The bills of the North American Union are already ready: when will they bring down the dollar? Amero and the plan to create a North American union in the wake of the crisis Amero is a new currency.

Recession 1990–1991 led to the need for restoration economic growth. In Washington, both Republicans and Democrats saw globalization, the removal of trade barriers, and market deregulation as the surest path to growth. national economy and creating jobs for Americans. In an effort to set an example, George HW Bush agreed with Canada and Mexico to sign the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Although some political observers saw the move as a harbinger of a North American political union, President Bush made it clear that none of the three member countries intended to join a political union like the EU. Their aspirations were strictly limited to the creation of a commercial zone for the development of mutually beneficial economic relations.

Energy policy in NAFTA was at the forefront from the very beginning, but it focused on traditional energy sources - coal, oil, natural gas and uranium - and this was understandable, at least from the US position. Canada in the north was the world's sixth-largest oil producer, and Mexico in the south was seventh. It is clear that the United States, sandwiched between the world's two leading oil producers, wanted to use NAFTA as a tool to ensure its energy security.

Few people know among US citizens that Canada is the country's largest oil supplier, accounting for 21% of total US oil imports. Canada also has the second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. In addition, it covers 90% of US natural gas imports (or 15% of US gas consumption). It also contains the world's largest uranium deposits, and in 2008 Canada was the leading producer of uranium, accounting for 20% of global production. A third of the uranium used in American nuclear power plants is of Canadian origin. Finally, Canada and the United States have an interconnected electricity system. All this makes the northern neighbor an indispensable element of the economic well-being of the United States and its most important trading partner.

More and more Canadians, however, are asking whether NAFTA is making their country a valuable partner or a useful appendage of the United States. Many are strongly opposed to strengthening NAFTA, believing that Canada has already assimilated into a more large economy The United States is losing its political sovereignty along the way. Canadians are also concerned that participation in NAFTA means following a dominant American ideology that is often at odds with Canada's deep cultural and social values. They fear that the new “continentalism” is simply a shorthand name for the process of erasing the border along the 49th parallel. In short, they suspect that NAFTA is nothing more than a façade for high-tech, 21st-century American colonialism aimed at seizing Canada's rich resources and remaking its citizens in American ways.

Opponents of the "blind person" approach to continentalism are concerned about Canada's growing dependence on exports to the United States (currently 73% of Canadian exports go south) and the possibility of commercial and political terms being imposed on it at the discretion of the United States. This is why Canadian critics of NAFTA insist on trade, investment and tax policy which encourages development domestic market and foreign trade, on reforms aimed at protecting Canadian industries from American protectionism, and on taking steps to correct existing trade imbalances between Canada and the United States.

While public attention has focused on the pros and cons of NAFTA, over the past two decades there has been growing interest in a different type of political overhaul that could potentially reshape political map North America. As former Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy noted, in the 1990s. We have witnessed the emergence of a web of regional cross-border intracontinental networks. In the United States, as a result of traditional independence, states enter into their own economic agreements with virtually no restrictions. During the 1990s. border states and Canadian provinces have significantly strengthened their ties. In 1999, the then Premier of Ontario, in an address to the governors of Canada's neighboring states, said: "We do see you as very strong allies, much stronger than many parts of Canada, something more significant than perhaps my national government". Cross-border commercial relationships have been developing for decades.

Closer commercial ties lead to stronger political ties. Regional coalitions of American governors and Canadian provincial premiers, which now exist across border areas from coast to coast, promote the integration of commercial and environmental agendas. In fact, the political integration of the Northeastern, upper Midwestern, and Pacific Coast states with the Canadian provinces began in many ways to replace the traditional political ties that each territorial entity had within its own country.

The New England Conference of Governors and Premiers of the Eastern Provinces of Canada, established in 1973, is increasingly becoming a regional, transnational structure. The conference includes six American states and five Canadian provinces: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Governors and prime ministers meet annually to discuss issues of common interest. Between these summits the conference organizes meetings officials states and provinces to address current issues, conducts seminars and conducts research on issues of regional importance. Achievements of the conference include “expansion economic ties between states and provinces; encouraging energy exchange; active implementation of protection policy environment and environmentally sustainable development; coordinating numerous programs in areas such as transport, forestry management, tourism, small-scale agriculture and fisheries."

