NAFTA with Guns - Defeating the SPP

SPP Forum and Protest August 19-21

The SPP threatens our environment, social programs, civil liberties, sovereignty and the foundations of democracy. The MAI was killed, and full corporate rule averted. Now we must do the same with the SPP. Time to act! Get informed. Get involved. Send this to everyone you know.

The RCMP, Surete du Quebec and US Army, who are providing security for the SPP meeting between Bush, Harper and Calderone this Sunday to Tuesday (Aug.19-21), have prevented a public discussion forum from being held in the nearby town of Papineauville. This is a good indication of the anti-democratic nature of this "Security and Prosperity Partnership." Fortunately, we still have freedom of speech. So speak up while you can. The internet is now the most powerful media and communications tool the public has. Let's use it.

JTR


The best overview I've seen to date:

The SPP Meeting in August -- and Preparations to oppose it


For further background search this blog for other SPP articles.


Integrate This!
Call to Action Against the SPP! August 19-21

http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/


Poster: Share, print and post this everywhere!

http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/summit/Forum_Aug07.pdf


Attention law students, lawyers and legal professionals:
BCCLA Call for Legal Witnesses

http://www.bccla.org/montebello.htm


Ride-Share to Ottawa & Montebello, Aug. 19

http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/summit/travel.html


An activist camp and gathering: Un Campement

http://www.uncampement.net/?q=en


Still in doubt? Read the following:

Canadian Sovereignty in Jeopardy: The Militarization of North America
by Michael Chossudovsky, Center for Research on Globalization,
August 17, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=6572


Related article, reprinted from PEJ.org:

The RCMP, the rogue states, and the SPP Summit

Pej.org news - Joan Russow (PhD) Global Compliance Research Project. It is reported by the Council of Canadians (see below) that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and U.S. Army have blocked a public forum on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) which was to take place during the SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec on August 20 and 21. If the RCMP is ever going to be credible in the eyes of the public, the RCMP must be perceived to be the enforcer not of the whims of the corporate sector but of fundamental peremptory norms to which most states in the world adhere.

www.PEJ.org

After months, if not years, of the RCMP engaged in range of questionable practices which culminated in the resignation of the Commissioner Zacardelli, the New RCMP Commissioner William Elliot is taking the RCMP to a new
level of ignominy. Before assuming the position of Commissioner of the RCMP, William Elliot, -a “terrorist expert” - in his various capacities, under Transport and Public Safety ministries has been playing a sycophantic role to his US counterparts. Now, with his first act as the RCMP Commissioner he demonstrates that, rather than enforcing the rule of law, he is willing, by denying the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association, to violate both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights to which Canada, US and Mexico are signatories. .

If the RCMP is ever going to be credible in the eyes of the public, the RCMP must be perceived to be the enforcer not of the whims of the corporate sector but of fundamental peremptory norms to which most states in the world adhere. . The RCMP should be concerned that the SPP summit that the RCMP is so intent on protecting is one with at least two leaders who have seriously violated fundamental norms expressed in Conventions such as the Convention against Torture, and the Geneva conventions.

If the RCMP is to be credible, the RCMP should refuse to be an instrument of the US army, and should act to oppose the Security and Prosperity Partnership which further entrenches the licence to violate not only the fundamental human rights of freedom expression and assembly , but also key legally biding environmental, labour, social justice obligations and commitments.


The RCMP should also be concerned that the three countries have either failed to sign and ratify international agreements related to preventing war and conflict, to guaranteeing human rights, to ensuring social justice, to preserving and protecting the environments, or failed to enact the necessary legislation to ensure the implementation and enforcement of these agreements.

But no, the role of the RCMP has become to protect leaders of states which conspire to undermine the rule of law, and to prevent citizens from acting to protect the commons and the common good.

Pej.org news - Joan Russow (PhD) Global Compliance Research Project



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


RCMP and U.S. Army block public forum on Security and Prosperity Partnership


The Council of Canadians has been told it will not be allowed to rent a


municipal community centre for a public forum it had planned to coincide


with the next Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit in


Montebello, Quebec on August 20 and 21.


The Municipality of Papineauville, which is about six kilometres from

Montebello, has informed the Council of Canadians that the RCMP, the Sûreté

du Québec (SQ) and the U.S. Army will not allow the municipality to rent the

Centre Communautaire de Papineauville for a public forum on Sunday August

19, on the eve of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership Leaders

Summit.

"It is deplorable that we are being prevented from bringing together a panel

of writers, academics and parliamentarians to share their concerns about the

Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canadians," said Brent Patterson,

director of organizing with the Council of Canadians. "Meanwhile, six

kilometres away, corporate leaders from the United States, Mexico and Canada

will have unimpeded access to our political leaders."

As well as being shut out of Papineauville, the Council of Canadians has

been told that the RCMP and the SQ will be enforcing a 25-kilometre security

perimeter around the Chateau Montebello, where Stephen Harper will meet with

George W. Bush and Felipe Calderón on August 20 and 21. According to

officials in Montebello, there will be checkpoints at Thurso and Hawkesbury,

and vehicles carrying more than five people will be turned back.

Founded in 1985, the Council of Canadians is Canada's largest citizens'

organization, with members and chapters across the country. The organization

works to protect Canadian independence by promoting progressive policies on

fair trade, clean water, safe food, public health care, and other issues of

social and economic concern to Canadians.


http://www.canadians.org/media/DI/2007/11-July-07.html

Ron Paul: Honest Abe Lives

“Congress' premier defender of the Constitution”

Why on earth would a left libertarian who admires democratic socialist Hugo Chavez favour a conservative Republican candidate? The answer is simple: I see no other contender who is willing to seriously challenge the drift toward fascism. The preservation of constitutional democracy is the first and most urgent task at hand. All other issues can be debated once the basics are secured: preserve democracy.

“Ron Paul stands for populist ideals that the country is screaming out for after seven years of hell under Bush.

Paul unites opposition to the war and the police state at home across the entire political spectrum…from libertarians through anti-war Democrats.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist who votes based on principles that support our rights as individuals.

But it is how he does is that makes him a HERO. He consistently stands undaunted in the face of opposition. He is dedicated to protecting “the good.” He is uncompromising in his standards, valiant in his efforts, and he does it all with a quiet nobility that is inspiring. He does what is right. He tells us the Truth. It is this that defines him as a HERO for our times.”

I would urge all who oppose the slide into corporatocracy and a police state to stand up now, speak up now, across the spectrum, from liberal and progressive to conservative or libertarian, social democrat or libertarian socialist – all who oppose tyranny and who would prefer democracy to fascism – and support Ron Paul. The stakes are high, and the time is short.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has announced he is running for U.S. President in 2008: I think he would be far superior as a president than either Bush was, or Hilary Clinton would be.

Bush goes without saying. Hilary Clinton has expressed her support for expanding the Middle East war into Iran. She has consistently voted in favour of massive funding for unconstitutional imperial war in the Middle East, thereby helping to get thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, while bankrupting the country. She also voted in favour of the draconian and dangerous Patriot Act. She boldly voted to limit the Military Commissions Act to 2011. What’s four years of abuse of power among friends?

Barrack Obama is admired by many, but I could not possibly support such a man who would speak against war, and simultaneously continue to fund it, voting in favour of over $580 billion for military appropriations in 2006 alone – much of this specifically targeted to increased funding for the war in Iraq.

