Most revealing among the group is William Weld, a stereotypical Establishment Republican: socially well-heeled, wealthy, Anglo-American, Episcopalian, and socially liberal, in the mold of Nelson Rockefeller. A former prosecutor under the Reagan administration and Governor of Massachusetts, Weld authored an op-ed, “North America the Beautiful,” in the Wall Street Journal of March 23, 2005, advocating a North American Union, and coached Bush during his 2004 debates against John Kerry. He helped steer the judicial structure of Massachusetts in a pro-gay marriage direction through his appointment of African National Congress-linked Margaret Marshall, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court (the ANC is a member of the Socialist International). Weld himself also moonlights as a gay marriage celebrant, and offers his services pro bono to the Log Cabin Republicans.
Weld endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, and was internationalist President Bill Clinton’s nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Mexico in 1996. Then-Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) courageously blocked Weld’s nomination because of his pervasive liberal stances, as reported by "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer":
Senator Helms does not like what this governor stands for when it comes to drug policy, doesn’t think it’s appropriate to have [as] the United States ambassador to Mexico, where we have one of the biggest problems, that is, the importation of drugs from Mexico, a man who is more than soft on drugs. He [Weld] is a libertarian on drug use, believes that drugs should be de-criminalized or legalized.
His record as a United States attorney ranked him, I think, in the bottom two or three when it came to drug prosecutions, so his personal philosophy on drugs carried over to his official duties, so it’s argued. On top of that, conservatives in the Republican Party would be displeased to see a man like Governor Weld [as U.S. Ambassador to Mexico], who has been so in-your-face about his views compared to those of what Republicans like to think of as their mainstream conservative views.
Helms, notably a good friend of Rep. Larry McDonald (D-Ga.), was the only senator to open an inquiry into the Soviet shoot-down of KAL Flight 007, which claimed the life of McDonald, who was formerly the Chairman of The John Birch Society.
Not surprisingly, Weld’s comrade, Governor Paul Cellucci (R-Mass.), also a social liberal in the Weld form, is another advocate of the North American Union. In a 2006 speech before the Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute, Cellucci argued for North American economic integration and the inevitable supranational entity it would create:
Incrementally, we will continue to integrate our economies because I believe it is in each of our national interests to do so. And along the way, I think we’ll do a couple of things and I think that, well more than a couple of things, but ... I think we’ll ... 10 years from now, or maybe 15 years from now we’re going to look back and have a union in everything but name.
It is this philosophy of government which provides a theoretical foundation for those who advocate a North American Union, which will seek to impose such socialistic policies. Rather than American ideals of limited government leading the way, neo-socialist Red Tory ideals of social democracy will provide the building blocks of such a regional entity.
A Socialist North American Union
Aside from the near-socialistic policies revered by Segal and Bush masquerading as “conservatism,” avowed socialists, too, have been proponents of a North American Union (although, the fact that the NAU effort is being led by leftists masquerading as conservatives is deeply revealing, and serves to deceive the American people).
For instance, former Rep. David Bonior (D-Mich.) has been another leading advocate for the NAU, and his record shows his leftist tendencies. Bonior founded the American Rights at Work union advocacy group, and was honored by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in December 2008 for his policies. Unsurprisingly, he was also appointed to President Obama’s Economic Advisory Transition Team, and was previously a keynote speaker at DSA’s annual convention in 2003, where he spoke on the virtues and merits of a North American Parliamentary Union:
NAPU — short for North American Parliamentary Union — is an attempt to create a structure where there is wider participation in this decision-making. It would be a democratic structure to enfranchise all citizens in the NAFTA countries. A North America Parliament, with Mexico, Canada and the United States, with people — probably first appointed, but eventually elected like they are in the European Parliament — so we can begin to raise these issues of human rights, civil rights and labor rights and immigration, which never get talked about here.
Another prominent socialist advocate for the NAU is Stewart Alexander, former U.S. Socialist Party Vice Presidential candidate in 2008, who proposed a common U.S.-Mexican currency (i.e., the Amero that is being planned as a common currency for the North American Union, similar to the Euro), as well as a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) for working people on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border.
To accomplish his goal, Stewart Alexander says it will be necessary to restructure the entire banking industry: All banking and financial institutions would be socially owned, and operated by a North American Banking Authority that would be democratically controlled.
Yet another such advocate is former Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Jorge Castaneda Gutman, previously a leader in the Mexican Communist Party. An advocate of social democracy, he who wrote the following glowing approbation for the NAU:
Well, my sense is that we’re moving closer and closer to forms of economic integration with the United States and Canada and conceivably Central America and Caribbean could become part of that in the coming years. I don’t see Mexico as a Latin American country. Too much of trade, investment, tourism, immigration, remittances, absolutely everything is concentrated exclusively with the United States. So, Mexico has to be part of a North American community, a North American union, which at some point probably should include some type of monetary union along European lines with a free flow of labor, with energy being on the table, etc.
Castaneda is also best known for his stealth work advocating the deceptive, nuanced principles of Eurocommunism as a means of accomplishing subtle, stealthy communist revolution. In his 1993 book Utopia Unarmed: The Latin American Left After the Cold War, Castaneda argues that in order for communism to succeed in the 21st century, it must shed its former image of street revolution and totalitarian violence in favor of more palatable mechanisms of communist change, including new social movements, transnational governments, elections, and the same principles identified by Segal, such as social democracy. Castaneda, incidentally, has co-authored several books with Professor Robert Pastor, who is considered the father of the North American Union.
Whether the NAU is publicly advocated by Republican neoconservatives or outright Democratic Socialists, history demonstrates that those who favor such transnational, regionalized governments are also advocates of an expansive government, the welfare state, and nationalized industry.
Interestingly, history demonstrates that regional governments along the lines of the North American Union, the African Union, and the European Union have been long-desired goals of the communists: If national borders are eradicated, and nations consolidated into continental blocs, than the goal of a one-world government is more easily attained. Morris Zeitlin, a writer for the Communist Party USA’s Daily World, observed in a 1975 editorial:
Planning is Socialism’s trademark. The USA has no regional government and no comprehensive regional planning to speak of. In socialist countries, metropolitan regions enjoy metropolitan regional government and comprehensive planning. The economic and functional efficiencies and the social benefits that comprehensive national, regional and city planning make possible in socialist society explain the Soviet Union’s enormous and rapid economic social progress.
Likewise, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev on March 23, 2000, in London, referred to the European Union (EU) as "the New European Soviet.” KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, in his book New Lies for Old, revealed that the creation of a European Parliament would result in a neutered, socialist Europe, and former British intelligence officer Christopher Story properly identified the communizing aim of the European Union in his exposé, The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States.
The North American Union would be yet another collective regional government, a new North American Soviet, that would clearly be the enemy of United States sovereignty. (NAU proponent Segal’s damning critique of the very foundations of the United States are a clear example of this phenomenon at play.)
Unsurprisingly, it is a coalition of overt socialists and leftists masquerading as conservatives that is leading the drive toward the North American Union, as evident in the latest push for continental integration being led by all shades of faux conservatives — the Red Tory “progressive conservative” Hugh Segal, moderate Republicans William Weld and Paul Cellucci, and “compassionate conservative” George W. Bush, all of whom are ideological peas in a pod.
Related article: Internationalists Renew Call for a North American Union