Another transnational political region, similar in nature to the New England Conference of Governors and Premiers of the Eastern Provinces of Canada, exists in the Pacific Northwest. It is made up of the provinces of British Columbia, the province of Alberta, the Yukon Territory, the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska. Created in 1991, the mission of the Pacific Northwest Economic Region is to “improve the economic well-being and standard of living of all residents of the region.”

No less active than its eastern counterpart, the Pacific Northwest economic region tries to harmonize approaches and programs in the areas Agriculture, environmental technologies, forestry, public procurement, waste treatment, telecommunications, tourism, trade and finance, as well as transport. The organization's subcommittees oversee the implementation of the regional energy strategy, focusing on best practices in environmentally sustainable development, and are also looking for ways to reduce the rising cost of health care in states and provinces, improve border security, attract foreign investment and finally, exchange information to improve the skills of the workforce.

Such transnational political groupings open up a new chapter in approaches to governing North America, given that both Canadian provinces and American states bring significant assets to the partnership. Canada's vast renewable energy resources provide the kind of energy security that essentially makes transnational political regions semi-autonomous. Canada also has a highly educated labor and relatively low production costs. American employers, for example, save on the cost of health care by locating production in Canada or outsourcing it to Canadian firms because workers in Canada benefit from state system health insurance.

Bordering states, in turn, have some of the best universities and research organizations on the planet and can thus help the nascent intracontinental partnership gain a competitive advantage in commercial development before other regions of the world.

The cross-border regional partnerships emerging in North America are similar to those being created between regions in European Union, and those that arise on any continent as nation-states begin to lift border restrictions on commerce and trade and form large commercial trading zones, and perhaps even full-blown continental political unions.

As discussed in this chapter, continentalization makes national sovereignty more horizontal in nature and allows regions to interact across national borders in entirely different ways, which not only open up new economic opportunities, but also forms a new cultural and political identity. Let me give you an illustrative example. Perhaps no competition is more about demonstrating loyalty to one's country than the fight to host the Olympic Games. So, when Vancouver made a bid to host the 2010 Olympic Games, all states in the Pacific Northwest economic region supported it, despite the dissatisfaction of other parts of the United States.

It is not surprising that wherever continentalization processes take place, regions are joining together to create green infrastructure for the third industrial revolution. If elite fossil energy sources have always been developed centrally and distributed from top to bottom, then renewable energy sources are for the most part better developed locally and distributed horizontally across neighboring regions.

In the Pacific Northwest economic region, California-based Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), British Columbia Transmission Corporation (BCTC) and Avista Utility are jointly exploring the feasibility of constructing a nearly 2,000-kilometer transmission line from southeastern British Columbia to Northern California. This line should carry 3,000 MW of electricity generated locally from renewable energy sources and supplied to the grid throughout its entire length. Much of the electricity will be generated using wind and biomass, small hydroelectric and geothermal energy sources in British Columbia.

The idea of the Pacific Northwest economic region as a political space is not far-fetched. In fact, this region, before there were national borders, had a common history that has not been forgotten by the people living there. Residents of northwestern North America often consider themselves part of Cascadia, a semi-mythical region that included Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta, Washington State, Oregon, Montana and Idaho. This region has natural boundaries and a common past - common ecosystems, the pattern of settlement of indigenous people and European settlements. Thomas Jefferson viewed the western portion of the territory gained through the Louisiana Purchase as a separate country.

The image of Cascadia does not leave the minds of idealistic dreamers and has been part of folk legends since time immemorial. If we include California - and many Northern Californians no doubt consider themselves part of Cascadia - we end up with a region of 60 million people and a $2 trillion GDP that rivals China's.

The Pacific Northwest economic region already covers much of Cascadia, a fact that has not escaped the attention of regional party leaders. In 2007, British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell, discussing the region's enormous economic and social potential, stated that "in his opinion, there is a very strong and natural argument for rebuilding Cascadia." Because the region's people have some of the most environmental activism in North America, he proposed consolidating cross-border political jurisdictions and creating Common Market carbon trading to combat climate change. That same year, the provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba, along with California Governor Schwarzenegger and other state governors, signed the so-called Western Climate Initiative and began working on a regional carbon cap and trade program.

The New England Conference of Governors and Premiers of the Eastern Provinces of Canada is also actively working to unite its member jurisdictions around a common plan to share the region's renewable energy through a distributed smart grid. The governing bodies are doing everything to quickly create the pillars of the regional infrastructure of the third industrial revolution. With such infrastructure, residents of the region will receive more than energy - they will become part of a regional biosphere that includes post-carbon companies and the workforce. No less important is the equalization of living standards in the wider community, which bypasses national borders and actually turns into an intra-continental union.