On December 21, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favour of the $450 billion Defense Department FY 2006 Appropriations Bill – including $50 billion specifically tagged for continued war in Iraq and Afghanistan. On May 4, 2006 Senator Obama voted in favour of $67 billion in “emergency supplemental appropriations” for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On June 15, 2006, Senator Obama voted in favour of $70 billion in “emergency supplemental appropriations” for the “Global War on Terrorism.” On June 22, 2006, Obama voted in favour of over $500 billion in military spending for the fiscal year of 2007.

Now that I know the voting record of Hilary and Obama, whenever I think of either of these two “doves” I think of the line by The Who: “Meet the new boss – same as the old boss” (Won’t Get Fooled Again).

If we are to judge by action – by his voting record – and not just by words, Obama is full of shit; to be blunt. His words speak of peace, but his actions speak clearly of deferential and timid support for continued wars of empire. This man either has no spine, or else no integrity. I wouldn’t elect Obama to watch my dog for the weekend. He says one thing, and votes another. I would love to be shown wrong on Obama, but presently these seem to be the indications.

Even more fundamentally, Obama voted on March 2, 2006 - along with Hilary Rodham Clinton - to make 14 provisions of the Patriot Act permanent. This man is no patriot. Nor is he a democrat. This man, along with Hilary Clinton, voted in favour of legislation that can only be described as thoroughly anti-democratic, unconstitutional, draconian and, frankly, fascist. We cannot afford to see such wolves successfully masked as sheep. Democrats should be the first to reveal the true nature of such false-hope candidates and corporate lap-dog technocrats in drag as champions of freedom.

If I am wrong somehow on Obama, I would be glad to be enlightened. However, it seems he, like Hilary, is a lackey for the military-industrial complex, war-profiteers, oil barons and Washington chicken-hawks. Unless there is reason to believe otherwise, from what I can see now, I would hate to see this man elected or re-elected to any high office, let alone President of the United States.

As far as I am aware, there is no-one running for the next U.S. presidential election that merits support, other than Ron Paul, with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) – a New Deal Democrat, reminiscent of FDR.

A former mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, Dennis Kucinich has voted against the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, and the exorbitant funding for adventurous neo-colonial wars. Perhaps a two-party ticket is in order. “The Democracy Ticket.” Paul and Kucinich: uniting the sane from the Republicans and Democrats in 2008. This might be a possibility worth pursuing. I’m not sure if they would be willing to run together, but if so, it could be a winning combination. The campaign focus: end the wars of empire, and restore the Constitution. Unfortunately, differences over immigration and gun control, among other issues, would likely prevent such a liberal-conservative alliance between Paul and Kocinich. I say unfortunately, and this must be emphasized, because these are the only two candidates I know of that seem willing to stand up to the assault on civil rights and constitutional democracy.

Ron Paul voted against the Orwellian Military Commissions Act of September 2006. He voted against the Patriot Act in 2001, and again in 2005 – on three separate occasions – as well as in 2006. If there is any measure of a federal U.S. political candidate’s integrity in defending constitutional democracy, it is this: unwavering opposition to these two terrible anti-democratic, unconstitutional pieces of authoritarian legislation. Obama and Hilary both fail this test.

Ron Paul also voted to close the infamous School of Americas – the largest terrorist training center in the hemisphere, operating out of Fort Benning Georgia, whose graduates have gone on to join and lead death squads throughout Latin America, and who were among those responsible for the assassination of 9 Jesuit priests as well as Archbishop Romero in El Salvador. This man will help fight terrorism – by ceasing to fund it. If you want a true defender of democracy and freedom, here is the real McCoy.

While most of Congress is unaware of, or silent about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Ron Paul is speaking out and standing up for sovereignty and democracy.

“NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system.” - Ron Paul

The Democratic Party hates Ron Paul because he’s Republican; the Republican Party hates Ron Paul because he does not tow the party line in prostrating before the military-industrial complex, serving the interests of the corporate elite, paying homage to wars of empire, or backing the rush to implement fascist legislation in the form of the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. The grassroots, however, love him – across the political spectrum, from conservatives and libertarians, to anti-war democrats, to all those who oppose the slide into a police state.

All those who prefer genuine democracy and the rule of constitutional law to fascist corporate oligarchy, would be wise to support this humble Congressman. He may well be this era’s Honest Abe: a liberator of the country. If he succeeds in exercising the popular will and ending the imperial wars abroad, as well as the slide into a police state at home, he will have been, truly, a liberator of America.

Ron Paul is a true grassroots hero, in that he is willing to back the people with authentic and substantial support for the constitution, the struggle to preserve democracy, and the opposition to imperial wars – all of which, the majority of Americans clearly want. It will take more than one person to change the course of American society, as it always has. Even if that person holds the highest office in the republic, there will need to be a mass movement, not just to get a better president elected, but to get the job done: to halt the drift toward fascism and to restore democracy, freedom and human rights in America.

Paul is a Republican conservative reminiscent of Eisenhower. Like Eisenhower, he recognizes the grave danger of the military-industrial complex. Taking up where Ike left off, it is no longer sufficient to warn against the possible abuse of power and encroachment on democratic powers, of the military-industrial complex. It is now clearly time to rein it in. Ron Paul stands in this tradition, and is prepared to take the efforts to rein in this beast, to the next step. The plug must be pulled on the corporate military complex. Ron Paul is the only candidate I am confident will do just that.

Paul has 37 years of political experience, and currently sits on the House Financial Services Committee, the House International Relations Committee, and the House-Senate Joint Economic Committee. He knows the political arena.

Paul will have to run a broad-based grassroots campaign to win, as the corporate media are sure to try and shoot him down, or shut him out, while the Republican Party machine is unlikely to support a maverick who repudiates the corporate subservience of the party, and fiercely opposes their agenda of “war without end” overseas and an authoritarian surveillance state at home.

There may be issues where I disagree with Ron Paul, but he is right on the two biggest ones, in my mind: end the wars of empire abroad, and stop the destruction of civil rights and democracy at home. If there is any other candidate who shows spine enough to deal with these two most pressing issues, they should be supported. Presently, only Ron Paul evokes confidence with regards to these most critical issues.

Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian. If I were to put a phrase or a label on my political views, I would have to say they are libertarian socialist. The differences between a conservative libertarian perspective and that of a libertarian socialist are significant, but there is common ground as well. Libertarians have a deep skepticism about excessive concentrations of political power, as did Thomas Jefferson – they are not great fans of bureaucracy, authoritarianism or elitism, to say the least. Libertarians on the right have traditionally questioned state or governmental power – that is, concentrations of political power – while libertarians on the left have questioned not only concentrations of political power, but also excessive concentrations of economic power. Thus, while there may be natural common ground, libertarians of the right and the left have been historically estranged, barely communicating, if at all. However, recent trends have narrowed the divide.

What the right still fails to recognize – although this is changing – is that since the fall of the Soviet bloc, the left has abandoned what little remaining allegiance it had to bureaucratic big government, and now leans very strongly to a left libertarian perspective, advocating freedom, diversity, and limited government that is in close contact with the grassroots. Thus, there is more common ground between the right and left now than the right has recognized.

Likewise, the right is coming to realize that excessive concentrations of economic power are also threats to freedom, just as are excessive concentrations of political power. Jefferson and Lincoln – one a Democrat, one a Republican – both realized this very clearly. Now the grassroots right is beginning to realize it as well. This new tendency within the right offers the possibility for a greater basis of understanding between right and left. The left also does not yet recognize the narrowing gap between the two polarities.

