Posted on 10/24/2006 4:59:40 AM PDT by Man50D
About 1,000 documents obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America show the White House is engaging in collaborative relations with Mexico and Canada outside the U.S. Constitution, says WND columnist and author Jerome Corsi.
"The documents give clear evidence that the Bush administration has created a 'shadow government,'" Corsi said.
The documents can be viewed here, on a special website set up by the Minuteman Project.
Bureaucrats from agencies throughout the Bush administration are meeting regularly with their counterpart bureaucrats in the Canadian and Mexican governments to engage in a broad rewriting of U.S. administrative law and regulations into a new trilateral North American configuration, Corsi contends.
"We have hundreds of pages of e-mails from U.S. executive branch administrators who are copying the e-mail to somewhere between 25 to 100 people, a third of whom are in the U.S. bureaucracy, a third of whom are in the Mexican bureaucracy and a third of whom are in the Canadian bureaucracy," said Corsi.
"They are sharing their laws and regulations so we can 'harmonize' and 'integrate' our laws into a North American structure, not a USA structure."
Corsi claims the process is well along the way.
"This is totally outside the U.S. Constitution, virtually an executive branch coup d'etat," he said. "SPP is creating new trilateral memoranda of understanding and mutual agreements which should be submitted to Senate for two-thirds votes as international treaties."
Corsi said the documentation he received is missing key pieces.
"We received very few actual agreements, though many are referenced," he said. "Many of the work plans described lack the work products which the groups say they produced."
Have you dipped the documents in hydrogen peroxide and held them upside down in front of a mirror under a blacklight to reveal the hidden codes yet? Didn't think so. The seal of both the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission can clearly be seen on each of these documents. There is also a cryptic message to the effect of "Paul is Dead."
U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2:
He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;Gee, according to you...the Founders must have been selling tin foil too...
So Mr Smarty...tell us when and where all this Senate "concurrence" happened with the SPP... don't trip over all the tin-foil you have your body wrapped in as you rush to answer.
Wake up and smell the coffee, junior.
I'm quite awake, thank you. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.
Here's a hint: NOT EVERYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY.
Yep, and the moon i made of cream cheese.
You're part of it aren't you!
:-p
Thomas Friedman is a heavy-duty liberal working for the New York Times. And no, business isn't always business.
Maybe... ;-)
We'll need A LOT of bagels.
Can't prove it by what you've posted so far.
Here's a hint: NOT EVERYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY.
Out of your own words, Exhibit "A" that you have fallen off a turnip truck!
Yeah, if it's fully out in the open...but if its only partially "out"...and THEN ONLY to select audiences...it's as good as being a conspiracy to those who are being gulled....i.e., LIED TO.
And where there is SMOKE, there is FIRE. Check out these billowing clouds from the year 2000...and this execrable character:
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
OPENING THE BORDER | |
![]() August 25, 2000 ![]() |
![]() |
Mexico's president-elect Vicente Fox has proposed opening the border between his country and the U.S. After a background report, three experts debate the president-elect's proposal. Watch the background report in streaming video. |
|
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mexico's president-elect, Vicente Fox, has spent the past week in Canada and the U.S. outlining his vision for a more integrated North America. Perhaps most provocative was his proposal to open the U.S.-Mexican border once the wage disparity between the two is narrowed. Fox spoke on the NewsHour last night.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Exact figures on Mexican immigration are hard to come by, but somewhere around 350,000 Mexican immigrants are believed to enter the United States each year, the vast majority illegally.
In the New York Times today President-elect Fox wrote: "The violent deaths of my countrymen on the border are simply intolerable." |
|||||||||||||||||||
A new vision for the border | ||||||||||||||||||||
![]() Mr. Fernandez De Castro, would you put this proposal or the proposals by the president-elect in the Mexican context. What's the problem he wants to solve?
He's also put in a vision of the border. The border lately has become truly the bottleneck of the NAFTA expansion and what President Fox is trying to do here is to have the border of a very important element in this NAFTA partnership that we Mexicans and Americans launched here since '94 - and which has been very positive for the Mexican economy. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Philip Martin. Go ahead, I'm sorry. RAPHAEL FERNANDEZ DE CASTRO: Again, this is a vision, not a proposal. He's only president-elect, and he will develop in the next month a proposal, which has to be very creative and which has to be very smart. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Philip Martin, recognizing that this is a vision and not a proposal, is it a realistic vision, especially the 10-year part that he spoke to Margaret about last night?
