So true, so true...
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.
"In Quebec, the Amereaux"?
The Amereaux works for South Louisiana too.LOL
Allow me to paint a scenario for you; Several southern/border states are overrun with illegal intruders. Those states start "reaping the fruits" of such activity. The other 40-some states see what's happening and begin to legislate things on their own in order to prevent it from happening to them. There's a bsttle between many states and the feds at that point. At that point, many states that don't want their state to go the way of those converted to socialist meccas for illegals band together to tell the federal government to stick its wang up its colon.
I wouldn't know what happens after that, and there are many possible scenarios, but I can't see all 50 sittin' still for this once the Mexicans begin to permeate the nation. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't fathom it.
"Y'all" was aok with this cowgirl! :-)
Thanks for the post. The video is something everyone here needs to view.
The first time I heard the word "stakeholder" was in the report by Bush, Fox and Martin in "Partnership for Prosperity" report. I have to agree this report was not democratic nor representative government.
LOL! Well then by golly I'll reinsert ,Y'all, back into my tag line. Spell check didn't comprende ustedes, anyway. :~)
| The Evolution of Mathematics |
|
Last week I purchased a burger and fries at McDonalds for $3.58. The counter girl took my $4.00 and I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies. While looking at the screen on her register, I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she stood there and cried. Why do I tell you this? Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1950s........... Teaching Math In 1950 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit? Teaching Math In 1970 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit? Teaching Math In 1990 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit? Teaching Math In 2006 Un ranchero vende una carretera de maderapara $100. El cuesto de la produccion era $80. Su beneficio es $20. ¿Cuánto dinero se puede tomar del ranchero, a la paga para las ventajas libres, para Los Extranjeros Ilegales? |
Oops. ...ping
I love that and young people don't believe education has gone downhill throught the years.
LOL. Sadly, I think you are not too far off.
Great posts & articles tonight.
Good evening Chik:
Lots of great posts alright. Did you catch that one thread with the misplaced rant, of no NWO, globalization, or CFR? What a laugher! It was like this person was living a deep cave for the last ten years with burned out candles.
Thanks AC.
Interesting article but it indicates that this route is NOT a major one for terrorists which is what I said. The information within it is several years old and also comes from a man who was arrested and convicted hence his operation was detected and brought down.
Since the ones we must worry about are those with intelligence training and experience we will not find them involved in operations of which they are not completely secure. That is why they have sophisticated forgery operatives who can provide them with multiple passports and identities. They are not going to risk highly trained operatives trying to sneak across with a bunch of poor peons.
I did not "contradict" myself. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of mockery.
Read more carefully so you will not look quite as stupid. I said "Now we are to fear Mexico DEVELOPING...." Nor is Mexico "subverting our sovereignty" though what they are doing about our "souvereignty" I can't say.
Perhaps Nuking Mexico City is not as good as MOABing it. A bigger bang is always better.
An "opposite" conclusion would be one which instead of finding a huge impact finds No impact or a small one. Such a study would be gone over with a fine tooth comb and any flaw in methodology or fact revealed. You did not do that kind of analysis for this one which is a form of intellectual dishonesty.
In fact, it is precisely the studies which you believe or want to believe which should be MORE closely scrutinized.
In the last twenty years apparently 11-12 million Illegals have arrived hence I see no reason to assume the next twenty years will be different.
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.