We encourage everyone to read the articles thoroughly and to distribute them widely.
The stated target for full implementation of the North American Union is 2010.
Here are some of the facts:
In 2002, Mexico” President Vicente Fox declared: "Our long-range objective is to establish with the United States ... an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union …The new framework we wish to construct is inspired in the example of the European Union."
America, the principal force behind NAFTA, immediately got
behind the North American Union. Robert Bartley, editorial
page editor of The Wall Street Journal, declared the
President of Mexico a "visionary." Bartley wrote, "He (Fox)
can rest assured that there is one voice north of the
Rio Grande that supports his vision ... this newspaper."
In August of 2006, Dr. Robert Pastor, vice chair of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on North America, appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Pastor called for a merger of the United States, Mexico and Canada. Pastor said it would be called the North American Union and that it would extend from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska to Guatemala, with no borders in between.
In September of 2006, political, corporate and financial elite from the three countries met secretly in Canada to further develop the vision of the North American Union.
However, thanks to Judicial Watch, who filed a FOIA request and succeeded in obtaining written documents from that meeting, the People have learned more about the status of the plans to develop the North American Union, who attended the meeting and the desires of the group to evolve the NAU as much as possible by “stealth.”
According to WorldNetDaily.com (North American Activists Plotted Stealth Strategy, January 30, 2007), “Participants in a high-level, closed door, three-day conference on the integration of the three North American nations debated whether openness about goals was preferred to a stealthy policy of building infrastructure before a vision of the end result was even laid out to the people of the U.S., Mexico and Canada, according to notes obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.”
Quoting WorldNetDailey.com, “At least one attendee of the conference said the meeting was intended to subvert the democratic process. Mel Hurtig, a Canadian author and publisher elected as the leader of the National Party of Canada, told WND last fall the idea of the North American Forum is to move the countries toward integration without public consent or even knowledge.
sinister about this meeting is that it involved high level
government officials and some of the top and most powerful
business leaders of the three countries and the North
American Forum in organizing the meeting intentionally did
not inform the press in any of the three countries," he
said. "It was clear that the intention was to keep this
important meeting about integrating the three countries out
of the public eye."
Sovereign nature of the People, the several states, and the
political entity known as the
United States of America
cannot be altered without a constitutional amendment. In
fact, it can be forcefully argued that our Constitution, as
adopted, prohibits altogether the type of Union being
slowly imposed upon us through means of stealth and
deception by those that control and influence our
The founding fathers knew our Constitution, with its Bill of Rights, would not be able to defend itself when the day came, such as now, when the Government would turn a blind eye to the Constitution, seeing only its own, self-serving agenda and interests.
To enable us, We, the People, to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution, the founders included the “capstone Right”– the individual Right that allows the People to enforce the Constitution when the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of the Government of the United States refuse to do so.
capstone Right is in the Bill of Rights. It’s the fifth of
the five Rights guaranteed by the First Amendment: Congress
shall make no law…abridging… the Right of the People…to
Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances.”
First, upon injury or threat of injury by the Government, the People are to draft and serve the Government with a written Petition for Redress of their Grievances. The People may rightfully Petition when Government threatens abuse of its limited, delegated authority or when it otherwise fails to function according to the Constitution.
Second, the Government is then required, as a servant and creation of the People, and by the legal nature of the Right of Petition, to respond to the Petition for Redress of Grievances.
the Government refuses to respond or to provide Redress as
demanded in the Petition, the People possess the lawful
authority to withdraw their financial support from the
Government until it provides Redress to the People.
In fact, we believe this Right of Petition is so powerful and constitutionally entrenched that the Internal Revenue Service is prohibited by the Constitution from enforcing the Internal Revenue laws against those rightfully claiming and exercising the Right (note: this specific legal issue is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington DC. See the lawsuit Information Center for We The People vs. The United States Government).