While the left has largely rejected the big government bureaucratic paradigm, the right, at least at the grassroots, is coming to view the current threat to democracy and freedom as a threat waged by a combination of elitist, authoritarian government, aligned with a growing concentration of corporate power. The grassroots right now speaks of the present emergence of corporate fascism – a terminology that should be familiar to the left. The gap is indeed narrowing. It is now a struggle not so much between left and right, as it is between all those who prefer democracy to fascism – and this is the vast majority - and the few who are willing to side with an emerging corporatocracy.

It is important that the left and the right both understand this. We need a coalition that spans the political spectrum – from right to left – of all who would stand now to preserve constitutional democracy. If we fail to recognize the urgency of such a union, we will fail, and we will see fascism take hold. It may be unthinkable, but the unthinkable is taking place. We had better form a union of diverse groups and individuals to preserve democracy, freedom and human rights, or we will lose them all.

I’m not a conservative, nor a Republican party fan, but if there is going to be a conservative wing to U.S. politics - which of course there will be for a long time - there should be a representative who’s at least sane, who’s not on a corporate payroll, and who is not a military-industrial complex lackey. Ron Paul for President - now!

And for a running mate? If not Dennis Kocinich, then Robert Bowman. Fair trade, non-interventionist, anti-corporatist conservative. I didn’t know there was such a creature, but there is. He’s the real deal. Ron Paul and Robert Bowman would make a stellar team. I hope the Ron Paul campaign team will give this idea some serious thought. It could be a powerful alliance. It could be an alliance to successfully defeat the threat to democracy. The threat at home, that is.

We must now end the left-right alienation. It is in some senses a false polarization. Yes, there are very real and important issues on which there is serious divergence, but there is common ground between traditional conservatives, traditional liberals, right libertarians, left libertarians and democratic socialists. The common ground is that we all prefer democracy to fascism - whether it is the corporate fascism that is arising, or any other kind of totalitarian regime. It is neoconservatism and neoliberalism, which are two sides of the same corporate boot-licking coin, that has to be defeated now. It is the preservation of constitutional democracy that must come first. Afterwards, we can debate the rest of the issues. Democracy and human rights are fundamental.

The real division, the one that matters most, is between the neoconservatives and neoliberals on the one hand, who promote and support a corporatist regime both domestically and world-wide, and all those who prefer and support constitutional democracy. Traditional liberals and conservatives, progressives, libertarians of the right and left, as well as social democrats, must get together now to stop this slide into fascism and corporate rule.

Let’s get it together on the major issues; the rest we can debate later. First things first: we must preserve democracy and stop the slide into corporate fascism. We must first rein in the military-industrial complex, and the corporate powers more generally. Once that is accomplished, we can debate the rest of the issues `till we’re blue in the face. Until that is done, debate is largely irrelevant, because corporate fascism rules.

So long as the neoconservatives are in power in Washington, or their neoliberal “opponents” in the Democratic Party - Kerry, Edwards, Hillary, Obama et al. - the nightmare will continue to unfold.

With Ron Paul or Robert Bowman in the White House - and ideally both - I could envision a safe and prosperous, sane and just - albeit conservative - America. This would be a tremendous relief, not only to the great majority of Americans, but to the world.

Left/right debates can resume once we’ve secured the basics: the safeguarding of constitutional democracy. Until then, we need to get together, across ideological and party lines.

Support Ron Paul! Stop corporate fascism now! Yes, we are heading in that direction, and no, there seems to be no-one else in the U.S. Presidential race that will halt this slide into a very dark time.

If you like the corporate lobby, the military-industrial complex, unending bloody, costly and dangerous imperial wars, the destruction of civil rights and freedom and the slide into a police state, vote for Hilary or Obama, or any of the other Republicans or Republican look-alikes. If you prefer peace, freedom and constitutional democracy, there seems to be only one choice: Ron Paul.

Ideological rigidity won't help us now - not that it ever has. There is a war on democracy, in case anyone has missed this fact. What we need now is a coalition of all who oppose the drift into oligarchy and the destruction of constitutional rights and freedom. Come on people now, let's get together.

“I have a dream. I want to re-instate the Constitution.” – Dr. Ron Paul

J. Todd Ring,

March 2007

Vote Ron Paul For President 2008 – video short

Can it get any more clear? Ron Paul stands up to speak against war in Iraq, while Democrats – who now control Congress, and have the ability to pull the plug on this ongoing tragedy - continue to fund the war. Ron Paul clearly stands out. And what an overtly Orwellian speech by a Democrat to follow him!

Defund the War by Rep. Ron Paul – video short

Even Conservatives Hate Republicans Now

YouTube - Texas Republican slams Bush "demented philosophy of conquest”

Congressman Ron Paul on Iran Situation (3-15-06) – video short

Gulf of Tonkin 2: Iran – video short

YouTube - Ron Paul on Interventionism

YouTube - Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) on House Iraq Resolution

YouTube - Ron Paul vs. Congress: Don't regulate the Internet

Presidental candidate Ron Paul to 'reinstate Constitution' - video

YouTube - Ron Paul on the North American Union

YouTube - Ron Paul Confronts the Federal Reserve

Ron Paul Supporters at Anti War Rally – video

Ron Paul Officially Runs For President - C-SPAN Part 1 of 4

The Original American Foreign Policy - by Ron Paul

Rep.Ron Paul on Iran: The Next Neocon Target « Dissident

Ron Paul 2008

*YouTube - Ron Paul Revolution - Phoenix

“Ron Paul stands for populist ideals that the country is screaming out for after seven years of hell under Bush.

Paul unites opposition to the war and the police state at home across the entire political spectrum…from libertarians through anti-war Democrats.

Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act, opposes the draft, advocates the abolition of the income tax, urges the re-introduction of the gold standard, and stands against initiatives to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty such as CAFTA and the FTAA [as well as the secretive SPP].

Ron Paul has consistently upheld his commitment to civil liberties and slammed the militarized police state that Bush has created.

Paul has been in and out of Congress since the 70's and is universally hated by the Republican elite, who routinely back Democrats against him just to try and get him out of office. The former Vietnam flight surgeon is the perfect candidate for President and activists from every corner of every political persuasion should mobilize now in an attempt to help Paul shatter the power monopoly of the Republican and Democrat establishment who have worked together for decades to slit America's throat in the interests of power, greed, and ego.

Paul was one of only a handful of Republicans to vote against the illegal invasion of Iraq...In bucking a trend, Paul was anti-war long before the majority of the country came around to a similar way of thinking following the catastrophe of the occupation.

While Democrats soft-peddle and cozy up to Bush, creating phony arguments about the level of troop presence in Iraq and ignoring the majority will of the country to bring the troops home immediately, Ron Paul's opposition to unnecessary wars of intervention has remained steadfast throughout his entire political career.

If a gargantuan effort is made from now until the end of 2008 to heighten Paul's media profile and forward him as America's last hope, he truly has a significant chance of giving Jeb Bush, Rudy Giuliani or whichever elitist puppet the Republicans choose to put forward a real run for their money.

With the favor of the political landscape continually swinging away from the scam repeatedly run by the Republicrats and Democans, we should really start off on a positive footing and consider the fact that Ron Paul, though still an underdog, has a real chance of becoming the next President.”

- Ron Paul – America’s Braveheart

The SPP: Stealth Coup?

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is an issue that is heating up rapidly among grassroots popular movements as well as the general citizenry - ironically, on the right in the U.S. and on the left in Canada.

