Political Tectonic Shift:
Energy Policy under the NAU
Traditional combustion-energy paradigm is over-represented at secret
high-level negotiations under North American Security and Prosperity Partnership
(SPP). Scheduled to begin to exercise power authority by 2007, the SPP will
place three nations in the continent under “harmonized” laws and a unified
administration. If that is not stopped – and we appear to be past the tipping
point – will any of us recognize our society? And will it still be possible to
shift the energy paradigm under such a political paradigm shift?
Saturday, September 10, 2007
By Mary-Sue Haliburton
The North American Energy Policy
|
Hypothetical NAU flag found on game
site.
 |
| Example of North American Union
patriotism illustrated in marquee of charity
in Carrollton, Ohio, USA |
|
|
In recent decades, with government cooperation, a business-supported bias has
enforced use of combustibles as the primary form of energy for transportation,
heating and to a large degree, electrical generation as well. When oil prices
rose far enough to cause the public to gripe, the government would step in,
providing rebates and subsidies – out of the taxpayers’ own money of course.
On this archaic technology we have built an entire system of infrastructure and
interconnected business that resists change. In addition to this obvious
publicly-known bulwark in favour of the oil industry, there was an undeclared
"North American Energy Policy" in effect. To nip in the bud any
technologies that might reduce its dominance, certain highly-placed individuals
would intervene to ridicule the inventions, and to block even proof-of-concept
experiments. (Ref. 1)
In a process underway for decades in secret, and more recently coming to the
brink of emergence, the three nations currently occupying the continent of North
America are to be merged economically, and, to a greater extent than any of
their respective populations yet realize, politically. This is known as the
Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). On March 23 in 2005, the SPP
agreement was signed formally by the three government leaders of Canada, Mexico,
and the United States. (Ref. 2)
Political Tectonic Plates Shifting
Whether it is “only” a new layer of government that will be overlaid on top
of existing ones, or whether the unified administration will ultimately replace
the existing three governments in Ottawa, Washington, and Mexico City, the SPP
represents a violent shakeup of the ground we thought we had under our feet. A
tsunami of daily-life consequences will flood over everyone as well, as all
areas of financial and social law are to be “harmonized” to make it easier
for business. To those setting up this continental administration, borders are
simply a hindrance to commerce. Modeled on the European Economic Community
(EEC), the North American Union (NAU) seeks to minimize and ultimately to
eliminate such inconveniences.
Because elected officials participate along with the CEOs of oil businesses in
the working groups and councils which are finalizing the details, the official
stance is that the push toward this union is a “democratic” one. All that is
missing from their apparent working definition of that word is a mandate from
the electorates of the three countries. Many Canadians voting in the January
2006 election were led to believe, based on the campaign slogans of Steven
Harper, that they were voting for a nationalist leader. He claimed he would “stand
up for Canada” – all the while clearly planning to do the opposite.
Under working groups and the “North American Competitiveness Council” (NACC),
a single administration for the continent is already being set up, with
ministries and secretariats of its own. It is not yet publicly known exactly
what form this will take, but the political and social traditions of each
country are on the table -- or maybe the chopping block. The plans are to be
completed by the end of 2006. Within one to four years, residents of all parts
of North America will be facing a monolithic administration – most likely
without any of our original constitutions, and possibly without our familiar
political party setups and legal systems.
This is not a wild conspiracy theory, nor is what little has been published
based on guesswork. The union of North America is the official policy of the
U.S. government. (Ref.
3)
Government Secrecy: U.S. Administration’s Misinformation
The U.S. government describes this incoming merger in neutral, non-threatening
terms as a co-operative partnership (ref.
4), but many observers are suspicious that it involves a tighter union than
what has been described in official communiqués. The SPP actually establishes a
"totally new state corporate rule over the entire North American
Continent." (Ref. 5)
With great effort, some individual Americans have ferreted out the background
and ramifications of the agreement, comparing public announcements with what is
actually happening in Congress and in verifiable news reports. These individuals
accuse the government of covering up a traitorous agenda to eliminate the
constitution and the nation itself. The government's own myth-debunking website
(ref. 6) alleges that no agreement was ever
signed.
In refutation of that official misdirection, Tom DeWeese’s (ref.
7) article about the cover-up lists news reports of Bush, Fox and Martin in
fact signing the SPP agreement in 2005 in Waco, Texas. And on March 31, 2006, a
second agreement was signed in Cancun by Bush, Vicente Fox and Steven Harper,
the new Prime Minister of Canada. The politicians’ photo-op and signing were a
formality; the real negotiations had been ongoing among high-level government
and industry representatives in the preceding years. Only a brief summary of the
agreement was announced, stating six priorities to ensure that the union would
be in place by the end of this year. Notably, the agreement calls for
"collaboration" amongst business executives and governmental agencies
for “energy security" as a continental policy exercise.
DeWeese lists more examples of how the government's official statements are
contradicted by the facts. For example, to counter the claim that the SPP
"won’t change our court system or legislative process and that it
respects the sovereignty of each nation," DeWeese outlines the total lack
of Congressional oversight as indicating that the SPP is not respecting the
existing system.
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."
