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.
Not really it is mere recognition that this HUGE problem has been pumped up out of all recognition in a COUPLE of MONTHS. For most of our history our borders were not patrolled and little control was attempted. No one considered it that significant and little, if any, effort was made to limit people coming across.
And again you are misrepresenting what was said I said Illegal immigration was a nuisance not that "borders" were a nuisance.
I don't know what Mueller said only what Culbertson thinks he said.
I DO know that No terrorist has come across the southern border. What acts have such alleged terrorists committed that YOU know of.
|
Evolution of Math Instruction
Math 1950-2005: Last week I purchased a burger at Burger King for $1.58. The counter girl took my $2 and I was digging for my change when 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: 1. 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? 2. Teaching Math In 1960 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? 3. Teaching Math In 1970 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit? 4. Teaching Math In 1980 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20. 5. Teaching Math In 1990 A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals nor the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.) 6. Teaching Math In 2005 Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80.... |
No, people are IGNORING the party which opposes the House bill, which forms the majority of the votes for the Senate bill, which promotes huge demonstrations of Illegals trying to blackmail the rest of the nation.
And the same people IGNORE the fact that the GOP majority supports the HOuse bill, votes against the Senate bill and has sponsored NO demonstrations of Illegals. Many of these people falsely proclaim there is NO difference between the parties and that both are controlled by some secret society or the other.
My statement is ENTIRELY correct; this issue is significant because the Enemies of the US can use it to undermine the President and the conservatives he represents thereby weakening the Nation. If it could not be used against the President we would not hear much about it at all.
Pardon me? You started this discussion in post #89 by saying "Only ignorant fools believe any of that 100 million crap" referring to the much reported Heritage Foundation study ( Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years ). Note the title, as posted before: New Legal Immigrants.
Given the falling birth rate among natives and the likely case that it will continue to fall I can see where we will need to have more people from somewhere. We will be below the replacement level before too long particularly as income levels rise. We may already be close since the US population increases at 1% per year. This is less than three million new Americans. If we assume that about a million new immigrants arrive each year and 500,000 Illegals then our pop. increase from births may be less than 0.5% per year.
How much immigration we need is another subject altogether.
It should also be noted that the Paper states that the high number of 100 or 80 million is UNLIKELY to be reached.
It says no such thing. The "high number" in their analysis of the initial bill (before the Bingaman amendment passed) was almost 200 million. The "unlikely" reference they make is relative to elements making up the 200 million estimated maximum.
.
That happened to me at a gas station last week. After a bit, I just told him to give me the $5. At that point, I think I could've gotten $10 he was so confused.
Later I thought, is there a way I can profit from this? : )
"At this 20 per cent growth rate, a total of 70 million guest workers would enter the US over the next two decades and none would be required to leave. While it is UNLIKELY that so many workers would enter, it has the potential to bring tens of millions of immigrants to the U.S." p. 6 Heritage Foundation Report.
Write what you will without altering what I wrote.
Oh, so Mueller might be a liar, but Culbertson is a liar?
And what about Kay Bailey Hutchison, liar? And Porter Goss, liar? And the Border Patrol? All liars?
I DO know that No terrorist has come across the southern border. What acts have such alleged terrorists committed that YOU know of.
Some have certainly been stopped.
FBI's Mueller: Hezbollah Busted in Mexican Smuggling OperationAre ALL these people lying, JSUATI? Yet you are here to share "the real truth"?Al Qaida Nabbed Near Mexican Border
Al-Qaida Ops Busted At Mexican Border? Congresswoman drops bomb...
Defending Kelo. Incredible.
I'm speechless.
That's about right, number 6 is already happening in the schools.
Lol, when I went grocery shopping the sign in spanish over the cantelopes boggled my mind!
I wasn't altering it. I was CORRECTING it.
You're a financial analyst. Do the math. As I said, the 70 million relates to one element (guest workers) of their 200 million estimate and that is what the "unlikely" was referring to. Other categories: Permanent Visas for Siblings, Adult Children, and their Families; Permanent Employment Visas; etc. Keep digging.
I know. See 292.
LOL! Good post.
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.