The SPP is an agreement signed in March, 2005 by then heads of government of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, George Bush, Paul Martin and Vicente Fox. According to the official U.S. government SPP website, the agreement is not a treaty or trade deal, but a "dialogue."

Documents obtained from the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act state that the SPP is "a broad and ambitious" plan to create "full regulatory harmonization" and "deep integration" of the economies, military, intelligence, laws and regulations of the three nations.

A council of 30 CEOs - 10 to represent each nation - has already been created: the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). The NACC will form policy and "brief" Congress and Parliament.

In the U.S. and Canada, citizens groups are beginning to take notice, and are appalled. The SPP is being viewed by critics, both on the right and the left of the political spectrum, as a serious threat to sovereignty and democracy. All evidence points in this direction. The fact that it is being carried out in very secretive ways, with no Congressional or Parliamentary debate or oversight, only adds to the perception that this is a deeply anti-democratic agenda.

J. Todd Ring

April 11, 2007

For more information on the SPP, here are a few of the best articles and resources available:

INTEGRATE THIS! A Citizen’s Guide to Fighting Deep Integration

* Secret Banff Meeting of CEOs and the Defense Establishment : Militarization and the Deconstruction of North America

*** ZNet |Economy | Power to the People (In Suits)

Fast-Track to Fascism: The SPP in a Nutshell

An Important Date for the Calendar!

Stop the Serfdom for the People Program! Actually, the SPP is officially called the "Security and Prosperity Partnership," but I like my title better, and I think it's a more honest name.

Please join this important international grassroots conference in Ottawa March 31 - April 1. Activists, journalists, political representatives and academics will be in attendance from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

This is possibly the most urgent issue facing the three countries of North America at this time. If we don't stop the SPP, there will be no Canada left, no sovereignty for any of the three nations, and no democracy: this is the institutionalization of corporate rule. Let's get it together, left and right, and all who support democracy over fascism, to stop this very quiet corporate coup. Even though few have yet heard of the SPP, momentum is already building to defeat it. This can be stopped. Get involved now.

On a lighter note, ever read Horton Hears a Who, by Dr. Seuss? Well, as in the Seuss story, we need every voice if we are going to win on this one. This is not a small event. The SPP formalizes the dominant power of big business over the political process. This is, quite frankly, the next step in the destruction of democracy in the Western world. Take action now. Stop the SPP.

If you have any doubt as to the significance of the issue, please see the excellent article by Toronto lawyer Paul Bigioni, below: Power to the People (in Suits).

If you are new to the SPP, one of the best introductions can be found in the Council of Canadians' Integrate This! A Citizen's Guide to Deep Integration, also linked below. I would urge everyone to take the time to investigate this issue for yourselves. It is of utmost urgency.


INTEGRATE THIS! Teach-In

*** ZNet |Economy | Power to the People (In Suits)

INTEGRATE THIS! A Citizen’s Guide to Fighting Deep Integration

NDP condemns Harper's push to sell out Canada

Fast-Track to Fascism: The SPP in a Nutshell

Full Implementation of Corporate Rule Via the SPP & NACC

North American Union: Time to Re-Focus

The Paranoid Right Is Partly Right

YouTube - CNN- Lou Dobbs: North American Union Update

*** YouTube - Lou Dobbs, CNN: 12 U.S. Legistatures Move to Oppose SPP

Connie Fogal: Canadians, we are losing our country - YouTube video

YouTube - Ron Paul on the North American Union

What Must Be Done:
When corporatism and Leninism have both failed

Part One: For a future (worth living) to be possible

With the clear and accelerating hyper-concentration of power in the world, primarily via the hyper-concentration of corporate economic and financial power, which now threatens to swallow any last vestiges of democracy, freedom and human rights, we clearly need a united grassroots citizen's movement to restore and protect the basics: democracy, fundamental human rights, and freedom. If we fail to create such a united popular force, we will see the full emergence of a global corporate feudalism - a phenomenon which is already well underway.

Serious thought and action must be directed toward creating a broad-based citizens' coalition to defend democracy, and to create the possibility, and the actuality, of a more peaceful, just, sustainable and democratic world. In order to accomplish this, some form of federation of citizen's movements is needed. We do not necessarily have to join or form a particular political party, nor are party politics the central issue. What is required is a citizen's movement, broad enough, empowered enough, bold enough, and sufficiently united across its diversity, to create the kind of popular pressure and initiative that makes change happen. The great accomplishments of our collective human history have come about in this way: leadership from below. We should not expect it to be any different today.

If we look to history, who led the changes in society brought about by the civil rights movement? People like Rosa Parks, the students who started the lunch counter sit-ins, the ordinary citizens who launched the Montgomery bus boycott, and the millions of ordinary people who stood up, spoke out and created the people's movement that led to great changes.

Who led the movement for universal suffrage? The right to vote, first by non-property owners, then by women, was not gained by a decree from on high, but by the struggles of ordinary men and women working together to create change.

Who brought down the Vietnam war fiasco? Not JFK, who launched the bombing on South East Asia, not LBJ, who stepped it up, not Nixon or Kissinger, who took the aerial bombardment to literally genocidal levels, not the corporate elite who backed, armed, and heavily profited from the venture, and not the political "leadership" of the major parties. It was the grassroots, again. It took 14 years then, before a grassroots coalition could be built strongly enough to bring the war to an end. And should there be any doubt as to how the war ended, take the statements from then National Security adviser to the U.S. government, chief intellectual-in-residence to the political power elite of the United States, Henry Kissinger. He made it clear to his boss in the White house that in order to win the war in Vietnam, more troops would have to be sent, but if more troops were sent from America, stability could not be assured at home. The crisis at home, the crisis of legitimacy brought on by this gruesome war, the crisis precipitated by a great and powerful citizen's movement that demanded an end to this unjust and horrific war, was at a level by the mid-70's that the war in Vietnam became unsustainable. The citizen's movement ended the war, as Kissinger himself admitted directly.

In European and North American history, who led and ultimately succeeded in the efforts to bring about a work week that is 40 hours, and not 80 or more, as it had been? Who led and ultimately succeeded in raising wages, first above starvation levels, then above meager subsistence levels, to a point where a decent life is possible - despite the roll-backs of the last twenty years? Who led and ultimately succeeded in ending the worst workplace safety dangers - something most people take entirely for granted? Who led and ultimately succeeded in the drive for social programs to benefit the old, the poor, the ill or injured? Who led and ultimately succeeded in giving the people of the Western world the standard of living we now have? Not the unalterable laws of capitalism - the barons of capital opposed all of these initiatives. Not the political elite - the political elite opposed all of these initiatives, until the public demand for them was so powerful it could not be opposed any longer, and the political elite took credit for a concession they had fought for years, if not decades or centuries. It was primarily the labour movement, along with other popular movements, that won the people of the Western world these gains.

Who broke the back of the biggest empire the world had ever seen - the British Empire - the empire that controlled two-thirds of the globe c. 1940? Not another military superpower. Not America, the now self-proclaimed global super-cop, judge, jury and executioner, exporter of "democracy" through the barrel of a gun. Not Superman, the Lone Ranger, extraterrestrials or some other fantasy rescuer. It was one little Indian of great stature, Mahatma Gandhi, and more importantly, millions of ordinary heroes.