In short, the same lack of honesty which Al Gore ascribed to both Democrats and
Republicans in not telling the public enough about energy policy (Ref.
8: speech text) has also been at work to hide the nature and effects this
trilateral negotiation that is bringing the NAU into effect. The public in three
countries are not being told enough about the process (in as many languages) to
know whether to take action against it, and if so, of what kind.
American Media: Very Few Voices Raised
On June 21st, 2006, viewers of CNN’s Lou Dobbs’ program, would have heard
this chilling announcement: "President Bush signed a formal agreement that
will end the United States as we know it, and he took the step without approval
from either the U.S. Congress or the people of the United States." (Ref.
9) Given that statement’s tone of doom, it’s not hard to see why
the government’s website is issuing soothing denials.
This is quoted in “Creating the North American Union” by Dennis Behreandt,
which appears on The New American website as well as in its current issue of the
Magazine.
On the invited list of participants at a secret planning conference in Banff,
Alberta, September 12-14, 2006, was one Mary Anastasia O’Grady, described as a
“Journalist for Wall Street Journal (Area Specialist)”. (Ref.
10: list of attendees) Apparently the business-oriented readers of that
publication may be treated to some future reports that might reflect tips
obtained as inside knowledge. But this doesn’t amount to disclosure of the NAU
agenda in any broad sense. We may see some Wall Street insiders being touted for
their very astute market “predictions” about what is going to happen with
resource stock prices, but they will not be discussing the politics of union or
its social implications, other than the usual talk of how borders and “protectionist”
laws get in the way of business.
No other journalists were present either inside that meeting or outside the
hotel making observations at a distance, or at any other of the meetings since
the SPP signing was announced at the press conference in March. The silence from
the media is deafening.
Despite having an overtly and publicly pro-NAU website, the spokesman of the
North American Forum which sponsored the event, John Larson, excused the secrecy
on the grounds that because attendees were promised privacy, reporters could not
be told about the conference. And for the same reason he refused to confirm who
had attended, let alone what they discussed in secret. (Ref.
11)
The strongly right-wing John Birch Society, which continues to sound alarm
bells, regards supporters of the NAU as communists and enemies of freedom. They
might be surprised to find that their allies in Canada who also strongly oppose
the continental union are doing so because they see it as too right-wing due to
its avowed purpose of terminating Canadian social programs such as universal
Medicare. It’s the far-right-wing Conservative Party of Canada (CPC),
currently in power, which is promoting the NAU. Its officials who attended the
conference are toeing the secrecy line; and its leader co-signed the May 2006
agreement.
This “strange-bedfellows” aspect of the issue puts the usual left vs. right
dichotomy into perspective. The old concepts are nearly irrelevant when it comes
to whether people support the continental amalgamation or not. It’s all about
concentrating power over larger and larger areas into fewer and fewer hands, and
theories from all parts of the left/right spectrum are advanced both to justify
and to attack the monster country that is being created. We need new language to
discuss this, and on a different level.
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.
Not a journalist with a job to protect, Barlow is nearly the only person to
crack the barrier of media silence. And because her “Op-Ed” piece was
published in only two Canadian newspapers (though undoubtedly it was offered to
many more), that didn’t amount to much more than a squeak. Her article is hard
to find online unless you are a paid subscriber to the Calgary Herald; at the
time of writing the complete text was available in full only by email and within
a frame article on a Toronto-based independent blog site. (Ref.
13)
Because Barlow is determinedly “non-political” in that she has never joined
or endorsed a political party, perhaps this tiny chink in the stonewall of
silence was permitted in order to imply that it’s only the “fringe” that
worries about national sovereignty, and thereby to suggest that it’s not
something to worry about. .
Currently, the political scene in Canada is occupied with electing a new leader
for the Liberal Party. Most candidates for leadership started out blissfully
unaware of the impending continental union, which could render their party
superfluous within four years. After many attempts to reach them through their
campaign teams, and buttonholing two of them in person, I got one candidate, Bob
Rae, to agree that Canadians should be able to vote on this, and to promise to
look at the information about it. Another, Gerard Kennedy, has issued a campaign
message on September 27th by telephone to the party members calling on them not
to go down the same road as the Harper conservatives. A third candidate, former
Environment Minister Stéphane Dion, gained the endorsement and campaigners of
David Orchard, a former leadership candidate who perennially calls for Canadian
independence. (Ref.
14)
My hope was that nationalist candidates at the convention will be willing to
raise the spectre of continental merger and make it the key issue. Only if
Canadians could get to choose a government running for office on the issue of
whether to keep our country might it be possible to derail the NAU juggernaut,
at least for a while. However, a new obstacle has arisen. As announced in the
September 29th Press Release, Canadian Action Party leader Constance Fogal
points out that if the Harper government succeeds in passing Bill C-16, no
further election can occur until 2009, too late to stop the NAU. (Ref.
14b: Bill C-16) The only option remaining would then be to hold a national
referendum as soon as possible, and to pressure the government to respect the
result if the outcome is contrary to the Conservative government’s plan.
Canadian Media Complicity
The Canadian media has been completely silent on the issue, including the
publicly-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which used to investigate
stories the privately-owned media ignored.
