominent architect" of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration known as the Bush Doctrine, which resulted in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But the invasion of Iraq was a horrible mistake, nobody can deny that now, and it has nearly bankrupted the U.S. I'm not sure I want Wolfowitz managing my money, and why would the North American Forum even recommend such a thing? Shouldn't the government manage this project and my money? Since when do corporations control tax dollars? This is sounding more and more like fascism. Am I working for and serving my country or am I working for and serving a giant corporation?
It gets worse; Paul Wolfowitz is also a member of the Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative research group which called for significant increases in defense spending in the 1990s as well as to "boldly and purposefully promote American principles abroad". This same group also famously stated that achieving its goals would be difficult in the absence of some "catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor" in its "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document released in September of 2000. Unfortunately the 9/11 attacks occurred one year later and the PNAC group have seen their plan come to fruition.
Convenient timing aside, it is somewhat disheartening to see statements like those of Robert Pastor, a leading intellectual force in the move to create a European Union style North American Community, who stated that a new 9/11 crisis could be the catalyst to merge the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. I am not liking this one bit, it appears that the groundwork for a North American Union is being secretly architected, allowing it to be swiftly implemented as circumstances (or terrorist attacks) dictate. Once again, problem, reaction, solution.
Numerous other interesting statements can be found in the Banff documents, including a question as to whether or not a North American Passport should be imposed to facilitate travel within the three countries. Wait a minute, I thought that increased passport requirements were required to secure our borders and to combat terrorism. And yet this requirement fits in nicely with the secret plan to implement a North American Union, how convenient. Evolution by stealth. It might be time to ask those that are secretly meeting to integrate Canada, the U.S., and Mexico to slow down and consult the taxpaying citizens of each of those countries for their opinions on the subject. And why not inform congress of the plan as well?
Contact your member of congress, contact the media, and demand open discussion on the subject of the North American Union, and if you don't like what you hear, demand that its implementation be halted. Educate yourselves on the topic, this article has only scratched the surface. There are detailed plans to tear down borders, integrate emergency response and military, and to implement one common North American currency. For those who may believe the North American Union will be good for the country, the Banff documents themselves state that Globalism has caused vast imbalances of wealth in Mexico and that wealth and income tend to be concentrated in the hands of conspicuous elites. So why would they continue down this road toward a North American Union and an eventual World Government?
The North American Union is often called NAFTA's big brother, examples of abuses of power in the NAFTA agreement include NAFTA's proportionality clause, which states that Canada must continue exporting the same proportion of oil and gas as in the previous three years, even if Canadians are freezing in the dark. With this kind of misuse, what surprises will NAFTA's big brother have for us? It is time to wrestle the control of our country and our futures away from the corrupt politicians and the elites whose only concern is cheap labour and increased corporate profits, none of which are good for any of us.
Infowars.com is Copyright 2007 Alex Jones | Fair Use Notice
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv . Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe! Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!