Who initiated, led, and brought considerable gains for the earth and humanity with the environmental movement? Again, not the political or corporate elite, who fought these initiatives tooth and claw the whole way, only to take credit for every concession that they yielded to popular pressure. To be fair, there have been and are business people and politicians who have sought and contributed to positive developments in society and in environmental protection - of course - but the initiative and the pressure, the drive and the creative force has always come, almost without exception, from below - from the people themselves. It is no different now.

The question that confronts us now is, will "the world's other superpower" - as the business press, as well as the UN Secretary General has called the world's citizenry - come together in sufficient unity to oppose the destruction of democracy and the earth? Is it going to be a bang, a whimper, or a shout of joy and determination that ends, not the world, but the world as it was - out of balance, out of harmony, out of time? If it is not a global citizen's movement that is decisive in this question, then arguably it will be either a bang or a whimper. We cannot afford to let this happen. It must be a collective shout of joy, a determined and powerful "no" to violence, destruction, and the prey of the few upon the many - an emphatic "yes" to the future of life on earth. We must rally unity amid diversity now.

Part Two: What Must Be Done: When corporatism and Leninism have both failed

Fast-Track to Fascism:
The SPP in a nutshell


Few people have even heard of the SPP - the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" - which was signed in March 2005 by Paul Martin, George Bush and Vicente Fox. Sometimes referred to as "NAFTA on steroids", the SPP is a deep integration agenda that is being carried out actively by a small group of powerful corporate CEO's with the aid of several key political elites of Mexico, Canada and the U.S. And it is an agenda that is being carried out and implemented behind the backs of Parliament, Congress, and the people of the three nations. It is a topic that we need to understand. It is an issue with grave implications for democracy, human rights and sovereignty in all three nations. Here is the SPP in a nutshell.

The SPP is supposedly a plan to create prosperity and security, however, the scheme is beneficial only to the biggest corporations, while at the same time entailing a complete integration of the economies, military, laws and regulations of Mexico, the United States and Canada. It is, in effect, the superhighway to a North American Union. But unlike the European Union, where the member nations are of similar size and power, thus allowing for at least the possibility of equal partnership and democracy, the NAU would clearly be dominated by its only member superpower - and that's not Wisconsin or Manitoba we're talking about, of course. Worse, the proposed union, which is being pushed through behind closed doors, is to be dominated, by design, by a council of 30 CEO's, 10 from each nation, representing some of the biggest corporations on the continent.

This most recent step forward by monopoly capitalism is called the North American Competitiveness Council - an appropriately Orwellian name.
It is the establishment of a continent-wide government ruled by a council of 30 CEO's, with the aid and integration of NORTHCOM - the U.S. North American military command - and the Department of Homeland Security. Integrated military command, integrated North American "homeland security" and all of this under the control of an integrated political and economic power - in the hands of 30 CEO's. It's simply business, nothing personal.

This is a horrendous deal that must be stopped. Dissolving our sovereignty with any nation would be a big deal, and one most Canadians would not support. If a stealth maneuver were taking place to merge us with a relatively peaceful, just and benign nation - like say Sweden - were taking place, Canadians would rightly be indignant, and in fact furious. To be witnessing a stealth maneuver to merge Canada with what has now become - by any reasonable definition - a fascist state, is simply beyond words.

Habeas corpus has been suspended in the U.S. In the new America, freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment is now gone. With the signing of the Military Commissions Act on September 16, 2006, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were suspended. Harvard law students have conducted a mock funeral for the U.S. Constitution. Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, the hallmark of fascist states, is now part of the legal structure of the U.S. By any reasonable definition, The United States has ceased to be a constitutional democracy. By any reasonable definition, the United States has become a fascist state. Is this the kind of nation we want to form deeper alliances with? Would we wish to be submerged into any other nation, particularly one that has moved so clearly into fascism? The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of 60 years ago, and which has been dominant in U.S. politics since at least 1947, has now finally seized all power in the U.S. The unthinkable has happened in the U.S., and Stephen Harper wants to integrate Canada into this unfolding nightmare.

Aside from these most obvious points, it would be unwise in the extreme to form a deep integration with a nation many times our size both demographically and economically - it would be an unequal and thus, for us at least, undemocratic union.

Beyond this, the giant U.S. economy is a sinking ship. The U.S. dollar is sinking. Central banks around the world are divesting themselves of U.S. currency. And we are going to tie ourselves to a sinking ship?

The U.S. corporate elite want this merger in order to secure access to the biggest oil reserves in the hemisphere - the Canadian tar sands - and in order to secure access to a flood of cheap Mexican labour. It is their hope that they will be able to compete with the rising giant of China by doing so. Oh, and the suspension of basic rights and freedoms is also considered necessary - security from the risk of authentic, functioning democracy breaking out. This is the SPP in a nutshell.

Only the corporate elite support this insane and anti-democratic plan. No-one else wants this. We only have to make known what is happening. The public is being kept in the dark because the business "leaders" know, and have said directly, that it would never fly if it were put through Parliament or Congress. That is our strength. All we need to do is to make this issue known. It will die if exposed to the light of day.

Add to this mix the fact that a council of 30 CEO's, the North American Competitiveness Council, will "brief" Parliament and Congress after decisions have been made, and it is no surprise that this is being done in stealth mode. No-one in their right mind - in any of the three nations - would support this; except of course, the head of the biggest corporations, who are pushing it through for the sake of quarterly profits.

Security for whom? Prosperity for whom? This is a Security and Prosperity Partnership of the corporate elite, by the corporate elite, for the corporate elite. We need to be talking about this. This needs to be a major election issue. This needs to be stopped.


For further information see the links below:

Alternative Media Meeting on the SPP

INTEGRATE THIS! Teach-In

Full implementation of corporate rule via the SPP & NACC continues to be pushed ahead...

North American Union: Time to Re-Focus

Fortress North America: Deep Integration in the New Security Environment

Overview: Geopolitics 2006-2008

Time for Action: Canadian politics and the future of Canada as nation

Full implementation of corporate rule via the SPP & NACC continues to be pushed ahead behind closed doors. If you're not sure what the SPP and NACC are, you need to find out. In short, they spell corporate fascism - or corporatism for short:

"Fascism should properly be called corporatism, for it is the merger of business with the state." - Mussolini (a guy who should know)

This is exactly what the SPP and NACC entail. It is the integration not only of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, but more crucially, the dissolution of all three nations' democracies, which are being replaced by one 30-member council of CEO's. Parliament and Congress will be "briefed" after the council of CEO's decides our collective fate. In other words, in the merger of business and the state, it is clearly the business elite that are on top in this consummation.

Sounds unbelievable - but it's happening. It moves us from defacto corporate rule, via a situation of corporate dominance over political processes, the media, culture and the economy, to fully institutionalized and formalized corporate rule. When the full beast is born, it will be nothing less than a fascist state run by the biggest corporations on the continent. Unless you are a big fan of Mussolini, I'd be more than a little concerned.

Fortunately, word is starting to get out. The secret cannot be contained. The back-door putsch will be challenged. This is the beginning of a very great struggle for democracy, for freedom, and for a decent life for all.

Now, let's get this on the election agenda!

There is no single more urgent issue for Canada (or the U.S. or Mexico). You could say that environmental issues, or issues of war and peace, foreign policy, health care or the economy are more urgent issues - but if we allow the SPP and NACC to be fully implemented, we will have zero say in any of these questions or issues, so they'll all be moot. Get it?!