John Baldacci, Governor of Maine, very accurately described the historical nature of the mission that the jurisdictions formulated for themselves at a meeting of governors and premiers in 2008. On the table lay a proposal to build a 345,000-volt transmission line from central to northern Maine , which could be connected to the recently commissioned power line from Point Lepreau in New Brunswick to the Maine border. The new high-voltage line would take electricity generated locally in Canada using renewable sources and transmit it to the New England power grid. Speaking in support of the project, the Governor told his Canadian and American colleagues the following:

New England and Eastern Canada, by virtue of their location, have vast resources of wind, hydro, biofuels and tidal energy to meet our electricity needs. However, none of us can truly harness this potential alone... We need to build new transmission lines that will both serve New England power facilities and create opportunities to move renewable, green energy from Canada to the United States.

There is no doubt that as regions transition to the economy of the third industrial revolution, intra-continental political realignment is taking place, even if this is not publicly recognized. Just think about the words spoken by Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts, at the 2010 summit of the New England Conference of Governors and Premiers of the Eastern Provinces of Canada. He reminded governors and prime ministers that “as a region that has begun industrial revolution[in North America], the Northeast can lead the world in a clean energy revolution." The Governor then expressed confidence that “by adopting strong region-wide energy efficiency and renewable energy targets, we will create green jobs, improve our energy security and improve the quality of the air we breathe.”

The “we” in his phrase is that very regional, transnational and intracontinental political reorganization. There were no references to Washington in Deval Patrick's inspired speech, although he did not forget about Washington. On the same day, Governor Patrick and 11 other governors of the mid-Atlantic New England states sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Congress protesting the plan to create centralized wind and solar power plants in the West and transmit electricity via high-voltage lines to the East. It said it would "undermine" the potential for local renewable energy on the East Coast and "stifle" economic prospects region.

These transnational regional alliances indicate that if a continental alliance comes to North America, it will not come from Washington. It is more likely to emerge from the regional political realignment that accompanies the creation of the cross-border infrastructure of the third industrial revolution.

Today, the interesting question is the possibility of Canada, the United States and Mexico uniting into a single state, as the borders between these countries disappear and their populations are united into one giant pan-continental police state of imposed socialism. Many are confident that such an association is actually underway, there are those who believe that such plans are just being developed, and very few who doubt the possibility of their implementation.

According to rumors, the highest goal of such a unification is the creation of a new government, the emergence of a new elite that will enjoy unlimited power, putting under control all spheres of life of the united state, and have super profits from the exploitation of half a billion population forced into public labor. And this mega-formation will be called the North American Union.

Conspiracy theory: preparing for the merger

The common thread in all the conversations of conspiracy theorists is this: when something happens, they believe that this event is nothing more than a deliberate attack by the American government on its own people, as part of a large and active conspiracy. The most eloquent example is the tragic events of September 11 . Almost all conspiracy theorists are absolutely convinced that they were planned and orchestrated by the government, in part as an excuse to tighten control within the country in preparation for the forced merger of the countries of North America and the creation of the North American Union.

When Hurricane Katrina killed more than 1,800 people in 2005, conspiracy theorists interpreted the disaster as an Federal agency on emergency management. In their opinion, the dead were deliberately driven to where the hurricane was raging, and they did not save them from the flood. And even the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform in 2010 and the ensuing environmental disaster was described by some as a deliberate act designed to disrupt the local economy and enable "government agents" to make enormous profits through stock market manipulation.

Amero - a new currency?

One of the proofs of the implementation of the idea of the North American Union, according to supporters , is the planned introduction into circulation of a new monetary unit designed to supplant the dollar and called the amero (obviously, similar to the euro, the common currency of the European Union). It should be emphasized here that absolutely all copies of Amero banknotes and coins are counterfeit; that is, such a currency as amero simply does not exist (as far as we know). However, suspicions regarding preparations for the introduction of Amero are not at all groundless. After all, if the euro has become a reality in Europe, why can't the amero happen in America? This is what conspiracy theorists argue.

