Posted on 05/30/2006 10:01:14 AM PDT by NapkinUser
In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.
SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Econom�Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernaciarlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.
Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:
In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.
This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight.
Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed.
And again, the June 2005 SPP report stresses:
The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure.
Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as “our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles …” or “we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding …,” or “we have signed a declaration of intent …” etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.
What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.
Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.
Canada has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department. Mexico has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created and extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de Améica del Norte (ASPAN). On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as “a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America.”
The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of Mexico, Canada, and the United States is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled “Building a North American Community.”
The Task Force’s central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. (page xvii)
The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within:
Its (the North American Community’s) boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. (page 3)
What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the “Amero,” the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union. The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions:
While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.
The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24)
Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.
Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.
I missed your sarcasm tag???
Hey SA just heard today that Carter took money from the same Saudi Group his buddy Michael Moore complainted about the President taking money from (and didn't Clinton, too?).
One would think so, but consider: policy can be shaped by executive order; and is always implemented by the unelected, unaccountable, anonymous bureaucracy. Much as I normally resist the conspiratorial nature of arguments such as this, when I see that it is the only framework that allows Bush's illegals policy to make sense, I shudder. Methinks we are in the early stages of a Kafka-esque nightmare, one which will not dissipate upon awakening. We may have to shoot our way out of this one from fastnesses in the Rockies.
The Director of the FBI disagrees with you. What is your authoritative source?
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DANGERS -- (House of Representatives - July 29, 2005)
[Page: H7593]
--- Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I am proud to have the gentleman with me as coauthor of legislation we have filed with 44 other Members of the House to use the mechanisms the Founding Fathers left us in the Constitution to help defend this country against the threat of terrorists who the FBI Director has confirmed in sworn testimony that suspected terrorists and individuals from countries with known al Qaeda connections are entering the United States illegally, using false Hispanic identities, a subject the gentleman is talking about here today, to make sure we accurately identify people entering the U.S.
Federal law enforcement authorities have now confirmed what we have known, and that is these individuals are trying to sneak into the U.S., crossing our southern border, hiding among the tremendous wave of illegal immigration entering this country, and the Federal Government simply does not have the manpower or resources to protect our international borders.
Another shocker.
Bet the quislings are still reeling...
I read some on that too. Suppose to be without Congressional or Presidential approval. Just another case of U.S. sovereignty being trampled on. I suppose now, we each get a bill from Koffi Annan, and if we flip him and his bozos off, the IRS comes for us?
It's way, way overdue, for the UN to pack it up, and get the hell out. They've overstayed their welcome...long ago.
One phone call from Chertoff to the Border Patrol and guess what--we have a BINO between us and mejico: Administrative decision-- no longer enforce laws along the border...oops, we have that now don't we.
Very interesting article. More eminent domain, this time from the Baja government, to enrich private companies. It appears to be the legal maneuver of choice for the internationalists.
Maybe this is old news, but I thought you might like to have the link, if you don't have it already...
http://www.bloggernews.net/2006/05/our-open-borders-will-be-death-of-us.html
This is a critical indicator, to my mind, because a "stakeholder" is a bureaucratic fiction referring to anyone who needs to be co-opted so as to prevent public opposition. It has no relationship whatsoveer to the institutions of democratic or representative government.
Thanks for your input and insight. That word is used in numerous of these documents to which Corsi refers (this is about his third article in the past month on this subject).
Yes, the FBI Director and everyone else with more than half a brain intact.
NO. Come on, you're putting me on. "JIMMY CARTER" taking money from the Saudis, AND other foreign interest too. Who'd thunk! And all under the guise of the Jimmuh Cawtuh Foundation.
When ever Bill Clinton and money come up, watch out. That poor ol Arky, is probably one the richest living ex prez's on the planet. You'll never see his and Hillary's hidden offshore accounts.
"Care to enter the battle with facts in hand rather than dismissive personal comments?"
gregwest, wonderful challenge, but as you can see by this guys name: justshutupandtakeit he not only couldn't but wouldn't. He's so full of party line horse dung he refuses to even read the facts let alone attempt to debate them.
Well, if I didn't know any better, or have read the Kelo ruling, I'd had different thoughts. No More. Kelo is now, and will be damned for ages to come for the heartless heartaches caused to many aged people that are forced to move out. They will die sooner. In their ruling, the SCOTUS left an out for states to legislate their own immanent domain law, if they choose. Globalization lobbyists are now hard at work in Texas, and will be working on the other states effected by the project. The project isn't really dead or alive yet, but still breathing. Like I mentioned, lots of pieces to put together yet.
On the bright side, globalization is in the open, and because of the Internet, will easier know about, and fight, of which I believe, the American people will do.
I draw the line at giving them one cent more than they already receive through our current tax donations to the IRS.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1641423/posts
I know you are right... what hasn't funneled into his library is sitting in offshore accounts.
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.