But it's important to emphasize, as both as candidates Gore and Bush said, that in the short term this magical wand of eliminating border patrols is not likely to happen, and so as a vision, as to where these two large economies in North America are going, I think it's admirable. It's an historic reversal for Mexico, which used to say "so far from God, so close to the United States" as a curse, but now say so close to the United States as a vision to shoot for. And I think that's very good. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: But specifically, is it realistic to think that in 10 years, for example, you could get the wage differential down and perhaps drop some restrictions? PHILIP MARTIN: It's - ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Is it desirable? PHILIP MARTIN: It's important to keep in mind that around the world we know that when wage differences get down to three or four or five to one, economically motivated migration slows, and pretty much reaches an equilibrium. That was true between Southern Europe and Northern Europe. Therefore, we don't have to make the incomes and wages in Mexico be exactly what they are in the United States so long as we close that gap -- which is now eight or nine to one -- to four or five to one we will dramatically slow the migration. That is not likely to happen in 10 years; it might happen between 10 and 20 years. So if - we are on the right track. We're doing what needs to be done, to excelerate economic and job growth in Mexico, as well as in the United States. But it is a slow process, and Mr. Fox has laid out a vision as to where he would like to see it come, but it will not happen overnight. |
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||
The border paradox | ||||||||||||||||||||
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Peter Andreas, you've written about the border and the policing there. Give us -- explain that context. How bad a situation is it from the point of view of people coming over. I noticed the American Foreign Service Committee has a press release today giving all the names of the people that died and they're 14 years old, 16 years old, 19 years old.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So just put that - put what the president-elect has been saying in that context. What do you think of what he is saying and what we're going to do about that? PETER ANDREAS: What I admire about Mr. Fox' proposal is that it's bold and visionary. I mean, everybody complains that politicians don't have the vision thing. Well, he has clearly shown he's got that. He has got very good advisors who are very familiar with U.S.-Mexico relationships. I don't think there is any no pretense on the Mexican part -- that this is going to be taken enormously seriously in the short-term in the United States, but political it is a boon for him I think domestically in Mexico. I can't think of a more politically popular statement he could have said to the Mexican public about the U.S.-Mexico relationship: Open the border. We're friends, not enemies, and so forth. So I applaud that. Obviously, you know, if I was president of Mexico, I would think this is exactly the strategy one should pursue but, of course, this is a long-term vision as he said many times himself. And in the short-term politically in the United States this isn't going to go very far obviously. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Is that true, Mr. Fernandez de Castro, that this is really popular in Mexico? RAPHAEL FERNANDEZ DE CASTRO: He is very popular in Mexico. His approval rates in Mexico are above 84 percent. I read 86 percent. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And this proposal is really popular? Or these ideas?
I wanted to add of what Peter Andreas was saying. The way we Mexicans see this is that the time has come to recognize that the U.S. policy towards Mexican migration of the last six years or so, this militarization of the U.S. Southwest border, has been a big failure. It's been a big failure because the only thing you really have done is to increase the agents of the Border Patrol, put a lot of these technological devices at the border and you have achieved very, very little. And basically what you have achieved is to change the routes of the Mexican crossing to the U.S. Instead of going through San Diego, now they go through Arizona. In these very dangerous places. And that explains that in the last five years more than 500 Mexicans have died trying to cross into this. Another very important feature of this failure is that it hasn't, all of this militarization of the border has not changed the willingness of the Mexicans to cross. When they have been apprehended at the border, they try and try and try again. And this causes a big problem because last year we have 1.5 million apprehensions of Mexicans trying to cross. And this creates a lot of problems in terms of human rights. So the possibilities of human rights problems expanded a lot. And we Mexicans, we're very sensitive to these issues. We have these great images about Mexican migrants. We tend to idolize the migrants. I guess, finally Mr. Fox, in the way is saying let's talk about migration, let's improve the management of this very complicated issue. |
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||
Expanding the guest worker program | ||||||||||||||||||||
![]() PHILIP MARTIN: Let me just say that while I applaud, and I think many people applaud Mr. Fox for his vision, it's going to be very difficult to start with what has been a very troublesome issue between the United States and Mexico for most of the 20th century. In truth, the United States is not going to have a massive development aid program for Mexico. We are creating more jobs through freer trade and more investment. And we have to be careful that while we're on the right long-run road for economic integration, we don't do something on the migration front that slows that integration and job growth as opposed to accelerates it.
And, in exchange, Mexico would do more to try to control people from leaving illegally. Right now there is fairly open massing of people on the Mexican side of the border up against seven or eight thousand Border Patrol agents. So we do know what the problems are. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What would be the problem with that, briefly? PHILIP MARTIN: The main problem historically is that there is nothing more permanent than temporary workers. All the programs tend to get bigger and last longer than anyone ever anticipated; that is under the Bracero program, more Mexicans were apprehended coming illegally than ever came legally as Braceros. So what one would have to do in another new big guest worker program is to make sure that people coming illegally are funneled into the legal program so that we don't have more legal immigrants coming in as well as illegals. In the past, they were not... the guest worker program was not a substitute for illegal immigration. Instead, it was an add-on. And so there is the real challenge to design a program that does not wind up increasing the number of people coming north and the dependence of U.S. employers on those people coming north -- and to channel the illegal immigration to legal channels and not make it worse is a very, very difficult challenge. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Peter Andreas, we have just a little time. Do you want to respond to both Mr. Fernandez de Castro and Mr. Martin?