However, comparisons between the Amero and the Euro, the North American Union and the European Union do not stand up to criticism. Initially, the euro as a currency was intended to solve a number of problems unique to Europe, in which many relatively small countries were forced to general business, however, their national currencies turned out to be unstable, which gave rise to a lot of all kinds of misunderstandings. Foreign investment turned out to be an overly complicated and troublesome matter, exchange transactions were ineffective and expensive, the size of the discount rate was unpredictable, and different inflation indices made each currency transaction blind shot. The introduction of the euro was supposed to provide a certain level of stability in the eurozone member countries.

Market research shows that since the beginning of the circulation of the euro currency in the European Union countries, tremendous changes have occurred for the better; practically, the problems have been solved. Thus, according to the European Central Bank, in 2006, foreign trade of the participating countries grew by 5-10%, more recent information only confirms the emerging positive trend.

North American states, by contrast, do not have the currency problems that plagued Europe before the introduction of the euro. There is simply no uncontrollable number of international transactions that would suffer from exchange rate instability and the high cost of conversion. This problem has historically existed in Mexico, but the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, despite the difficulties that arose initially, had a very serious stabilizing effect on the economy of this country and since then there has been a steady tendency to minimize negative phenomena. Perhaps, thanks to NAFTA, North America managed to solve the problems that Europe resolved after the introduction of the euro currency. In addition, the scale of these problems was less significant, and, consequently, the state of the economy was less severe.

But this does not mean at all that the introduction of a single American currency was never offered. This has been talked about for quite a long time, mainly with exclamations of approval coming from a number of Canadian economists.

Amero is not there, but they “want” him

Quebec is perhaps the only territory on the entire North American continent that would certainly benefit from the introduction of the Amero. Perhaps Mexico will be second. But since this is completely unprofitable for the United States and most of Canada, it is unlikely that a single North American currency will find its real embodiment, no matter how much scientists would like it.

IN real life the introduction of amero into circulation might have been beneficial to a group of people, but not to the majority. From the very beginning, Quebec and Mexico were champions of the single American currency. Quebec's point of view seems quite interesting. French-Canadian nationalism is developed there to a certain extent, but it is heading in the wrong direction, since Quebec, after all, remains part of Canada and is directly connected with its currency. By allowing Quebec to share a common currency with the rest of North America, it would become less economically dependent on Canada and would be more free to trade directly with the United States.

Former Mexican President Vincent Fox has openly and repeatedly expressed his desire for Amero, which he believes would be a natural extension of NAFTA. Similar economic unions, as a rule, promise more benefits to those who are at the beginning of the “food chain” than to those at the end. Increased stability would benefit Mexico City, while Canada and the United States would lose control over inflation and interest rates in their own economies.

In 1999, Canadian economics professor Herb Grubel addressed a panel of Fraser Institute experts with the message “A Chance for the Ameros,” in which he admitted, however, that he considered his own arguments less important to the governments of Canada and the United States than the need to keep monetary control under control. independence of these countries. Another strong advocate of a common American currency is Dr. Robert Pastor, a political science professor and former national security adviser in the administration of President Jimmy Carter. In 2001, he wrote the book “Towards a North American Union”, in which he emphasized all the benefits of the introduction of American Latin America, however, he failed to convince readers of the benefits of this step for the United States. In his book, he admits that, in his opinion, there will be no introduction of a single American currency and that he himself is not a supporter of the idea of creating a North American Union.

So, the idea of a North American Union and the introduction of a single American currency did not receive support in the academic environment and in financial and economic circles, what remains?

A week ago, information appeared on the Internet about a closed meeting of the US Congress dedicated to the impending crisis. The text translated into Russian sounds something like this:

Thursday, March 13, 2008
THE LAST NIGHT SESSION WAS ONLY THE FOURTH IN 176 YEARS THAT CONGRESS HAS CLOSED THE DOORS TO THE PUBLIC. From this special night session of the United States House of Representatives, information began to leak behind closed doors.
Congressmen not only discussed new surveillance conditions, as was stated as the reason for the closed session, they also discussed:

inevitable, which should happen by September 2008,
imminent by February 2009,
the possibility of an American Civil War as a result of the collapse,
supposed gathering places for “rebel groups of American citizens” to fight against the government,
holding insurgent detainees in “REX 84” camps built throughout the US,
the possibility of retaliation against members of Congress during the crisis,
the location of “safe facilities” for members of Congress and their families to reside during the expected widespread civil unrest,
necessary and inevitable (due to its natural resources) and with Mexico (due to its cheap labor),
- AMERO - for all three nations as a proposed solution to the approaching economic Armageddon.
Members of Congress were FORBIDDEN from sharing what was being discussed publicly. But several congressmen were so angry and concerned about the future of the country that they began to leak information. More details are expected later today and through the end of the week. SPREAD THIS INFORMATION!!!

