No products in the cart.


Shock: CNN Editorial Calls for a North American Union


This article comes from the


Why we need a North American Passport … The future success of North America depends partly on how the U.S., Canada and Mexico work together … The future of the United States lies in North America. This is not a geographic truism, but a strategic imperative. Generations of Americans, distracted by far-flung crises, have long taken our own region for granted. This must change if the 21st century is to be an American century. – CNN

Dominant Social Theme: It is very important for everyone to get together everywhere all the time.

Free-Market Analysis: Is the campaign for a North American Union officially underway with this editorial appearing in CNN?

Certainly conspiracy theorists might be justified in thinking so.

For years, more than a decade, some have suspected that powerful bureaucracies in North America – especially in Washington – might seek to combine Mexico, the US and Canada into a single super-state.

This was always greeted with howls of contempt by those in the mainstream media, especially in the liberal congregation, who knew better. There was no need, no possibility, that Canada, Mexico and the US would ever form a single trading – and perhaps political – union in the manner of the EU.

But here we go. Those derisive hoots are now drowned out by the reality of what this editorial proposes.


The United States, Canada and Mexico are bound by a shared economic, environmental, demographic and cultural destiny. How we move forward together is key to our success.

In recognition of our shared destiny, the three countries should create a North American passport that would, over time, allow their citizens to travel, work, invest, learn and innovate anywhere in North America.

Work, tourist and student visas are necessities in the modern world to regulate the flow of people between sovereign states. In the North American context, much like within the European Union, our economies and societies are far more integrated than our immigration system recognizes – and a North American passport, much like the EU passport, would align our laws with reality.

Such a move would provide a dramatic break from Washington’s historical negligence of its “near abroad,” which stems from a rare luxury. In contrast to other major continental powers through the centuries, the United States has not had to worry much about its neighbors and devote the bulk of its military resources to protecting its borders.

… A North American passport would reflect the unique relationship and shared interests among our nations. In the face of growing competition from rising powers elsewhere in the world, simply taking our geography for granted and focusing our attention elsewhere is no longer a viable option.

Read more here.



Shorty Dawkins



  1. “Is the campaign for a North American Union…”

    It matters not, because those who SERVE within our governments are there to carry out specific listed duties, and not given the authority to do anything else.

    I do realize that treason and * terrorism has been carried out by them against the American people, but that does not mean we will “just give our nation, our legitimate government away.

    What it does mean is that we must start working against the traitors and domestic enemies, work faster to let those who are to “dumbed down” to understand that breaking their Oath makes THEM a felon and teach them the US Constitution so that they can do the LAWFUL duty not assigned to them – assigned to the Militia – whose duties they are currently supposed to be performing. We must start pressing charges, nullifying, removing judges by a *Grand Jury when they do not use **”Good Behaviour” as required in the courtrooms; change our elections to NO machines, ALL vote counts done in public but protected and under video within OUR nation by American citizens, dump parties – it IS OUR government – and use prior and stand on issues to vote (plus NO attorneys/lawyers/judges/etc allowed to run for office until they actually start using the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it as the supreme LAW it is in OUR nation, plus each state Constitution as the highest LAW of the state as they are – no foreign laws, no laws from entities like the UN, etc).

    * Justice Antonin Scalia:

    “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

    “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior)

    “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

    “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

    “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

    “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

    The concept is that “Good Behaviour” allows for the opposite, “bad behavior” or misbehavior. This is backed up historically by a debate John Adams had with William Brattle about the ‘tenure of judges’. At the end of the debate both men agreed that if a judge was appointed during good behavior, then he could also be removed by using “bad behavior”. But this removal was only after receiving a “hearing and trial, and an opportunity to defend himself before a fuller board, knowing his accuser and accusation”.

    The judge(s) whose behavior was in question would get a trial by jury made up of the people making that decision. Accountability through the “Good Behaviour” standard is critical to the continued freedom and independence of the USA; and keeping judges to the US Constitution instead of to factions, lobbyists, or to the different branches of government. It is the people as the jury who makes that decision of guilt or innocence of the judge regarding their behavior after being presented with the facts, not those who are serving within the 3 branches of the federal government or those serving within the state governments.

    And the 1790 Crimes Act which provided that a judge convicted of taking a bribe would, by virtue of the conviction, be “forever . . . disqualified to hold any office of honour, trust or profit under the United States.” That conviction would deprive the judge of life tenure of the office being occupied. This falls under the “Good Behaviour” tenure.

    Justice Antonin Scalia: “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Good Behaviour” tenure) Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

    Papers of John Adams: “The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people and every blessing of society, depends so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that. The Judges therefore should always be men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependant upon any man or body of men. To these ends they should hold estates for life in their offices, or in other words their commissions should be during good behaviour, and their salaries ascertained and established by law. For misbehaviour the grand inquest of the Colony, the House of Representatives, should impeach them before the Governor and Council, where they should have time and opportunity to make their defence, but if convicted should be removed from their offices, and subjected to such other punishment as shall be thought proper.”

    ** US Constitution, Article III, Section 1: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

    ** James Madison, Federalist 39: “According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.”

    ** Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 on the Oaths, and how the duties assigned to the judicial branch must be carried out: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution…”

  2. Expanding our ability to freely travel would be fantastic! However, becoming beholden to yet a greater number of far away ideas and ideologies, subjected to yet more rules and restrictions, and forced to pay for yet even more of the mistakes of others… Not so much. Its unfathomable how anyone views expansion of this system will benefit our way of life and hold true to our values and founding principles. Historic revision or not, a North American union shouldn’t even be a twinkle in anyone’s eye.

  3. To everyone that ever called someone that talked about the North American Union or a One World Govt. as part of the so called “New World Order” a… “Tin Foil Hat wearing Conspiracy Theorist” WILL YOU LISTEN NOW? Or are you going to continue claiming you are a patriotic American while you have your head in the sand and your butt in the air?

Comments are closed.