In a revealing phone message, award-winning CBC news producer Mark Harrison told
a Canadian-sovereignty activist that previous coverage of negotiations toward
continental integration had triggered "national self interest" that
appeared to stop it. And since the CBC didn’t think this continental agenda
was going ahead, it didn’t see a reason to cover the story, he concluded. (Ref.
15) The fact that Harrison also brought up the “One World Government”
indicates that he’s assuming it’s all a “conspiracy theory” (a “meme”,
a tactic to prevent people from thinking about the subject, and therefore by
definition we are supposed to ignore this topic).
It’s not out of line to read between lines here, and wonder whether the news
directors were told to keep the SPP quiet until it’s already a "fait
accompli". Then their role would be to tell us that this union is for our
own good. Given that journalists are naturally curious people, one wonders how
journalists in a news organization worthy of the name can ignore all these
high-level meetings and the signed agreements. It’s inexplicable, unless there
have been orders come down from above.
More recently – perhaps after receiving complaints like the one above -- the
CBC did briefly and belatedly mention the Banff conference. Because no Canadian
journalists were notified about it beforehand, there was no possibility, after
it was all wrapped up, of obtaining statements from attendees, or even photos of
the bigwigs arriving and departing. However, an anonymously-authored report on
the CBC website quotes a taxi driver in Banff as expressing outrage that this
“assault on democracy” was taking place in his own backyard. (Ref.
16)
Internet Activism in Canada
Some Canadian activists belong to splinter parties which arose due to
frustration with media silence in the face of the rapid erosion of national
sovereignty. These people have been working to discover the facts, and are
circulating by email and on websites what is being carefully excluded from
mass-market news.
A group called "Vive le Canada" (French for "long live
Canada") cites polls showing that Canadians want more distance from the
Bush Administration and its policies, especially foreign policy. However, the
preceding Prime Minister ignored what the public was saying in many polls, and
even borrowed the name of the agreement signed in 2005 from the Canadian
financial establishment's "Security and Prosperity Initiative". Their
plan, and the process of “deep integration” have gone ahead rapidly while
Canadians, like Americans, mostly remain in the dark.
A task force has created a continent-wide customs union with a common approach
to trade, energy, immigration, law enforcement and security that would virtually
eliminate existing national borders. As of 2002, military integration was
implemented. Although officially the war in Afghanistan is now being called a
NATO operation, Canadian soldiers are under American command there.
Harmonization of all other areas of law and commerce is already going ahead as
well.
Quebec’s civil law is based on Napoleonic code which they value as part of
their perception of themselves as culturally unique, while English common law
which is the basis of law in other provinces. Quebeccers, some of whom support
the NAU, have not yet been told about the harmonization of laws. They make take
a dim view of this if their language, culture and legal system are not going to
get special protection in the unified North America.
A comprehensive timeline of the progress of deep integration and the creation of
the North American Union (NAU) can be read at the Vive le Canada website. (Ref.
17).
Freedom of Speech on the Internet
For those who do not have the habit of automatically believing what they see or
hear from the mass media, there is “Indy-media” – a concatenation of
mostly individuals whose small voices have been accessible on the internet –
so far – but only if you know enough to look for them. Although there is often
an admixture of paranoia and far-out or left-field ideas, there are also
well-founded warnings and reports of opposition activity from these sources.
Some propose, and take, specific political actions of the traditional kind.
Suggestions range from impeaching the current president, or running for office
on a ticket for doing so, to organizing an independent local economic system
based on issuing “scrip” as a means of exchange – if you don’t want to
use the new “Amero” dollar that will replace the three national currencies.
(Ref. 18)
Don’t laugh. That is exactly how the original thirteen colonies functioned
economically; they issued their own “scrip” (notes exchangeable for goods),
which is what ran afoul of the colonial power’s desire to control all banking,
and triggered the famous American Revolution.
The feisty gadfly Alex Jones has been warning his radio listeners and internet
readers for several years about the decline of democracy and future tyranny, and
in the darkest terms. He argues that the “security” the new powers want to
establish means “police state” and Nazi-like abuses by those in authority. (Ref.
19) Jones encountered this sort of treatment himself in spades when he
crossed into Canada to try to get first-hand reports of a meeting held by the
“Bilderbergers” at a hotel in Ottawa, Canada in June of 2006. That group
consists of wealthy power-brokers and bankers, and the top-level politicians who
apparently receive their marching orders from the international financial
leaders.
Because of a complaint by the Bilderberger group against him, Jones was detained
and interrogated by Canadian customs officials. They acted more like security
cops, throwing wild accusations of drug dealing or porn trafficking at Jones and
screaming at him. It was only when some journalists arrived to interview Alex,
and vouched for him, that he was finally released. (Ref.
20) Those journalists got questioned as well. And none of those mass-media
journalists was in evidence when “indy-media” videographer and retired
economist Jeremy Wright (ref. 21) arrived to meet Alex,
and recorded part of his monologue delivered in a lonely vigil in front of the
closed face of the swank hotel.
The internet itself is mostly owned by the same huge corporations that control
the mass media. It is already extensively surveilled, and sites which provide
alternative news inconvenient to those in power, or which explain alternative
energy theories or inventions, are often spammed or subjected to hacking or
other forms of interference. A few independent site managers have the smarts to
monitor who is monitoring them by studying visitor logs. (Ref.