This information would look too fantastic if not for some details that confirm it. Firstly, we were talking about Amero and earlier . Secondly, big people have already said “think the unthinkable” quitein clear text :

“First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), John Lipsky, called on the world’s financiers to “think the unthinkable” and prepare in advance for possible financial and economic emergencies. Speaking yesterday at the Institute of the World Economy in Washington, he warned that measures already taken around the world “may not be sufficient” to respond to “low-probability but high-impact” events that could occur in the global financial system in connection with the current crisis. Lately shocks.”

The world was recently stunned when the largest American bank Bear Stearns was sold literally for pennies - for only $236 million, although its capitalization was $3.5 billion just last Friday. The bank did not survive “ mortgage crisis", although he once experienced the Great Depression. And this can only mean one thing - the situations are already very similar. And although the Fed is frantically reduces rate by as much as 0.75% in the hope of reviving speculation on the stock exchange, everyone was already quiet in anticipation of the storm. Bear Stearns Bank in this sense served as a petrel, only not as proud as Gorky's.

However, this is not all. Information about the closed session of the US Congress dedicated to the expected collapse of the US economy has another important confirmation. The fact is that the idea of uniting the USA, Canada and Mexico and creating the North American Union (NAU) was the main outcome of the summit of Presidents Bush, Fox and Prime Minister Martin, held back in March 2005 in Texas. Then this was presented as a logical result of the development of partnership within the framework of a free trade agreement (). In a joint statement after the meeting, the leaders of the three countries announced the first stage of the formation of this alliance, called the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership ( SPP ). And in May of the same year, the Council for international relations(CFR) published report special analytical group “Building a North American Society”, which outlined specific plans for creating a new superpower. In it, in particular, there was talk about the elimination of borders and the creation single currency.

Although all the officials spoke only about very distant plans for unification, one of the American journalists Harold Turner announced the existence of secret agreements and the accelerated process of unification without discussion and participation of the public in this process. He even published photos of a new 20 amero coin that was allegedly provided to him by someone from the Treasury.

Of course, the words about “wasting money” are a simplification; they can be attributed to some economic illiteracy of the reporter. “Waste” by the state with money -the only way to avoid a crisis, and this was proven by Keynes and the practice of Roosevelt’s reforms. Even military spending helps avoid the problem of excess productive forces - the growing crisis is primarily associated with elementary overproduction. Another thing is that this method has exhausted itself due toproblems of a printing press separated from the state , which led to an already unpaid national debt andinevitable default government. However, the fact that the policy of the Fed itself is deliberately leading the country to an inevitable economic catastrophe can hardly be questioned. This moment noticed also the famous economist and writer William Engdahl, mentioning in this regard John D. Rockefeller’s book “The Second American Revolution”. This revolution is indeed coming, but it will be initiated not by the American people, but by the financial oligarchy. The people will serve only as an instrument, as has often happened in history.

Any revolutions and even simple reforms are possible only in the wake of people's discontent. This is how it happened in Russia in 1917, this is how it was in the USSR in 1991, and this is how it will be in the USA next year. The reasons for mass civil uprisings can be objective, the result of the natural evolution of the system, but they can also be subjective, that is, have artificial origin. The ability to manipulate the mood of the masses is not some kind of new technology. “Political technology” is a fresh term, but the idea itself has very ancient origins. The Italian communist Gramsci described many of the basics of revolutionary technologies back in the 30s of the last century, and now his conclusions are being studied at elite universities in London and Boston. But many principles were also used by the Jacobins and Freemasons. Plans for a future revolution in the United States obviously include many already tested technologies, and one of them is artificial exacerbation economic problems, in whipping up the discontent of the population for the subsequent use of its energy to carry out reforms beneficial to the financial oligarchy.

The main method of such technologies is simple - to hide the real causes of the upcoming economic catastrophe, to appoint the state and its authorities as the main culprit, and to offer your own version of “problem solving”, which boils down to reformatting the state in accordance with one’s interests. That is why the culprit is unpaid government debt It is not the bankers, the owners of the Federal Reserve System, who once privatized the issuing center, but the state, which allegedly incurs too many expenses. The new superpower called the “North American Union” () will have a completely different essence, to which the current American democracy will have weak relationship. In essence, it will be a large private corporation controlled by a financial oligarchy and the people will be as far away from the center of decision-making as possible. Uniting countries with different history, culture and language within one government structure is part of the mondialist project with its goal of creating a World Government under the control of a financial oligarchy. The new superpower should be the next step towards achieving this goal.

The publications of journalist Harold Turner could be taken with distrust, but he was not the only one who began to disseminate information on the US government’s plans to unite with Canada and Mexico. Another journalist and author of many books, Jerome R. Corsi, published in 2006 , describing these plans and concrete steps, including the creation of a single currency, the Amero. Ukrainian journalist Konstantin Vasilkevich inserts it almost verbatim into his , unfortunately forgetting to refer to the original source (Vasilkevich is justified by the fact that he compiled many sources and made very informative material). According to Jerome Corsi, one of the authors of the Council on Foreign Relations analysis, Robert Pastor, director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, stated at a hearing before the Senate Foreign Policy Committee:

The Pastor offers a lot more, but the Pastor is silent about how “outstanding” representatives of the three nations will be selected. However, judging by his affiliation with the Council on Foreign Relations, these will be people who are members of the same Council, that is, representatives of big business and the financial oligarchy. Thus, the representative power of the three states becomes dependent on financial and international power. It is obvious that plans to create a united power would not have found support in the parliaments of these countries in normal conditions. But the conditions of the civil war and economic collapse may well incline the opinion of parliamentarians towards such an alliance. Especially if experts from the economic community unanimously call this union the only panacea for future troubles. And this, in fact, will be almost true if you understand the true causes of the crisis - overproduction and a corresponding drop in demand. The addition of poor “developing” Mexico will provide much-needed demand for US manufacturers while also providing them with cheap labor. Canada, being on the same level with the United States in terms of production per capita, acts here only as a kind of makeweight of the United States. The economic flywheel will indeed have to spin for some time until the demand generated in poor Mexico is satisfied. Of course, for this, Mexicans will also need to be provided with high salaries, common in the United States. And manufacturers will accordingly be given loans to build factories in Mexico. And a new debt cycle will be launched. But in a new currency... However, this will only happen if the future cataclysm proceeds in a controlled manner.

In all these mysterious plans, there remains only one not entirely clear question - when will they start working? Judging by the leaked information about the closed session of Congress, the date of economic disaster has already been set - September of this year. There is a reason for this date. By this point, the Fed will have exhausted its stimulus capabilities. stock exchange with the help of lowering rates, and the wave of bankruptcies will spread from the financial to the real sector of the economy. It will become impossible to refinance (refinance) your debts; the state, in its last attempts to stimulate the market and avoid a social explosion due to bankruptcies, will use up the last reserve of government debt. In September 2007, Congress raised established by law the maximum debt limit to $9.815 trillion. In November, the debt reached 9 trillion and is growing from speed 1.4 billion per day. By September, increasing at this rate, it will reach 9.4 trillion, and by February 2009, the US government will become bankrupt. The same calculation confirmsestimated shortage budget - 410 billion. However, by September the government can spend the remaining reserve of 400 billion in its attempts to stabilize the situation.

To this we can add the following considerations. Fiscal year in the USA it starts on October 1 and September is the month of loan payments. The US elections will take place in November and the Democrats (read financiers) will try to arrange a stock market crash before the elections, forcing the Republican Bush administration to bear responsibility for it. Thus, many factors point to September.
Founder of Microsoft and one of richest people in the world, Bill Gates, who has the image of a benevolent philanthropist, uses his billions through his (tax-exempt) Bill & Chalk Foundation...

Finance ministers from the Gulf states, China, Japan and Russia met secretly to discuss the prospects of replacing the dollar with a basket of currencies in oil trading. This news was reported by the British...

Reputable Western media are reporting that elections to the Federal Parliament are due to take place in Canada this month. They were appointed because the government of Stephen Harper, who is the leader of the Conservative Party, resigned.

Some experts suggest that the minority government (the Conservatives did not have a majority in Parliament) was dismissed due to certain accusations that have recently been made against Stephen Harper. This government is believed to have been involved in some shenanigans and also failed to fulfill its assigned responsibilities.

As it became known, leading bankers of the US Federal Reserve System are already well prepared for the “hostile takeover” of Canada by America.