The Security and Prosperity Partnership, signed in March of 2005 by Paul Martin, George Bush and Vicente Fox, has been called "NAFTA on steroids". It would be nice if it was only that bad. But putting aside for a moment the most pressing question about this complete sell-out to corporate rule - the question of whether we prefer fascism to democracy - let's just look at the SPP in light of an expansion of NAFTA, and what that means, for example, for our ability to decide as Canadians what we will do with the world's largest unconventional oil reserves - the tar sands - and our ability to set an independent national energy policy for the sake of environmental sustainability, as well as for the benefit of present and future generations of Canadians.

David Suzuki on the NAFTA trap:
"I think the terrible aspect of Canada is that we don't have a national energy policy that looks to long-term sustainability. We are going to need fossil fuels into the future but we have to develop those resources so we don't use them so rapidly and so we husband them for future generations.

Right now, we're rushing to ship them all to the United States and the free trade agreement says we can't step back.

If we decide, 'oh we're sending too much away, we have to save some for future generations', free trade says we can't do that. We're stuck, basically, providing for the United States. That's what the oil sands project is all about: providing the States with a more dependable source of oil than the Middle East."

And that's what the SPP is all about: securing U.S. corporate access to Canadian tar sands (remember, blood is being spilled for Middle East oil as we speak) and cheap Mexican labour. Prosperity for whom? It is also about "the new security environment." Take a guess what that means.

It is not about keeping terrorists out - the U.S. and Canada already have thousands of miles of unprotected coastline, and "Fortress North America" would not change that. It is about protecting the existing and rapidly concentrating distribution of wealth and power in the hands of the corporate elite - from....the vast majority. Who is the perceived enemy? The populace. The people of Canada, Mexico and the United States. Anyone who is not part of the elite of the business elite, or else is a happy servant of such elites.

"Fortress North America" and "the new security environment" is about locking down power in the face of a rapidly escalating crisis of legitimacy - the kind of crisis of legitimacy that brought down the other evil empire, the Soviet Union and the entire Leninist experiment. Corporate rule (neoliberalism, globalization, corporate monopoly capitalism, or however you prefer to call it) in the U.S., Canada, Mexico and the entire Western world, as well as the broader world, is now in a deep crisis of legitimacy, just as authoritarian Marxist-Leninism was in a deep crisis of legitimacy in 1989.

The objective behind the SPP is to lock down power while it is still possible, while consolidating control over the biggest oil reserves in the hemisphere - the tar sands - and gaining full access to a flood of cheap labour from Mexico. It is the desperate plan of Western corporate powers who see their global dominance being slowly eclipsed by the rising BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and others) and who also see their hold on power in the heartland of the Western empire as frightfully tenuous and under threat by domestic popular discontent. This is why it is a back door putsch: it is coming from a position of weakness. The power elite are scared. If they brought this plan to the light of day, through Congress or Parliament, it wouldn't stand a chance. They know this, and have said so explicitly. It is out of fear and weakness that this is being done in secret, with near total media blackout, behind the backs of Parliament, Congress, and the people of these three nations. If we let it slip through however, it might be more difficult to reverse than we may imagine. And it might be more of a nightmare than we'd care to imagine.

In Canada, it is the Council of Canadians - the grassroots citizen's coalition that killed the MAI before 90% of the populace had even heard of it (there's a sign of hope!) - the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and the Canadian Labour Congress who are leading the fight. See their websites for further information, or look up Vive le Canada, or NotAColony.ca. There is a fast-emerging coalition arising to stop this.

Let's stand up now, or learn to live on our knees. We can start by informing ourselves, and by making this a topic that is discussed from coffee shops to churches to websites and living rooms across the continent. We can start by making this the priority issue that it is.


Rice and Chertoff in Ottawa for SPP Ministers Meeting February 23
Find out what they won't be telling you about North American integration.

INTEGRATE THIS! Teach-In - Ottawa, Canada, March 30 - April 1, 2007

INTEGRATE THIS! A Citizen’s Guide to Fighting Deep Integration

Deep Integration

» Opening up the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
By Stuart Trew, The Hill Times (02/19/2007)

* Secret Banff Meeting of CEOs and the Defense Establishment : Militarization and the Deconstruction of North America

Agenda - North American Forum Sept. 12-14, 2006

Attendees - North American Forum Sept. 12-14, 2006

Fortress North America: Deep Integration in The New Security Environment

North American Union: Time to Re-Focus

Overview: Geopolitics 2006-2008

Time for Action:

Canadian politics and the future of Canada as a nation


The long and the short of it is - I believe - unless we seriously address the macro-economic issues, we will not even have the option of meaningful parliamentary debate, much less effective action via parliament, for parliament will continue to be subsumed under corporate dominance. Whatever concerns or good ideas we may have would then be blocked from implementation, at least within the parliamentary process. We would then be left to plead from the sidelines - or bleat from the sidelines - having failed to tackle corporate rule, and thus having failed to reclaim our democracy and our nation.

I'd like to see the Green Party, the NDP, a new party, or a coalition that is created from elements of the existing parties - based on a shared set of principles, values and goals - address our current socio-economic, political and ecological situation in Canada systematically and boldly.

I'd like to see a party - any party - or a coalition of individuals derived from progressive elements of a number of parties - take on corporate globalism, the crisis of democracy, oil dependency and environmental issues, in a comprehensive, systematic, strategic and courageous manner, with vision and vigour.

This would entail a platform that communicated the realities of our current predicament to Canadians in a straight-forward, no-nonsense way - realities which polls show the great majority of Canadians already understand. And it would require the creation of a vision, a strategy and a platform for addressing these realities in a way that fits the seriousness of these issues, and not in a tepid or piecemeal way.

It would be a platform to take back Canada, to truly "stand up for Canada" (as Harper and the Conservatives promised, but promised insincerely) by reclaiming and renewing authentic democracy, and re-investing in our ability as Canadians to set our own independent social, economic, environmental and foreign policy values, goals and policies.

In order to accomplish this, we would have to form and implement a plan to reduce our economic dependence on the US, in terms of trade and economic policy, and we would have to take a courageous stand against corporate globalization and the defacto corporate rule which has emerged.

We would then, in terms of the details of such a strategy and vision to reclaim our nation, abrogate NAFTA, say no to the FTAA, deep integration and the SPP, gain control of our currency through capital controls and changes to monetary policy with the Bank of Canada, create a Tobin tax to deter financial speculation, repatriate the debt, and restructure our investment policies and regulations.

(For example, we could start by revising our investment policies so that tax credits are given for RRSP's only when the investment is in Canada, in Canadian companies or Canada savings bonds - which would go a long way both to strengthening the economy and toward gaining greater economic and thus political independence, and which also would provide a way to repatriate the debt, thus freeing us from dependency upon and manipulation (economic leverage, or simply blackmail) by international banks and financial institutions.)

A couple of points, at least, need to be realized, acknowledged, and acted upon. 1. Corporate-led globalization is not working for the vast majority - either in Canada or elsewhere in the world, does not benefit the vast majority, and is in fact destroying our social programs, quality of life, environment and democracy. We need to fundamentally re-orient our economic policies and strategy in order to create prosperity with both equity and sustainability. We urgently need to find or create, and to implement, an alternative to corporate globalization. 2. The U.S. economy is a sinking ship. We need to cease immediately our strategy of aligning ourselves ever more deeply with this failed state and empire at eclipse. We need to halt the rapid slide into deep integration with the U.S., and immediately begin to diversify and shift our trade alliances. While the U.S. is sinking economically, Europe, Latin America, India and China are rising fast. If we are intelligent, we will shift our trade and economic alliances in response to these rapidly changing global economic realities.