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you all three very much. |
![]() |
REGIONS ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
![]() |
||
PBS Online Privacy Policy![]() Copyright ©1996-2006 MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. |
||
![]() |
I agree we need a border fence, and a damn good one.
I just don't buy this "shadow government" BS. Apparently...the moonbats are NOT just on the left.
Sounds like he's off his meds. again.
Uh, just when and where did Congress ASK the President to negotiate the SPP with Mexico and Canada...and change our laws? Just when does the advice part kick in? Only AFTER its all a "wrap"?
NOT!
Meh....I get emails with multiple cc's all the time and I'm not even involved in government. I can't imagine how carefully you have to cover your a$$ in the public sector.
Since when have libs cared about anything like this? Aren't they always the ones saying we need to stop acting unilaterally? Aren't liberals the cheerleaders for an U.N. world government?
No it's not; Integration with Mexico (this isn't racist) would be a DISASTER: Their economy is so backword because of their own socialism for 30 years (and corruption): We'll let's just say that Do you want to see the USA as a 3rd world nation?
Tell it to these folks who seem to have a lot more "pull" than you or I do:
Link to PDF of document here
Here is their prefatory spiel, which actually betrays a great deal right up front:
Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.Let's extract the nuggets of contentions from this CFR road map (and these ARE the ones implenting the SPP), and see how their globalist objectives are predicted right in their own language, e.g.,:North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a trinational, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.
When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it.
North America is vulnerable on several fronts:
Note, not the U.S.A., but North America. Blurring and fudging over the distinctions, and very unique issues. H'mmm.
the region faces terrorist
Stop right there. How realistic is that? How much Jihadist targetting of Canada and Mexico is mentioned by Al Queda etc? How often does Hamas scream "Death to Mexico!" or "Death to Canada!" on the streets of Beirut? It is not a real factor at all. And we all know it. Let's continue now:
and criminal security threats,
Again these are unique issues, which a good U.S. border enforcement regime...which you now second as desireable...would solve without ANY need to have any special SPP whatsoever. Let's be forthright: These requirements for implementing common rules and common enforcements is only presuming the borders are about to be legally disregarded. There is no reason other than that. Then there's this:
increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home.
First, the devastating economic competition was caused precisely how? It didn't come out of thin air. Can we say PNTR? WTO?
Second, just what "uneven" economic development is being alluded to? Mexico's complete basket case for two-thirds of its population? And somehow...that's the U.S.'s ...cum..."North America's " problem? This is standard Leftist/Liberal evasion of placing and taking responsibility for the policies of their own design. And these culprits are still in power and planning further depradations as "solutions" to the problems of their own makings.
And they have made it clear they regard a wealth transfer from the U.S. to the other two countries as their solution.
From your mouth to God's ear. I'd add the data point of the 4th quarter fundraiser taking longer this time.
Not thrilling information. Not . . . a lot of things.
The global government is coming. Scripture is clear about that.
Woe to anyone who . . .
Agreed. And its STILL looking for WELFARE from the U.S. and Canada on a grand scale...
Smith-Brandon Report: Vincente Fox & Mexico's Future
from November 1, 2000.
Here is an excerpt therefrom:
Mr. Fox envisions a true common market, similar in philosophy to the European Union. Specifically, Mr. Fox has expressed his desire to see complementary economic and social policy among the NAFTA partners over the course of the next 20 - 40 years. He sees this as ultimately leading to the formation of a trade union that would strengthen the three countries when establishing trade pacts with other nations. He also believes that a strengthened NAFTA will decrease the gap between Mexican and US wages, eventually stemming the tide of illegal immigration into the US of Mexicans seeking better wages and a higher standard of living.This part was especially revealing... He also believes that a strengthened NAFTA will decrease the gap between Mexican and US wages, eventually stemming the tide of illegal immigration into the US of Mexicans seeking better wages and a higher standard of living.The basic premise of Mr. Foxs plan, in addition to the already relatively free flow of goods, is to ultimately allow the free flow of workers between Mexico and the US. Mr. Fox is calling for an increase of approximately 75,000 in the yearly quota of legal migrant workers from Mexico to the US, bringing the total annual quota as high as 350,000. This concept is the one most likely to be met with opposition, both in Mexico and in the US: Mexicans would prefer better wages in their own country; Americans fear further loss of jobs. In an effort to preempt the foreseen opposition, Mr. Fox has stated that he believes that if economic stability and higher wages are achieved in Mexico, there will be no need for Mexican workers to come to the US illegally.
Mr. Fox is also calling for funding from the North American Development Bank to finance infrastructure projects in Mexico. He also seeks establishment of North American public and private regional funds to invest in human capital in the poor regions of Mexico, targeted due to the high level of migrants flooding the United States. Education, especially in the rural communities of Mexico, is also vital to Mr. Foxs plan for stemming the flow of illegal immigration to the US.
Remember how NAFTA as drafted was already supposed to have done this...but the illegal flow of Mexicans is now ten times worse than before it was passed??? Now we need a "stronger" version?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.