The same Wall Street bankers who previously orchestrated a massive scam in the US - injecting $12,500 billion of US taxpayer dollars directly into the Federal Reserve Banks in December 2010 - have very high hopes for what Stephen Harper will get in this election majority of votes. They put all their plans on hold until Harper completely merged Canada, its currency and its flag.

The North American Union notes, which were seen at the beginning of this article, have already been issued in sufficient quantities and are ready to replace the American and Canadian dollars, as well as the Mexican peso.

The question arises - “Why is the Federal Reserve System printing notes of the North American Union?” At one time, it had already organized one of the largest robberies in the history of the United States and the whole world, erroneously announcing the loss of billions of dollars. Let us recall that then the bankers said that their banks will simply collapse if the American government does not help them financial assistance in the amount of about a trillion dollars.

It is believed that both the past US President, George W. Bush, and the current US President, Barack Obama, were involved in this massive deception of taxpayers. Bush and Obama handed over trillions of dollars to Federal Reserve bankers. The state was left without money and was unable to finance social programs, as well as fulfill other financial obligations.

And recently, in addition to the economic difficulties of the United States, there was an earthquake and tsunami in Japan, which, as you know, is the second largest holder of the US borg. All this has led to the fact that the country's leadership is no longer able to support its economy.

So financial system America is becoming insolvent and now the country is starting to leak nothing worthwhile currency Federal Reserve.

As has long been known, bankers for several years recent years working to completely destroy the USA. The leadership of a bankrupt country will be forced to abolish the Constitution of the States and the Bill of Rights in favor of a North American Union with Canada and Mexico.

The US is considered Canada's largest trading partner, which is why the Fed bankers are well prepared to force Canada to merge with the US, ultimately forming the North American Union, which will be under the control of the Federal Reserve bankers.

Therefore, an extremely key moment for the formation of a banking or, in other words, Federal Reserve North American Union is Stephen Harper obtaining a majority in Parliament.

Let us recall that in 2008, similar plans of the Federal Reserve bankers failed because Harper then received a minority in parliament. The bankers were so confident of his victory that they printed billions of North American Union notes.

The photograph seen at the beginning of this article shows the North American Union note that was issued in 2009 by the Federal Reserve. This note is illegal and serves as concrete evidence that the bankers entered into a treaty with each other to destroy the United States and form a North American Union that would be controlled by the bankers.

The following text can be read on the note: “Federal Reserve Note.” A little above this inscription we see “United Federation of North America”, as well as a flag consisting of three stars, symbolizing three countries - Canada, Mexico and the USA.

According to Federal Reserve bankers, the note is completely legal. However, such a statement is nothing more than outright fraud. In the United States, Congress has the power to determine and levy taxes, regulate their costs, and print money. And the notes of the North American Union illegally abolish the power of Congress to issue money.

What might all this mean for Canada? All this makes it clear that allowing Stephen Harper to power is unacceptable, if, of course, Canadians want to preserve their state!

Recession 1990–1991 led to the need to restore economic growth. In Washington, both Republicans and Democrats saw globalization, the removal of trade barriers, and market deregulation as the surest path to growing the nation's economy and creating jobs for Americans. In an effort to set an example, George HW Bush agreed with Canada and Mexico to sign the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Although some political observers saw the move as a harbinger of a North American political union, President Bush made it clear that none of the three member countries intended to join a political union like the EU. Their aspirations were strictly limited to the creation of a commercial zone for the development of mutually beneficial economic relations.

More and more Canadians, however, are asking whether NAFTA is making their country a valuable partner or a useful appendage of the United States. Many are strongly opposed to strengthening NAFTA, believing that Canada is already assimilating into the larger US economy and losing its political sovereignty along the way. Canadians are also concerned that participation in NAFTA means following a dominant American ideology that is often at odds with Canada's deep cultural and social values. They fear that the new “continentalism” is simply a shorthand name for the process of erasing the border along the 49th parallel. In short, they suspect that NAFTA is nothing more than a façade for high-tech, 21st-century American colonialism aimed at seizing Canada's rich resources and remaking its citizens in American ways.

Opponents of the "blind person" approach to continentalism are concerned about Canada's growing dependence on exports to the United States (currently 73% of Canadian exports go south) and the possibility of commercial and political terms being imposed on it at the discretion of the United States. That's why Canadian critics of NAFTA are pushing for trade, investment and tax policies that encourage domestic market development and foreign trade, reforms to protect Canadian industries from U.S. protectionism, and measures to correct existing trade imbalances between Canada and the United States.

While public attention has focused on the pros and cons of NAFTA, over the past two decades there has been a growing interest in a different type of political realignment that could potentially reshape the political map of North America. As former Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy noted, in the 1990s. We have witnessed the emergence of a web of regional cross-border intracontinental networks. In the United States, as a result of traditional independence, states enter into their own economic agreements with virtually no restrictions. During the 1990s. border states and Canadian provinces have significantly strengthened their ties. In 1999, the then Premier of Ontario, in an address to the governors of Canada's neighboring states, said: "We do see you as very strong allies, much stronger than many parts of Canada, something more significant than perhaps my national government". Cross-border commercial relationships have been developing for decades.

The New England Conference of Governors and Premiers of the Eastern Provinces of Canada, established in 1973, is increasingly becoming a regional, transnational structure. The conference includes six American states and five Canadian provinces: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Governors and prime ministers meet annually to discuss issues of common interest. Between these summits, the conference organizes meetings of state and provincial officials to address current issues, conducts seminars, and conducts research on issues of regional importance. The conference's achievements included “expanding economic ties between states and provinces; encouraging energy exchange; active implementation of environmental protection and environmentally sustainable development policies; coordinating numerous programs in areas such as transport, forestry management, tourism, small-scale agriculture and fisheries."

No less active than its eastern counterpart, the Pacific Northwest economic region is trying to harmonize approaches and programs in the areas of agriculture, environmental technology, forestry, government procurement, waste management, telecommunications, tourism, trade and finance, and transportation. The organization's subcommittees oversee the implementation of the regional energy strategy, primarily the implementation of best practices in environmentally sustainable development, and also seek methods to reduce the rising cost of health care in states and provinces, improve border security, attract foreign investment and, finally, exchange information for the purpose of improving the skills of the workforce.

Such transnational political groupings open up a new chapter in approaches to governing North America, given that both Canadian provinces and American states bring significant assets to the partnership. Canada's vast renewable energy resources provide the kind of energy security that essentially makes transnational political regions semi-autonomous. Canada also has a highly educated workforce and relatively low production costs. American employers, for example, save on the cost of health care coverage by locating production in Canada or outsourcing it to Canadian firms because workers in Canada benefit from the government's health insurance system.

The border states, in turn, have the best universities and research organizations on the planet and can thus help the nascent intracontinental partnership gain a competitive advantage in commercial development over other regions of the world.

The cross-border regional partnerships emerging in North America are similar to those created between regions in the European Union and those that emerge on any continent as nation-states begin to lift border restrictions on commerce and trade and form large commercial trading zones, perhaps , even full-scale continental political unions.

As discussed in this chapter, continentalization makes national sovereignty more horizontal and allows regions to interact across national borders in entirely different ways, which not only open up new economic opportunities but also create new cultural and political identities. Let me give you an illustrative example. Perhaps no competition is more about demonstrating loyalty to one's country than the fight to host the Olympic Games. So, when Vancouver made a bid to host the 2010 Olympic Games, all states in the Pacific Northwest economic region supported it, despite the dissatisfaction of other parts of the United States.

The Pacific Northwest economic region already covers much of Cascadia, a fact that has not escaped the attention of regional party leaders. In 2007, British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell, discussing the region's enormous economic and social potential, stated that "in his opinion, there is a very strong and natural argument for rebuilding Cascadia." With the region's people among the most vocal environmental activists in North America, he proposed combining cross-border political jurisdictions and creating a common carbon trading market to combat climate change. That same year, the provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba, along with California Governor Schwarzenegger and other state governors, signed the so-called Western Climate Initiative and began working on a regional carbon cap and trade program.

There is no doubt that as regions transition to the economy of the third industrial revolution, intra-continental political realignment is taking place, even if this is not publicly recognized. Just think about the words spoken by Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts, at the 2010 summit of the New England Conference of Governors and Premiers of the Eastern Provinces of Canada. He reminded governors and prime ministers that “as the region that started the industrial revolution [in North America], the Northeast can lead the world in a clean energy revolution.” The Governor then expressed confidence that “by adopting strong region-wide energy efficiency and renewable energy targets, we will create green jobs, improve our energy security and improve the quality of the air we breathe.”