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.
Uh, Carter turned the Panama Canal over to PANAMA. But don't let facts get in the way of a great paranoid rave.
Carter is loathesome to me. How could such a great supporter of the International xxxxxx Conspiracy have been defeated since the Globalists/Trilaterals/CFR were behind him? Let me guess - because the Secret Rulers of the Universe wanted Reagan.
"Interesting article but it indicates that this route is NOT a major one for terrorists which is what I said."
Maybe you could provide us with a "major" route for terrorists. I would like to see a link to this.
Quite possibly you missed this updated link.
To: calcowgirl
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
169 posted on 05/31/2006 4:34:06 PM PDT by Seadog Bytes (OPM - The Liberal 'solution' to every societal problem. (Other People's Money))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies | Report Abuse
Be sure to view the video in this link.
This sounds like a much needed project which will make the flow of goods much more efficient and less expensive. It has an additional virtue of decreasing the power of the Unions infesting American ports and increasing costs for everyone else.
I see NOTHING in this project that is sinister and much that is positive. In addition, the article you post shows the falsity of your claim that this port would replace LA, Long Beach, and SF. Its peak volume is less than HALF the current volume of LA and Long Beach alone. Such egregious mistakes prevent anyone capable of analysis from believing the crap you concoct.
Don't forget the Royal Order of the Raccoons. The Grand High Exalted Ruler has nefarious plans afoot.
Read the article he posted it clearly shows there will be NO "moving our ports to Meheeco". Its peak volume is expected to be less than the traffic ADDED each year to our needs.
What is the last transportation project which INCREASED transportation costs? Hilarious stuff.
Well my AntiConspiracy training was obtained through the Illuminati which provided my scholarships. A BA in Debunking from Weishaupt University followed by an MA in Bullshit Theory from The Elders of Zion University. My Ph.D. is from the University of the Elites with a concentration on Keeping the Rabble in the Dark.
Now I am a highly paid Fellow of the White Lodge.
You should read the entire article. It shows that this is NOT a major pathway for terrorists as I said.
All we have to fear is Peace and Security.
Why don't you show us all where the Constitution protects private property? Your remark about Kelo is false as I showed you earlier.
LoL. Riiight it is OK to releash "classified" information.
As long as it is classified "Bullshit" that is.
Can't figure out such things without a Sarcasm tag?
Culbertson's claims are not matched by facts. Where are these "suspects"? How did they become known? What has happened since then?
Why in hell do you believe a Kelo decision was necessary to condemn land for transportation projects? It has been done without difficulty THOUSANDS of times.
The feds even passed a law LONG before this which establishes the procedures and methods of determining payment to those whose lands were taken called the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. This is OLD HAT.
Where have you been for the last fifty years wherein cities and states seized millions of parcels of property? Were you so entirely UNAWARE as to what has been going on that you actually thought Kelo was something new?
Let us see the direct quote from the Director and the follow-up on the claims of such infiltration.
We DO know for a FACT that the only attempted terrorist incident came from the North and that ALL of the 911 terrorists did NOT come from Mexico.
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.