The EU and the BRIC alliance make far more sense as trade partners now, when the U.S. is in rapid decline, than does the teetering giant to the south. The BRIC alliance - Brazil, Russia, India and China, with many other Latin American and Asian countries joining - is the rising star. Given the choices between closer ties with the U.S. (via NAFTA and the SPP), or the EU and the BRIC alliance, smart money would certainly be on the latter. In fact, the smart money, and most of the big money, is already moving or has moved out of the U.S. We are very slow in the uptake if we as a country do not get this.

In terms of a rejection of corporate globalism, Chavez has shown what a bold approach to macro-economic and social policies can achieve, especially when backed by large oil reserves and the economic and political power that comes with these. There is no reason why Canada could not be even more bold: we hold more oil reserves than Venezuela, and have more resources and greater economic wealth and power than Venezuela.

We should be radically restructuring our tax and subsidy policies with regard to the oil and gas industry in Canada. With the increased tax revenue, we can do far more than has been done in Venezuela, Venezuela having comparably fewer resources and less economic power to work with. With this increased public revenue from the oil and gas industry we can adequately fund, protect and even enhance our social programs, expand dramatically our environmental programs, and get serious about the environmental and social issues we face. More importantly, we can gain and preserve a greater degree of economic, social, cultural and political independence: we can preserve our nation. Presently the Alberta government, presiding over the bulk of the nation's oil reserves, which it claims as its own, is charging an absurd 1% royalty rate on oil extraction. Meanwhile, the federal government actually subsidizes the oil companies, to the tune of multi-billions a year. Is this not just a little ridiculous?

There is no reason to let Exxon take a long straw from Texas and suck out our oil - at least not without the biggest part of the profits going to the Canadian people. Venezuela, under the leadership of Chavez, has increased the windfall profits tax on oil companies, reaping an additional USD $3 billion a year into the public purse. The oil industry in Venezuela now generates about one third of the nation's GDP, and approximately half of all government revenues. This windfall to the public purse is being used to eradicate poverty, fund education and public health care, and, in short, lift the quality of life for all people in the country. In Bolivia, President Evo Morales simply turned the profit distribution for the oil industry on its head. Before, oil companies took 80% of the profits, while 20% of the profits went to the people of Bolivia. Now the people of Bolivia get 80% of the profits, and the oil companies are happy to receive 20%. Are the oil companies leaving en masse? Of course not. They want the oil, and they can still make a hefty profit. The countries with oil have the upper hand. They can either concede to essentially giving away their oil, or they can insist that the bulk of the profits go to the people of the country, while leaving room for ample - though not extortionist - oil company profits. The difference is one of fair trade versus economic predation.

Who's oil is it anyway? The trans-national oil companies certainly have less of a legitimate claim to it than do the people of the country. The oil companies can still invest, operate, extract, and make a profit. They simply can't make a killing. If we had a party or a coalition that showed real leadership, this one act of socializing the oil industry - not expropriating it, but making 80% of the oil profits go to the Canadian people, and not the global oil companies - would make a dramatic difference in the lives of the Canadian people, and in this country. For one, there would be no crisis in our social programs - they would be amply funded. And not incidentally, a significant portion of the multi-billion dollar a year windfall to public coffers could go to investing in renewable energy and conservation. We give our oil away, and neither the environment nor the people of Canada benefit. How sensible is this?

Meanwhile, to site just one example:

"In 2005, Exxon reported third-quarter profits of $9.92 billion, 75% higher than its third-quarter earnings in 2004, and the largest quarterly profit ever reported by a US company.

"Exxon is reportedly giving its retiring chairman, Lee Raymond, a package worth nearly $400 million, in combined pension, stock options and other perks, including a $1 million consulting deal, the use of a corporate jet for professional purposes, 2 years of home security, and a car and driver.

"While testifying at a Congressional hearing last November, Raymond claimed that high gas prices were a result of supply and demand. "We're all in this together," he told members of Congress, "everywhere in the world."

""In 2004, Mr. Raymond," Senator, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), was quick to point out, "your bonus was over $3.6 million."

"After exhibiting a chart revealing the pay scale for each of the CEOs at the hearing, Senator Boxer told the oil executives: "Your sacrifice appears to be nothing."

"According to Exxon's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Raymond's paycheck rose to $51.1 million in 2005."

- Evelyn Pringle, Will Big Oil Destroy the US Economy?

As with our oil industry, we are still currently shipping our forestry products out of the country with relatively little gained for the Canadian people. This is 19th century colonial thinking. We should immediately increase stumpage fees levied upon forestry corporations, and re-invest the money back into the forestry industry, supporting the growth of valued-added industries that take the raw logs and pulp, and turn them into high-value products for export. A log shipped to China is a gross waste of Canadian resources, and shipping lumber to the U.S. is little better. We can tax the rapacious cutting of our forests by big forestry companies, and feed the creation and support of value-added industries and sustained-yield ecological forestry in this country, thus creating a surge in jobs and tax dollars while preserving the long-term economic viability of the forestry industry and the ecological base which it rests upon. Instead of shipping logs, lumber and pulp, we would then be shipping furniture, musical instruments and other high value products, increasing our positive trade balance and public revenues enormously while protecting the forests from a senseless hack and slash model in the tunnel-visioned and myopic pursuit of short-term economic gain. Simply by making an intelligent shift in economic strategy with regard to these two giant industries - oil and forestry - we can bring profound and far-reaching benefit to the people of Canada. What we need is a bold approach that does not flinch when the corporate lobby flexes its muscle. Sorry MacBlo and Syncrude. The people of Canada come first.

Just as we need urgently to shift our international trade and economic strategies - away from reliance on and integration with the sinking U.S. empire, and away from excessive dependency upon and vulnerability to trans-national capital and international financial markets and institutions - we need to dramatically shift our economic policies and strategy domestically, at home.

We need to shift our basic macro-economic strategy: away from one of catering to big corporations, especially foreign-based multi-nationals, for whom we presently bend over obligingly, and whom we subsidize with massive tax breaks as well as direct and indirect subsidies; and toward funding and giving tax breaks to small and medium size businesses, the poor and the middle class. Small business is the engine of economic growth, the backbone of the economy, and the primary employer in the country, as elsewhere - as is widely acknowledged. It makes no sense to subsidize big corporations and tax small business to death. What makes sense is to reverse this pattern, reign in the corporate giants who now dominate the political process and receive huge tax breaks, and support small business. This would strengthen the economy, create jobs, increase our economic and political independence and sovereignty, and provide a functional, viable and prosperous, as well as more equitable alternative to corporate-dominated globalization.

***

Who would benefit from such a platform? Small and medium business, the poor, the middle class, students, children, the elderly - in short, the vast majority of Canadians. Who could we seek to support such a platform to truly "stand up for Canada"? The grassroots right - who voted in Harper and the Conservatives on the promise to stand up for Canada, who want tax cuts for the middle class, the poor and small business, who want a revitalized democracy, who want a strong economy and good jobs - and many authentic conservatives, who are not happy with the sell-out of the country to big business, financial institutions and foreign governments (ie: the U.S.). The left and centre, who want prosperity with equity, protection for and enhancement of social programs, expansion of environmental programs, a reduction of taxes on the poor and middle class, an alternative to corporate globalization - which 70% of Canadians say is not working in the public interest - and a preservation of our cultural, political and economic sovereignty. In short, across the political spectrum, support can be expected, if the platform is sufficiently bold and inspiring, and is communicated clearly enough.