Of course, the People always retain as a final measure, the Right to claim and exercise their Rights under the Second Amendment if the First Amendment fails to peaceably procure the relief the People are entitled to.
urgency of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
current invasion of illegal immigrants and the stealthy rush
to create a North American Union, We, the People have a duty
to perform in defense of our Constitutional Republic and
Rule of Law.
The Petition For Redress
take the first step. We, the People must Petition the United
States Government for Redress of Grievances regarding the
North American Union.
It will be served on every member of Congress and the President by March 15, 2007. The more signatures the better.
transmittal letter will be served along with each Petition.
The letter will state that the on March 30, 2007, the People
will assemble at Lafayette Park opposite the White House at
1 p.m., to await the response from the President and the
Congress. The letter will warn the President and the
Congress that should they fail in their constitutional
obligation to provide a responsive response to the Petition
for Redress, the People will not be filing tax returns for
2006 and will retain their money until their Grievances are
The People, By
Right And By Law,
There is absolutely nothing in American history or Jurisprudence that contradicts this interpretation of the meaning of the capstone Right. For instance, no court has ever declared the meaning of the capstone Right; because its meaning was well understood, and there is ample documentary evidence supporting our interpretation
In fact, the essence of the Natural Right of Men over their servant governments was first expressed in writing as part of Magna Carta, signed June 15, 1215. This written document established the basis of Law for Western Civilization as man struggled out of the Dark Ages. It was this agreement, between the governed, and their servant governors, that enumerated the Natural Rights of man and the Obligations of the Government. These principles of governance withstood the test of centuries of war, progress and enlightenment, eventually becoming embodied, and soundly restated in America’s founding documents.
In short, the Rights enumerated in Magna Carta formed the very foundation of our modern systems of Law, Justice, Property, Labor, and Security. Magna Carta was the first instrument of written Law to proclaim the Natural Rights of Man, including popular sovereignty and government based on the consent of the governed.
For instance, Section 61 of the Magna Carta states the following:
“If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.”
Section 61 of the Magna Carta, in effect, recognizes and provides for the Natural and inherent Right of the People to physically attack and seize, if necessary, the officers and property of the Government in order to secure Redress against the Government’s transgressions upon the Rights of the People should the Government fail to respond to the People’s Petitions in forty days.
in part, articulates the Right of the People to Petition
their Government for Redress of Grievances and to use
violent force, if necessary, to secure such Redress.
Thomas Jefferson wrote,
"The privilege of giving or withholding our moneys is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession for redress of grievances and establishment of rights, and how improvident would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator." See Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225.
Our Declaration of Independence provides additional clarification of the meaning to the importance of the capstone Right, stating,
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by with repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is thus unfit to be the ruler of a free people….”
The preamble to the Bill of Rights states:
In the end,
the solution is profound, simple, and available BY LAW to
EVERY INDIVIDUAL citizen of the
United States of America:
This is the
solution provided by our Founders. It is simple. It is
non-violent. It is designed to confront and resolve
government oppression or dereliction of duty.
crucial to remember that although the immigration and North
American Union issues may facially appear to be political
in nature, they are more accurately “constitutional
torts” -- i.e., the direct result of the Government’s
failure to honor and defend the Constitution.
Our political parties and their designees are far too beholden to political, corporate and financial interests to act in the People’s interest. These forces of corruption and influence are so strong that they have induced the Government -- the servant of the People -- to abandon the People’s Rule Book, the Constitution of the United States of America.
At the end of the day it is We, the People who must take personal responsibility for the protection, preservation, and enhancement of the individual, unalienable Rights endowed by the Creator and guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Constitution cannot defend itself. That IS the responsibility of the beneficiaries of its inherent blessings.
Please join us in claiming and exercising the Right to Petition the Government for a Redress (Remedy) of the Grievances attendant upon the invasion of illegal immigrants and the proposed North American Union.
The attention of anyone wishing to know more about the Rights of the People and the Obligations of the Government under the capstone Right is invited to the legal briefs currently before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of We The People v United States ( Click here), and the only Law Review Articles ever published on the subject (Click here).