22)
Since most people go online chiefly to search for entertainment news and
bargains, to play games or gamble, and to engage in frivolous chatter, the few
who engage in serious alternative news analysis have so far been tolerated as
preserving the illusion of free speech. And because they are also often
dependent on donations even to maintain their websites, they don’t have much
ability to promote their viewpoints.
If a unified continental administration turns out to be more police state than
benevolent dictatorship, that laissez-faire attitude could change. The
concern is that harassment could develop into total censorship, blocking the
ability of political dissenters to voice their opinions. To prevent this loss of
freedom, national constitutions and amendments supporting personal rights must
be upheld. Because the NAU process is so secretive, the status of existing
national constitutions is in question, and the tendency to favour big
corporations well established. Some phone and cable companies AT&T, Verizon
and Comcast have already proposed to “gut” this free exchange of ideas,
seeking “to remake the information superhighway into their private toll road.”
(Ref. 22b.)
Web inventor and copyright-holder Sir Tim Berners-Lee advocates “Net
Neutrality” as “essential to democracy” as well as vital to economic
productivity. (Ref. 22c.) Various “net freedom”
groups have formed to defend this basic principle.
Leaked Document: the Participants
A long-time activist in the Canadian independence movement, Mel Hurtig,
publisher of The Canadian Encyclopedia, apparently used his own connections to
obtain an early version of the agenda for that high-level SPP meeting that took
place in the luxury Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel, September 12-14, 2006 in
Banff, Alberta. The hotel is known as a spectacular (and pricey) tourist resort
in the mountains near the famous jewel-like, green-tinted Lake Louise.
Vive le Canada activist Susan Thompson has circulated this document widely
through email networks such as that reached by the nationalist Canadian Action
Party. In the view of CAP leader Constance Fogal, a lawyer, this SPP group is
already functioning as a "government de facto" (Black's Law Dictionary
page 824), or
"a government of fact. A government actually exercising power and
control in the state as opposed to the true and lawful government; a
government not established according to the constitution of the state, or not
lawfully entitled to recognition or supremacy, but which has nevertheless
supplanted or displaced the government de jure. A government deemed unlawful
or unjust, which nevertheless receives presently habitual obedience from the
bulk of the community."
Due to the secrecy and exclusion of the public from the process, she further
suggests that the participants are operating as traitors to the electorates who
put them in office. Again she cites Black's Law Dictionary, which defines
"Traitor" as "One who, being trusted, betrays; one guilty of
treason." (Ref. 23)
The leaked document obtained by Hurtig contains along with the agenda of topics,
for the first time a comprehensive list of the movers and shakers who are
re-writing the political map of the continent, and who are by-passing the
political systems of three nations to do it.
Officials of the Country of North America
At this secret convention, co-chaired by George Schultz, former Secretary of
State (U.S.), Peter Lougheed, a former Alberta premier, and former Mexican
Minister of Finance Pedro Aspe, were many leaders and CEOs from oil companies,
universities, pro-business think tanks, and the military. (Ref.
24: participant list)
A few names and their associated titles indicate that a continental
proto-government has already been set up. A Mexican, Gerónimo Gutiérrez, holds
the title of Deputy Foreign Minister for North America. Under what authority
could such a position be created, other than by the as-yet-unveiled Country of
North America complete with its own head of state and cabinet?
Who's the “Foreign Minister for North America?” Which individuals have been
named to other posts in the new administration of “North America” has not
been disclosed, and so far, there is no corroborating evidence to support
speculation. A member of the “Ghost Troop”, who may have insider information
through that network, lists leading figures in the Bush Administration as
holding key positions in the continental government. (Ref.)
There is also a secretariat for "Western Hemisphere Affairs",
suggesting further planned econo-political consolidation, probably over the
heads of, and without the consent of, the nations in South America.
Mock Parliament for Youth Promotes NAU
Sponsor of the secret Banff conference was the North American Forum, a group
specifically dedicated to bringing about unification of the continent in one
political body. Their website describes their pet project to bring the next
generation on board: a simulated North-American parliament called the
Triumvirate. The first annual “interparliamentary simulation of North America”
took place in the Canadian Senate Chambers in Ottawa, May 23-27, 2005. The
second was in Mexico City, May 21-26, 2006. (Ref.
25).
According to the plan for rotating the event among the three existing nations,
the next “Triumvirate” will be in Washington, D.C. in May of 2007, and they
will be inviting 100 university students. The site describes it thusly: “The
Triumvirate is a unique parliamentary exercise that annually brings together a
hundred university students, from Canada, Mexico and the United States, in order
to simulate, during five days, a parliamentary meeting between North American
national and sub-national parliamentarians, joined by journalists and lobbyists.”
(Ref.
26) Presumably the “sub-national parliaments” referred to on the NAF
promotional web page are the currently-sovereign governments of Canada, Mexico,
and the United States, which will become sub-parliaments under the NAU.
Can this North American Union be Stopped?
Without an immediate and overwhelming groundswell of political will from a
MAJORITY within the general populations of each of the three countries, it is
difficult to see how the already-far-advanced union of North America can be
disentangled. The corporate media’s silence seems calculated to make sure that
no rumbles of disturbance will wake the sleeping giant of public opinion and
derail the union this time. News might stir up the emotions of people who cling
to old and, according to the planners, outdated loyalties.
No matter how many credible and high-level individuals oppose an official dogma
(ref. 27), if the mass media does
not report their testimony, the public can be kept in a state of acquiescence
with the policy or situation they are trying to challenge.
And the mental laziness of many who believe only what’s been on the nightly TV
news, and reject every other idea remains the majority opinion, the massive
popular political awakening required to stop the NAU may not occur in sufficient
numbers, if at all.
Too many people still associate their love of country with support for Big Oil.
Due to Canadian soldiers dying in Afghanistan, the Harper government is using
the slogan “support our troops” (against alleged foreign terrorists) in the
same manner as the Bush Administration. The Canadian Action Party is countering
by adding “bring them home” to the slogan. (Ref.)
Knee-jerk responses buttressed by anomalous emotional intensity are routine
against any hint that the elected government might not be acting for the best
interests of the nation. To a suggestion that long-term manipulation of the
system for their own benefit by certain wealthy families and individuals (ref.
28) has been able to override the famous checks and balances on which the
American constitution has always depended, complacent “media consumers”
react indignantly, denying that this could possibly happen.
If people are simply unable to believe – state merely because their faith in
the system is unassailable – that criminal acts or conspiracies could or would
undermine the Constitution and the State itself, this complacency may lull them
into not exercising the needed vigilance to ensure that the system does not
become perverted.
No matter how well designed, any system is only as good as the most corrupt
person operating within it. Those checks and balances, like the constitution,
are only paper protections. These pieces of paper in turn represent the
magnificent principles of human rights and democracy of the country’s
founders. In every generation, good people must keep watch for wrong-doing, and
defend these inscribed principles whenever evidence emerges that power-hungry
and unscrupulous interests are becoming a threat. If vigilance falters or
sleeps, the legal and constitutional protections will fail along with it.
Media giants have, of course, spent big bucks hiring very convincing and
handsome news anchors, and heavily promote the notion of placing trust in these
individuals. A servile philosophy has grown around the idea of the news anchor
as the source of all truth, even if it’s based on sloppy reasoning. (Ref.
29) Intellectual sleaze is a foundational principle of the billion-dollar
business of selling news, or “infotainment”. As long as the news sells, it
doesn’t even matter whether it’s true.
The ideal of journalism as serving the public and their right to know is often
held up as the highest expression of the human right of “free speech”.
However, corporate ownership of the media is now so concentrated that “free
speech” has become “expensive speech”. Some analysts have shamelessly
argued that it’s only the owner of the means of disseminating the news who has
the right to decide what is published therein. The “human right” of freedom
of speech is derided as a “communistic” belief, and free speech is described
as a “property right”, thus removing this right from those with less wealth.
In his comprehensive article “Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and
the Bill of Rights” Carl J. Meyer analyses how the notion of corporate
personhood has insinuated itself into the law, and how rights once regarded as
“inalienable” for human beings have been pried away from people and given to
corporations. (Ref.
29b.) It is within this distorted, but officially-sanctioned legal context,
that the “Competitiveness Council” and other private working groups and
think tanks are developing the plans for a corporatized North America –
without that pesky Constitution and Bill of Rights.
If only a minority protests against a powerful police state, the dissenters
could find themselves classified as terrorists, and treated accordingly. (Ref.
29c.)
Oil Companies in World Politics and War
The political influence of oil companies has increased along with their size and
profitability. In the past decade, mergers and takeovers have heightened the
dominance of five companies over both Middle-east oil and the American retail
market, enabling them to exercise monopolistic control over prices. It is this
factor – and not environmental protections as their lobbyists allege – which
drives the price-gouging that customers so frequently experience in the
marketplace. (Ref. 30a.)
It is possible to look up on the net which congress members accept campaign
contributions from oil companies, amounting to a total of $116 million paid to
politicians. The largest amounts are given to leaders, more for Republicans than
for Democrats. This sum is on top of the lobbying budget. Unsurprisingly given
that torrent of cash, despite the existence of promising new energy-efficient
inventions, it is Big Oil that is still subsidized to the tune of billions per
year. (Ref.
30b. ) A fraction of that money going into the clean-energy technologies
would greatly improve the prospects for bringing pollution and climate change
under control.
As independent analysts regularly point out, wars have been fought for the past
century to establish control over these wealth-generating resources. (Ref.
30c.) And as reported by Mark Gregory of the BBC, the corruption in the
oil-for-food sanctions-avoidance scheme didn’t stop after the fall of Saddam
Hussein’s government. He writes, “… intriguingly, one prominent
businessman told us the corruption on Iraqi contracts had actually got worse
since the former Iraqi dictator fell from power.” (Ref.
30d.)
A Harmonized Energy Policy for North America
Oil companies have involved themselves closely, therefore, in writing policy for
the NAU. One main objective is to create a single energy policy for the
continent by "improving transparency and regulatory compatibility."
(Ref.
31) “Regulatory compatibility” is easy to understand as "harmonized”
laws; i.e. everyone has to follow the same rules. The part that’s less clear
is the “transparency” referred to in this statement. Of course it’s
transparent to the CEOs and politicians who are working at that level, but is
the other side of the coin that complete opaque secrecy we are seeing at
present?
Creating such a harmonized energy policy falls to the Working Groups and
Councils which are setting up this unified continental administration.
In the absence of policy statements being issued, we have to infer – by
logical reasoning from available evidence – what would be the probable outcome
of a panel discussion at which the chair is Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary of
Energy, the Moderator is N. Murray Edwards, Vice Chair of Canadian Natural
Resources Ltd. (a lobby group for the oil and gas companies), and in which the
panelists include high-level representatives of Suncor and Pemex. Also
participating was David Victor, Director of the Program on Energy and
Sustainable Development at the Center for Environmental Science & Policy.
(Ref. 32: Text of Leaked Document – Meeting Agenda – sent by email )
Yes, there’s one guy on that panel to speak for sustainability, and his
organization makes a friendly noises toward wind and solar energy. (Ref.
33) Though that sounds hopeful, it’s not convincing.
Note that it’s a panel discussion, not a debate between opposed parties. In
this genre of meeting, how far could one person tilt the discussion in the
direction of magnetic symmetry, or any other non-fuel or zero-emission energy?
The answer would be “not much” if you can see that the personnel scale is
heavily weighted toward the consumable-resource end. My experience of attending
various panel discussions staged by government and representing the corporate
world’s agenda is that panelists routinely spout the dominant philosophy of
the meeting’s sponsors. The minority representative is present only as a foil
for that; his job is to convince any doubters in the audience to get on board by
arguing himself into compliance.
And if you add to this unbalanced scale the understanding that the oil industry
as a whole has latched onto the idea that “sustainability” is best expressed
by sequestering carbon dioxide, you get “no possibility” of cutting-edge
technology being permitted to enter a marketplace controlled by the NAU’s
single harmonized policy, let alone becoming widespread or standard.
What is meant by “sustainable” in their lexicon is liquefying CO2, trucking
it to the oilfield, then pumping it into the ground. (Ref. 34)
This tactic allows the owners to squeeze out more oil from wells with
diminishing output, thus extending their profitable life. Meanwhile, the
practice simultaneously allows the petroleum vendors to claim that they have
cleaned up CO2 – thus achieving “zero emission” or close to “carbon-neutral”
status for their industry. Of course sequestering applies only to large
fuel-burning operations such as power plants. Collecting CO2 from fuel-powered
vehicles would be much more complicated and expensive.
This sanguine theory is meant to give everyone the message that we cango right
on burning oil with climatic impunity, according to cheerleaders for the
technology.
One such is Dr. Mark Jaccard, a professor in the School of Resource and
Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University, a name that encapsulates
the association between the wholesale harvesting of fuel resources and of “managing”
the environment, which the oil industry wants in impress into the public mind
through its feel-good environmental self-promotion. (Ref. 35)
Jaccard’s book Sustainable Fossil Fuels has received a lot of friendly media
attention, such as an interview on CBC Radio (Ref.
36) , and was awarded the Donner Prize for its contribution to public
policy.
(Ref. 37)
Sustainability through sequestering CO2 is a public-policy winner according to
the corporate worldview, and the oil business is cheering all the way to the
bank.
This Banff session “Toward a North American Energy Strategy was to feature a
keynote address by Donald Rumsfield, the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Rumsfield is
noted for his close cooperation with the Bush administration’s agenda of going
to war for oil. Given who he is, and who his audience was, what are the odds
that Mr. Rumsfield treated his corporate cronies to a rousing speech demanding
that the nation turn to alternative, non-combustion forms of energy on a rapid
and large scale? Somewhere between nil and zero, perhaps?
It’s highly unlikely that the North American Union being promoted by oil
executives and politicians will represent any shift toward the myriad of clean
energy modalities as understood by the “free energy” researchers (including
more conventional solar, wind, and geothermal free energy sources, as well as
more exotic sources such as from magnets or zero point energy).
When a leading scientist at NASA, Dennis Bushnell, can muse publicly about
detonating a super-volcano to stop global warming in a last-resort scenario, (Ref.
38) it suggests a kind of brinksmanship or cowboy mentality toward the
environment on the part of people in such responsible positions. Are they
willing for the combustion paradigm to continue to dominate the economy until
the climate problem worsens so far that such a destructive act would even be
contemplated?
Common sense would dictate adopting fuel-less energy systems long before the
problem progressed that far. If common sense based on what is good for humanity
were the basis of present and future choices about energy technology, well and
good. Under the NAU, which principle will predominate? Given who’s in charge
of it, the oil-company bottom line is more likely to be the deciding factor in
energy policy.
The Eleventh Hour
In general it seems that it’s still only a few individuals who are willing to
face potential jail terms, loss of employment, lawsuits (ref.
39) and other penalties not yet specified for opposing the continental
unification agenda. This does not bode well for the future of energy
technologies that arise from outside of, and could potentially reduce the
profits of, the powerful oil interests which have involved themselves at the
steering level of creating the North American Union.
Will we see “more of the same” from this new Bush-Administration-on-Steroids
that the NAU is likely to be? Or will there be an intensified crackdown
against alternative technologies as an alleged threat to national security (i.e.
a threat to the political and economic ascendancy of oil companies)? This might
make past suppression of new energy inventions and inventors (ref.
40) look like a polite tea-party.
Little time remains in which implementation of the SPP continental
administration could even be challenged legally or politically. By next year,
even the court systems and laws may have changed. Will the people we have known
as Canadians, Mexicans, and – yes – Americans exit the world stage, “not
with a bang but a whimper”? (Ref. 41: Poem by T.S.
Eliot.) Those who don’t want that fragment of lament to be their epitaph will
have to shift gears now, and hit the ground running.
It would make the ultimate political face-off if a serious attempt were to be
mounted to defeat the NAU. On one side are middle-of-the road greenies like Al
Gore who accepts the idea of sequestering CO2 while advocating a total freeze on
carbon emissions. Aligned with him on this issue would be the fringed edge of
research: tinkerers who make Joe Cells, fiddle with magnetic motors, and
theorize about zero-point alternatives. These people usually do not have the
resources to build prototypes let alone to to hire engineers for design
optimization and for securing independent certification of performance.
Arrayed against them are the media-and-oil conglomerates who have politicians in
their deep pockets, along with the resources to fund whatever they want.
In contrast, the independent researchers with shallow pockets will find
themselves on a collision course with the new and even more powerful continental
administration. It is capable of putting a damper on alternative clean-energy
technologies which might be able to avert the onrushing climate disaster and
eliminate any need to toy with the idea of setting off super-volcanoes.
The trend toward seeking and embracing clean energy certainly is gaining
momentum. Is this North American Union an act of desperation by an industry
that’s been feeling threatened? A sort of final hurrah of big oil and
corporate government? It’s a “final hurrah” that could last a very long
time, if way is not found to bring power back to the people, the citizens and
voters.
The Basis of Hope
What the inventors and clean-energy researchers also have in their shallower
pockets, however, is eternally-springing hope. And passion. This passion for
freedom and for the health of the planet’s biosphere may yet rise up in a
tidal wave to carry them forward.
It won’t happen without everyone’s making a personal decision to get
involved in the issue. It will take setting aside personal rivalries and
funneling personal energies and resources into a channel that appears to have
some logical chance of success as understood by all who want to see a cleaner
environment achieved through human creativity and new science.
Inspired
by the principle of Separation of Church and State, one citizens’ group is
calling for “Separation of Oil and State”. Their website urges putting more
pressure on elected representatives to respect the will of the people, and to
counter the oil lobbyists’ influence. (Ref.
42.) That title makes for a ringing slogan, which also neatly challenges the
central component of the NAU's corporate power base. If the concept is expanded
to separating Corporations from the State, it could be an effective policy
direction to re-assert democratic control over public policy.
There may be a personal price to pay for taking a stand, but even people who
don’t feel courageous can draw strength joining with others of like mind.
Let’s seek an outcome that is for the highest good of all Earth’s
inhabitants, and act politically and peacefully to make it happen.
# # #
REFERENCES:
Ref. 1: http://pesn.com/2006/08/03/9500295_wireless_transmission/
- See especially Act III, scenes
4 & 6,
and Act IV, Scene
3.
Ref. 2: http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050408203411606
- The three leaders cannot all be referred to as “head of state” which
applies only to Presidents Bush and Fox. Although recent Prime Ministers have
been acting nearly as if they were head of state, in Canada officially this
status still belongs the Queen, via her representative the Governor-General.
Ref. 3: Creating the North American Union
Ref. 4: http://usinfo.state.gov/wh/americas/mexico/trilateral_meeting.html
Ref. 5: http://www.safehaven.com/article-5480.htm
Ref. 6: http://www.SPP.gov
Ref. 7: “The
Bush Administration’s efforts to cover up the North American Union: Myths,
Facts - Truth?
Ref. 8: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/9/18/154846/236
- Text of Gore’s speech, and reader comments. See also coverage at PESN.com: Will
Carbon Freeze Be Enough?
Ref. 9: http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4213.shtml
Ref. 10: List
of participants at the Banff Conference.
Ref. 11: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/09/21/secret-meeting.html
Ref. 12: http://www.canadians.org/...
Ref. 13: The text of Barlow’s article “Integration
talks kept in the dark” is within an independent blog article about censorship
at http://chandrasutra.wordpress.com/2006/09/23/welcome-to-it-red-shirts-secret-meetings-and-censorship/
Ref. 14: http://www.davidorchard.com/online/2do-index.html
Ref. 14b: http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/temp/index.asp
- full text downloadable. Because Harper has only a minority of seats, under
traditional Parliamentary rules the opposition parties could win a vote of
non-confidence on a key issue and launch an election at any time. The terms of
Bill C-16: “An
Act to amend the Canada Elections Act”
Ref. 15: email 1 September 2006, circulated in
Canada by leader of Canadian Action Party. Transcription of recorded call (listen):
"Hi there, it's Mark Harrison from the CBC calling; you'd sent a note
asking for a call back about why we are not doing anything on the
North-American Union and the NAFTA Highway. Ummm. Several years ago there was
a big push to a, sort of a broader union, and it died on the, sort of on the
shoals of national self-interest. And I don't imagine we'll be doing more on
this one until there is an indication that this will be moving forward.
"Ummm... and that... doesn't.... seem apparent at the moment but if there
is any indication that it is moving forward and anything towards a One World
Government under the United Nations we'll certainly be doing something on it
but... ahhhh... we are not there yet in our opinion... ahh hh... thanks for
the call. Take care. Bye now."
Ref. 16: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/09/21/secret-meeting.html
- this link is also live from the New American site current-issue
index.
Ref. 17: http://www.vivelecanada.ca/...
Ref. 18: http://educate-yourself.org/lte/savingamerica13sep06.shtml
Ref. 19: http://www.infowars.com/police_state.html
Ref. 20: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/...
Ref. 21: In a meeting that evening between some
visitors from out of town and Wright, who calls himself a “recovering
economist”, I was able to see this footage. Alex expressed his objections to
secret meetings loudly through a bullhorn, asserting that he doesn’t fear the
powerful. The police remained out of the frame, and no faces ever appeared in
the hotel’s windows. Jeremy Wright produced the video “Celsius 911”, which
is available from http://www.globaloutlook.ca/videos2.htm.
Ref. 22: http://www.geocities.com/electrogravitics/cin.html
Ref. 22b: http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2006/01-24.htm
Ref. 22c: See article “Web
Pioneer: No Internet Without Net Neutrality” posted September 28th, 2006,
by tkarr.
Ref. 23: “Whistle Blower Releases Secret Agenda
of NAU meeting in Banff, Alberta, Canada Sept 12-14, 2006” - Email from C.
Fogal to mailing list of Canadian Action Party, September 20, 2006 5:57:23
EDT. Further information about this can be found on the website www.canadianactionparty.ca.
Ref. 24: Participant
list at NAU meeting in Banff
Ref. 24b: http://educate-yourself.org/lte/endtimesconspiracy14sep06.shtml
- Enter “Ghost Troop” in a search engine for details. Founded in memory of
soldiers who died taking Baghdad but whose deaths were never reported, these are
volunteers with professional and military backgrounds investigating planned
terror events to stop them from happening.
Ref. 25: http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/fina/presentation.asp?count=eng
Ref. 26: http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/triumvirat07/...
Ref 27: http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Ref 27b: http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/.../CAP_Truth_Shirts_Movement_for_Peace.asp
Ref 28: http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/skullandbones.php
Ref. 29: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Review:David_R._Hawkins:Truth_vs_Falsehood
Ref. 29b: http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/mayer_personalizing.html
Ref. 29c: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/290906torturebill.htm
- This article shows the sinister policy direction that non-allegiance to Bush
himself is terrorism. In a monarchy, allegiance is to the person of the monarch.
In the republic of the United States of America, allegiance was supposed to be
to the Constitution – which even this President vowed to uphold at his
inauguration. See also description of secret Patriot Act details: http://www.infowars.com/print/patriot_act/alexs_analysis.htm
Ref. 30a: http://www.citizen.org/documents/oilmergers.pdf
- “Mergers, Manipulation and Mirages: How Oil Companies Keep Gasoline Prices
High, and Why the Energy Bill Doesn’t Help” This article cites percentages
of mid-east oil that they have gained in the past decade.
Ref. 30b: http://www.globalexchange.org/war_peace_democracy/oil/Separation.html
Ref. 30c: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm
Control of oil drives war agenda "Oil Companies in Iraq: A Century of
Rivalry and War" by James A. Paul
Ref. 30d: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4025057.stm
Ref. 31: http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4213.shtml
Ref. 32: Text
of leaked document - Banff NAU working agenda.
Ref 33: http://cesp.stanford.edu/
Ref. 34 http://www.oread.ku.edu/Oread03/Dec12/oil.html
- Also reported on Discovery Channel Canada 27 Sept 2006 is a pipeline-fed
oilfield using sequestered CO2.
Ref. 35 Canadians are currently being subjected to
a particularly lame PR ad which extols the virtues of the Shell Oil company for
its intention to serve humanity’s need for energy by removing the oil from the
Alberta Oil Sands and then “returning the land to nature” by “putting the
sand back.” They pat themselves on the back for “reclaiming the land for
tomorrow”. The high-sounding blather omits mentioning that the result of that
process will be to create a sand desert in place of the brush ecosystem that
exists there currently. Well, I suppose a sandy desert is “natural” in their
minds; after all, it’s the kind of setting where oil is found in the Middle
East. But it’s not natural in the Canadian landscape.
Ref. 36: http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/05-06/mar04.html
Ref. 37: http://www.emrg.sfu.ca/sustainablefossilfuels/
Ref 38: http://pesn.com/2006/09/26/9500240_COFE_report
Ref. 39: http://www.alternet.org/story/24293/
Ref. 40: http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Suppression
Ref. 41: Famous conclusion of T.S. Eliot poem from
which Al Gore quoted lines at a transitional point early in his speech. The
complete text can be found online.
Does that poem summarize how our civilization will be remembered (if it’s
remembered at all)?
Ref. 42: http://www.globalexchange.org/war_peace_democracy/oil/Separation.html
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|
,
II