There is no party currently offering such a platform or vision, no party that currently offers anything resembling a bold and inspiring vision for Canada. Should a party or coalition decide to offer such a vision, there could be a landslide of popular support that rises up in response. This is what I'd like to see happen.

If Chavez, Morales and Kirchner, in Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina, can show leadership in throwing off the gross failure which is neo-liberalism, can assert authentic democracy in the face of decades of history with fascist regimes, imperial aggression and U.S.-backed coups, and present a viable, dynamic, moving, inspiring, wildly popular movement and vision for independence, solidarity and justice, what can we do in Canada with even more resources and economic strength at our disposal?

Sitting on the world's largest oil reserves - the tar sands - and with one of the world's resource-richest nations, one of the biggest economies in the world, a highly educated and literate populace and skilled and educated workforce, an infrastructure and technological base that has few rivals, and a history of social justice and peace that, while imperfect, is strong and runs deep, we in Canada are in a position not just to bemoan the social, economic, political and environmental difficulties that we face, but to take the lead. We can become the junior partner to a dying empire, and slide further into neo-fascist corporate rule, or we can break out of the mold, find solidarity with Europe and Latin America, as well the fast-rising star of India (the world's largest democracy, home to the world's largest middle class, with an economy that is set to out-pace China's in economic growth this year), and set a course for economic and socio-political independence, in solidarity with other nations that are sick and tired of imperial power games.

It is a choice that we are going to face rather soon, and with increasing urgency, for the realities of deep integration with what has become a fascist state - the Security and Prosperity Partnership with the United States - are about to hit us. We had better awaken from the American dream now. This dream is becoming a nightmare. We need to chart a new course - our own course. A Canadian course.

***

The initiatives outlined above are not in themselves sufficient to remedy our social or environmental problems, but they are a necessary first step. If we do not take serious action now, we will only see the further unraveling of our democracy, the further drift into full-fledged neo-fascist corporate rule, the further destruction of our social programs, and the further destruction of the environment. If we care about any of these things, if we care about having or creating a just society, a peaceful society, a sustainable society, or even a society where the quality of life for all is preserved and enhanced, rather than undermined, then we need to take serious steps to renounce corporate globalism and corporate rule, and to reclaim our democracy and our sovereignty. Piece meal efforts will not do. We must now boldly present and act upon a plan to reverse the dominance of the trans-national corporations over our economy and political process. We must regain control of our currency, economy and parliaments. If we do not, then our fine words and nice ideas will go nowhere. If we do not regain control of the helm, then we are a drifting ship of fools, and our pious words are all in vain.

If none of the political parties can take the necessary steps and do what needs to be done, then they should announce themselves as irrelevant, and close up shop. My hope is, however, that the Canadian people can create the movement necessary to get one of the political parties, a new party, or perhaps a coalition that is created from members of all parties, to step up to the plate and get the job done. However it gets done, we need to act now. Time is running out on our sovereignty, our democracy, even our existence as a nation. Time for action.

***

Now that it is outlined, as to what needs to be done, the question that remains is one of strategy: how do we do it? Political strategy in the era of corporate dominance of the political process, the media and the economy is a tricky question. When most political parties are indebted to big business for the funds that get them elected, when the mass media is either directly owned or else controlled by corporations - via dependency on corporate advertising money - the political process becomes mired in the politics of vested interest, democracy is in crisis, and even public debate and discussion is largely quashed. Creating a popular movement for bold and progressive social change requires communicating a vision that will rally popular support and empower collective action. But the means of communication are locked up by corporate controlled media, who have no interest in changing the status quo. Any movement, party or coalition that seeks to create an alternative to corporate rule, that seeks to reclaim, renew and revitalize genuine democracy, will no doubt meet with bad press, or no press, given the present media environment. Thus, in order to reach out to the people, the newest and the oldest of tools for political mobilization will be required: the internet and the street. To reach out to the people with a bold and inspiring vision, to even begin to form a movement for creative action and positive social change, will require the use of the new town hall - the web - and the old town hall - the face-to-face meetings that used to be the staple of politics, before the electronic age. In the age of mass-media electoral politics, the new medium of the internet is often overlooked, and the old medium of town hall-style public meetings is forgotten. But this is where the movement will begin. This is where it will succeed or fail.

In order to accomplish the goals of reclaiming our democracy, protecting our sovereignty, our social programs and our environment; to create a just and sustainable society, and to preserve and enhance the quality of life for all, it will be necessary to make a few simple but crucial steps. The above outline of a platform can be taken as a starting point for creating a vision. Without a vision there is no inspiration, and therefore no action. A small group of activists - ordinary individuals - can take the initiative. From there, the enlistment of support from a few prominent Canadians will do to encourage more involvement and get the ball rolling. After that, it is a matter of old-fashioned political organizing - from the grassroots up. Go to the people, city by city, town by town, hold public meetings in libraries and churches, schools and union halls, universities and workplaces, and utilize the internet to its fullest capacity to compliment the face-to-face engagement of citizens. From there, it is a matter of either forming a new party from this emerging grassroots movement, getting an existing party to find the courage to take on the challenge, or forming a coalition from members of existing parties as well as ordinary Canadians to take the movement to the next level: implementation.

The path is hard, but the time is ripe. The political landscape has, in some ways, never been more ready for such a groundswell of change. There is an opening now. And there is a need. The urgency is almost ear-shattering. The longing for meaningful, clear-headed, good-hearted change is almost palpable. The movement that can fill this need - recognize the opportunity and act to create the flow through that opening - is going to meet with resounding success. It is now that we must dispense with pious hand-wringing and defeatist pessimism. There is always more day to dawn. The time is ripe, the moment is now. Let us begin.

JTR

January 24, 2007

Time for Action: Canadian politics and the future of Canada as nation



The Sinking U.S. Economy:
Poor Choice for an Economic Partner in the 21st Century

America's Unsustainable Current Account Deficit

* The Dollar's Full-System Meltdown

Economic " Armageddon " Predicted

Dollar Catching Asian Flu - Asia Times

Arab central banks sell dollar

As Dollar Plunges, Watch for US Government Bonds Sell -off - DEBKAfile –

The War To Save The U.S. Dollar - Trinicenter.com –

Fears for dollar as central banks sell US assets

BBC NEWS | Business | Is the global economy set for trouble?

Collapse of the Petrodollar Looming

Iranian Oil Bourse Opens for Business: A Final Step Toward US Dollar Collapse & Preemptive Nuclear Strike

Deep Integration & the SPP:

* Secret Banff Meeting of CEOs and the Defense Establishment : Militarization and the Deconstruction of North America

CBC - Top secret: Banff security meeting attracted U.S., Mexico officials

* CNN Video: Lou Dobbs Slams CFR & North American Union

*** De Facto North American Government in the Making: "Canadians must take back Canada"

Deep Integration - The Council of Canadians

* North American Union/Testimony, Publications and Reports - SourceWatch

*** Paul Martin's Big Texas Adventure

Fascism in America:

*** Habeas Corpus Your words are lies Sir - YouTube - olbermann 10-18-06

***Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (12/15 - 2006)

General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution

Air Force chief : Test weapons on testy US mobs - Sep 12 ...

Ten Minutes to Midnight: The Emerging Police State - Z Store

Fascism watch

War on Terrorism Watch: CAUT Resource Website - Home Page

The Guardian article, "This war on terrorism is bogus: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination"