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 have seen those tales and they apparently haven't panned out as advertised.
What I have said though is still true the terrorists are not going to risk coming over that border when it is so much surer, safer and comfrontable to do so in several other ways.
Not that I oppose LOOKING for them everywhere. But I speak from a tactical consideration.
Since when is EXPLAINING something "defending" it? And since when is amending state constitutions to prevent this sort of thing SOOOO unAmerican or difficult? Were the state governments NOT supposed to be the first line of defense against our liberties?
Correct what YOU write and leave mine be.
Like I believe THAT? Lol.
The 70 million was the largest component of this projection. The others were estimated with the same degree of uncertainty.
It would have been just as accurate to say that Heritage projects BIG numbers which might be larger or smaller.
Certainly any number would be affected by the existence/non-existence of large industrial projects in Mexico such as the port facilities you so adamently oppose. Hence one must make projections about the degree of international cooperation and finance for projects in the developing world. I saw none in this report. Thus, all I can say is it represents a first cut at analyzing the issue.
No one should but much faith in your conclusions based upon what you believe.
It is remarkable that a discussion of terrorist tactics gets under your skin so much. If you can find a person on this or any other site who has supported and defended the War on Terror I will kiss your ass.
But a calm and ENTIRELY warranted opinion of what the terrorists HAVE done and would do if intelligent brings your conclusion that ANY of the bastards are ok with me. What can be more despicable than that?
I don't "link" to anything and have explained how it has worked in the past. We know where the 911 terrorists came in from and we have prevented many others from using those routes. That one started in the training camps in Afganistan and went through Iran into Europe and from Europe into the US some came in through Indonesia as well if I am not mistaken. The 911 report explains it. It is likely that documentation and passports were provided by a state Intelligence service possibly Iraq as it had in the first WTC attack.
Since this is the route taken by the only MAJOR attackers on the US I will say this is the MAJOR route.
The American "Empire" is just getting started not declining after centuries of Imperial rule and exhausting warfare as was Rome.
If the Republic is truly in such decline as the pessimists here apparently believe then there will be no resisting the hordes. My opinion is different.
Oh, I see. Now, instead of calling everyone liars, you just call them "tales" and "advertisements."
Your explanation included so many apologist remarks it deserved a Barf alert.
All estimates have an element of uncertainty. That's why they are called "estimates."
Certainly any number would be affected by the existence/non-existence of large industrial projects in Mexico such as the port facilities you so adamently oppose.
I have not stated that I oppose any port facilities, in Mexico or elsewhere. And why should we only be considering Mexico? 75% of legal immigrants come from countries other than Mexico. The guest worker program will not be limited only to our southern neighbor.
Thus, all I can say is it represents a first cut at analyzing the issue.
Well, that's certainly an improvement over your first comment. ( "Only ignorant fools believe any of that 100 million crap." ) At this point, all one can say is that it was an estimate of provisions included in a Senate Bill that has since been amended making further discussion of the specifics moot.
.
No you don't have to link to anything, but a link would help make your argument credible which it is not at this time.
You might think about linking to the 911 report as you say it explains it. The 911 report also urges congress and the president to secure our southern border which hasn't been done. It kinda makes one wonder why the 911 report wants the southern border secured if the terrorist are just going to repeat their MAJOR routes. LOL
Supposedly, we have put safeguards in all the MAJOR routes such as screening at airports, taking shoes off, and ID proof at borders.
Since this is the route taken by the only MAJOR attackers on the US I will say this is the MAJOR route.
So I guess we should only be looking for 19 attackers taking the same routes as the last attackers. Brilliant.
Were you absent from English class the day they taught sentence construction?
What? I have sent this on over to our cryptographic section to see if they might be able to decipher it.
"But a calm and ENTIRELY warranted opinion of what the terrorists HAVE done and would do if intelligent brings your conclusion that ANY of the bastards are ok with me."
You're beginning to babble.
Are you really Professor Irwin Corey? It's the only thing that might make sense here.
Not every story which gets reported turns out to be what is claims to describe. Surely you have seen many examples of this? These stories were shown to me on much earlier threads where people took exception to my belief that the major border danger is really Canada. I read them with no real skepticism as to their validity. Then nothing has happened so something is wrong with these stories. Where is the followup?
Today's news points up the problem from the North to which I have been referring.
Apparently you have a problem recognizing objective analysis or just prefer rah-rahing, Yes People.
Alright I accept that and apologize for calling people "ignorant fools".
However, I still believe anyone accepting that estimate as realistic to be a bit credulous then.
Holy Mackeral there Kingfish that is some serious babble.
It was but a momentary Possession.
I am very computer illiterate but don't really like the dueling links which occurs too much for my tastes anyway. Sorry but I prefer arguing with my words and against yours.
Apparently you believe "Major" means "only" but I don't. As regards the use of that route now I suspect the number one goal of the terrorists is the recruitment of "Lily Whites" who can still access through normal international movement.
However, the danger to the North has highlighted by the arrests today.
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.