Progressive Advocacy and the North American Union

by Margie Laupheimer Earthhope Action Network July 13, 2009



The blog Progressive Advocacy which represents a law firm that drafts bills for the Democratic Party is shilling for a North American Union.

In a dishonest fashion, typical to those who have a hidden agenda, Progressive Advocacy only posts those comments which it believes will further that agenda.

On July 09, Dan Johnson-Weinberger, a lobbyist lawyer whose firm is Progressive Public Affairs made this post (which is clearly intended to attract members of the patriot movement).

The Founding Fathers would have loved the European Union (they would have let Canada join the US!)

Dan Johnson-Weinberger Wrote:

The Articles of Confederation (the United States' governing document from 1781 until before the Constitution replaced it in 1788) allowed Canada to join the United States at any time it wished, simply by accepting the terms of the Articles of Confederation. Here's the language:

Art. XI Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the united states, shall be admitted into, and entited to all the advantages of this union: but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine states.


Even better, any other colony could join up if 9 of the 13 states agreed to it. That's pretty flexible! With a 70% vote of the states, any colony could have joined the United States of America.

Can you imagine Mexico and Canada joining with the United States today in a North American Union? Look at our friends in Europe for an example of the power of a new, modern form of government. The European Union has transformed a continent of perpetual war and bitter enemies into one of the world's strongest economies with almost 500 million people.

Building a North American Union would be one of the smartest long-term investments in our economic well-being we can make. Here, we spend billions on patrolling borders and wasting millions of hours for people and cargo to pass through heavily-fortified checkpoints. And for what? To make it more expensive to for all of us to build businesses, create jobs and improve our quality of life throughout North America.

I can already hear conservatives and those afraid of fundamental improvements in our government resurrect our Founding Fathers and our sacred Constitution as weapons to dismiss any discussion of a North American Union or integrating Canada and Mexico into the United States as un-American or fundamentally unconstitutional. It's nice to learn that the original government of the United States of America explicitly embraced the same progressive spirit now seen in the European Union.

You know, the best way to honor our Founding Fathers is to emulate then, not worship them. They spent their political capital fundamentally improving their governments and they weren't afraid to reject altogether the deficient governments they inherited. We ought to be infused with that same bold spirit of government-making to imagine and create modern institutions.

I left a comment which was posted and Johnson-Weinberger responded thus:

my comment:

First, you have a nerve even talking about our founding fathers never mind pretending to understand what they were about.

Second, they were not all of one mind. Thomas Jefferson warned us about entangling alliances. I wouldn't trust Hamilton or his crew any more than I'd trust modern Democrats OR Republicans.

"Art. XI Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the united states, shall be admitted into, and entited to all the advantages of this union: but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine states.

Even better, any other colony could join up if 9 of the 13 states agreed to it. That's pretty flexible! With a 70% vote of the states, any colony could have joined the United States of America."

Note that it says join the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -- not form some alliance with other nations with a new government that will effectively dissolve the United States of America!

God help us, we're gonna need it.

Dan Johnson-Weinberger:

Well, "Maggie the Wolf Star", note that our Founding Fathers took "the United States of America" as laid out in the governing document of the country in 1781 and less than a decade later, chose to create an entirely new "United States of America" where all of the small nations (the 13 states) decided to grow stronger together by creating and empowering an entirely new government with jurisdiction over all of them. That's our federal government which didn't exist before the Founding Fathers -- without authority under the Articles of Confederation, mind you -- decided to act boldly and imagine a stronger, modern government to improve all of their lives. Sounds a lot like the Founding Fathers of the European Union to me.

Don't be scared of progress, Maggie. We're going to need to be as bold as our Founding Fathers.

I then tried to post a comment in response to this and it was never posted. I tried to post a second time later that day thinking maybe it didn't get posted due to a blogspot.com glitch. It didn't get posted either! Here is the comment that Progressive Advocacy refused to post.

my second comment:

If this is what you call progress, Dan Johnson-Weinberger, then scared isn't the word. Terrified would describe it much better.

Again, you use the term Founding Fathers as if it could be used to describe all of our founding fathers. It cant.

You said they "chose to create an entirely new "United States of America" where all of the small nations (the 13 states) decided to grow stronger together by creating and empowering an entirely new government with jurisdiction over all of them".

It didn't go quite like that. In fact, what happened was Alexander Hamilton, the scourge of America, decided to get his buddies together and called a secretive meeting with closed doors. It was done in reaction (and fear of Shays and other similar rebellions) which were fought in opposition to the unfair taxation of the small farmer who was having his farm taken away from him and thrown into debtors prison, and this after fighting in the American Revolutionary War. The meeting was called out of the fear of the wealthy landowners who were terrified of losing what they had and for no other reason. They wanted a strong central, authoritarian government so that they could control the rest of us. The meeting, known as the Philadelphia Convention, was also conveniently called while Jefferson was in Paris, acting as ambassador. If you know your history at all you'll know that Jefferson and Hamilton were arch enemies.

My idea of progress is not having an even bigger government, that wouldn't even be our government but some conglomeration of the govt.s of the three countries. If anything my idea of progress would be to go back to a time when our own government didn't take the enormous powers unto itself that it takes now while breaking the Constitution. This is something that has progressed and grown worse ever since the days of Lincoln or maybe even before. Now you want something even bigger and more powerful? We're already in a dictatorship and have been since the Bush years -- my God, man, it astounds me how anyone could ask for that. Maybe you would like a government with the power of Benito Mussolini or Chairman Mao.

All I want is liberty and my country back.

my note to Johnson-Weinberger:

Dear Dan Johnson-Weinberger, I've tried to post a second comment two times to your post "The Founding Fathers would have loved the European Union (they would have let Canada join the US!) " and you haven't posted that comment yet. It's been quite a while since I tried to post and since you won't allow them I can only reason that you have dishonest and politcial reasons for not publishing the comment. Maybe you have no answer to it, but if so, you are still not being honest and obviously have an agenda in hiding it. If I don't hear from you some time today, I'm going to post your article, our comments, and my last comment on my own blog, on Facebook, on my forum and send it out in my next newsletter.

And that is what I'm in the process of doing right now. Why? Because the possible consequences of not doing so are way too important. Every time we allow ourselves to be shut up and every time we don't do what we can to get out the message of the dangers of the coming disaster of the North American Union and our message of freedom and independence represents another nail in America's coffin.

This was what our founding fathers wanted, at least those that were patriots and lovers of liberty. We threw off the chains of British oppression many years ago. Why would we want to lose everything we gained only to become slaves to a multi-national corporative criminal known as the North American Union?

Source: Earthhope Action Network

Comment at Earthhope Forums