North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bases in Europe and Central Asia are stocked with U.S. military commanders, and that doesn't raise the antenna for a majority of Americans. But, how about a key NATO military base in Norfolk, Virginia under the command of the French Army?
Well, you won't find that story in the company newsletters that pass for mainstream media in the United States. But news sources in France reported last week that, "France was in talks to put a French general in charge of two [NATO] command posts: one in Norfolk, Virginia, responsible for laying out the long-term vision of the Atlantic alliance, and the other an operational command based in Lisbon [Portugal]."
The report states that French president Sarkozy has already won U.S. approval for handing over control of the Norfolk operation known as the Allied Command Transformation (ACT), which was established in 2003 to meet the challenges of globalizing the reach of NATO in the post 9/11 world.
If the French want in, how much can the world's largest debtor nation really say no? Welcome to the downside of international military and trade alliances.
If you'd like to keep your favorite Bordeaux on the table but would prefer the French leave their military commanders back home, this would be a good time to contact your Congressmen in Washington. Ask them to explain their understanding of what the "long-term vision of the Atlantic alliance" is.The John Birch Society thinks it is merger of the United States into a one world government. But, perhaps we are mistaken. Maybe if we could just find out what ACT is really up to our opinions might be modified somewhat. As it stands, ACT's vision statement seems rather open ended: "NATO's leading agent for change; enabling, facilitating and advocating continuous improvement of military capabilities to enhance the military interoperability, relevance and effectiveness of the Alliance."
Congressmen that might have particular insight to what is going on at ACT are the ones who have already signed up as members for a proto trans-Atlantic parliament under the Transatlantic Policy Network. Drop them a line asking if they believe putting French generals in command of a strategic military post in Norfolk, Virginia is good for upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic.
When you get their answer back, be sure to post it to our new Letters From Congress campaign. Then, start spreading your Congressman's response around to those who think all this talk about losing U.S. independence and sovereignty to the North American Union, the WTO and NATO's parent organization — the United Nations — is just bunk.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has never been given legal treaty status in the United States. In 1993, it was submitted and passed in the U.S. Senate, on a 61-38 vote, as a simple agreement. There was and has never been the 2/3rds majority vote required to obtain legitimate treaty status as per the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, our agreement partners Mexico and Canada and a cast of globalist legal scholars the world over insist on calling NAFTA a treaty, thus promoting it to a higher legally binding status in the U.S. than it actually has.
The latest outrage in misrepresenting what the U.S. signed up for in NAFTA came last week Thursday from Canada's Federal Industry Minister, Tony Clement. Speaking on Canadian national television regarding the current $850 billion dollar stimulus package in the US Congress, which includes buy American (U.S.) provisions, Mr. Clement stated, "
The U.S. Congress is a place where you get manifestations of protectionist pressures, there's no doubt about that...At the same time, the United States has treaty obligations that they've signed onto, NAFTA is one, the World Trade Organization is another, and we expect the United States to live up to its treaty obligations of open and fair trade.
This would be a good quote to reference when you write to your U.S. Senator to demand they issue a statement confirming that NAFTA is not a treaty as far as the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Constitution is concerned. This is the same letter where you can further ask to have your Senator support the repeal of NAFTA on the grounds that it was sold to the American public as something, with the experience of history, we can now see it was clearly not - an agreement taking down barriers to true (unregulated by government) free trade among people.
Some news stories require critical thinking and reading between the lines to understand just what is being said. This one from Canada's Financial Post, can simply be read at face value.
The two most important acknowledgements are these:
As far as Canada is concerned, NAFTA is a treaty.
NAFTA's Chapter 11 gives foreign companies more rights than national citizens.
If you don't have time to read the whole article on the government of Newfoundland and Labrador taking the property of Abitibi Bowater, here's raw meat of the story:
...international treaties override domestic laws so NAFTA trumps the act. Ch. 11 also contains general obligations to give investors from the three NAFTA countries "national" and "fair and equitable" treatment under international law, and it is solely international law which applies to NAFTA. Does the Canadian charter of Rights and Freedoms say anything about this? The Charter protects personal rights only and does nothing for property or corporate rights. So does the above analysis mean that foreign investors have better protection from unfair or arbitrary parliaments and legislatures than Canadians? Yes, they do.
Note: The French(Canadian) and Spanish versions of NAFTA are respectively; Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN) and Accord de libre-échange nord-américain (ALENA). The underlined words being the words for treaty in those two languages. While the US Senate passed NAFTA on a simply majority vote rather than the 2/3rd super majority our Constitution requires for treaties, our NAFTA partners and international lawyers view NAFTA as nonetheless a legally binding treaty. The best way to correct this abuse of our Constitution and the usurpation of our national sovereignty is to repeal or otherwise withdraw our country from the NAFTA - agreement.
With a hat-tip to the Cambridge Clarion in the UK, we learn that within a 1995 BBC documentary, Animation Nation, there is a prominent admission that the primary objective of the Marshall Plan was to create a European common market leading to what has become the European Union. (Think of the Marshall Plan as the FED's bailout plan for the economic crisis in Europe after WWII and remember that the strings attached to money flow are usually integration with the lender and loss of independence for the borrower.)
The BBC documentary goes on to discuss how animation film producers were employed to extend their wartime propaganda efforts to sell the Marshall Plan to the people of Europe.
By coincidence, this US entry into the WTO era film was rebroadcast in April of 2005 - at the same time the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and North American Union schemes were being rolled out.
The reference to the Marshall Plan objective in classic, dry matter of fact, British style begins at the 5:00 minute mark of the video. We don't make this stuff up.
But there'll be an even greater impetus for passage of Obama's S. 2433 in September. The UN has scheduled a meeting they refer to as a "High-level Event on the Millennium Development Goals" at UN Headquarters in New York on September 25, 2008. The UN meeting has been specifically scheduled to help get those nations who haven't lived up to their global anti-poverty promises made at UN conferences, such as the United States, to get with the program and start forking over hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to underdeveloped nations. Here's how the UN describes their "High-level Event":
The UN Secretary-General and the President of the UN General Assembly will convene a High-level Event on the Millennium Development Goals at UN Headquarters in New York on 25 September 2008. At the halfway point towards the target date, significant progress has been made, but urgent and increased efforts are needed by all stakeholders in order to meet the Goals by 2015. The High-level Event will be a forum for world leaders to review progress, identify gaps, and commit to concrete efforts, resources and mechanisms to bridge the gaps. By asking world leaders to announce their specific plans and proposals, the High-level Event will help accelerate implementation and follow-through.
Passage of S. 2433 before this special UN conference convenes would be a high-profile way for the internationalists in both of our major political parties to assure the UN that the U.S. is still committed to the UN's Millennium Devlopment Goals.
Remember there is no authorization in the Constitution for foreign aid. And, as the movie "I.O.U.S.A." makes so clear, the U.S. is already in the hole for $55 trillion of national debt and unfunded liabilities. Why add another $1 trillion for this UN program when we can't even afford the social security and medicare programs for our own citizens.
Based on the above discussion, a Senate vote on S. 2433 before Sept. 25 is highly likely. If you oppose committing our nation to spending hundreds of billions of dollars in support of UN global anti-poverty goals, you need to let your Senators know immediately, preferably by both email and phone!
Click here to send an editable, pre-written email message of opposition to your Senators. Click here for phone and other contact information for your Senators.
