North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA

HumanEventsOnline ^ | May 30, 2006 | Jerome R. Corsi

[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 Gobernaci󮠃arlos 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.

[raybbr]

I can't believe no one responded on the link you gave. That is one CREEPY speech! "The Century of the Americas!" He could not have telegraphed his mission more clearly. I read halfway and had to stop. Out of the horse's mouth, it cannot be denied.

I have been posting this reference to the speech for months. It's amazing how many people don't respond to it.

I call it his "new America" speech.

THE "NEW AMERICAN"

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico.

George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.

You can read the speech here.

Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:

In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster

[GiovannaNicoletta]

bookmark for later

[cva66snipe]

George W Bush has had an agenda since his first day in office to literally destroy the sovereignty of the United States in the name of corporate profit above national sovereignty trade policy. In his ongoing never ending arrogance and egomania he has chosen to ignore warnings from founders like George Washington in getting our nation involved in entangling treaties and alliances. He has ignored concerned Conservatives as well thumbing his nose and holding such in what seems to be literal contempt at times.

This man thinks he is a national trade broker running some giant corporation instead of a Constitutional Republic. In that respect the Constitution is that piece of paper that should be standing in his way if not for the U.S. Senate. His business skills in private life were somewhat lacking yet many consider him smart enough to hand over the sovereignty of our nation via his business skills?

I will be glad when this mans 8 years in office is finally over and he can do this nation no more harm. At this point a Village Idiot would be welcomed and less harmful IMO especially if congress would act in a more Constitutional based manner.

Hopefully he is the last person the third and last member of his family to hold national office. I am as nauseated with the Bush Family political Dynasty as I am the Kennedy one. The Bush Family Legacy is a Liberal one and nothing more starting with Senator Prescott Bush Sr and his support for Nelson Rockefeller. Politically what separates the Bush's and Kennedy's is the fact Bush's are Corporate Republicans. GW did his grandfather proud he's the Liberal his grandfather could not get elected.

Our sleeping & complacent senate has been no help either with ones like John McCain to do the Bush dirty work by sponsoring such acts of tyranny as surrendering our national borders. In many ways in political doctrine and character {arrogance} GW Bush is just like John McCain. Bush is a mans who actions as POTUS can not be defended nor supported. He is our worst POTUS tieing with the man he is most like in our history on almost all fronts Lyndon Banes Johnson. The two worst leaders to come out of Texas. The two worse Presidents to hold the office. May the House of Representatives uphold the Constitution this man has sold out to foreign national interest.

[MileHi]

Excellent, Joanie. Thanks for pinging.

FReegards

[Czar]

"Is this a wondrous vision of a thoroughly democratic Americas-North and South, or a commitment to a socialist quagmire?"

By now, I think we all prety much know the answer.

[Czar]

"Why are Americans’ lives and liberties hanging in the balance? And why is the sovereignty of the American republic threatened more than at any time in her history?
Because, for the first time in our history, leadership at the highest levels of our government has abandoned the vision of the American republic, and has instead sworn allegiance to an elitist, one-world ideology in which the borders of this nation are perceived as an inconvenient roadblock to the realization of the globalist agenda.

Of your once again brilliant post and analysis of the problem confronting us in Washington, these two paragraphs, especially, ought to be written down and remembered by all who truly love our country and are willing to defend it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Prior to the Mexican War the US had NO border with Mexico.
Any skirmishes would have been between Texans and Mexicans.

I was not speaking of Texas Rangers on patrol from time to time either.

Forts along the border and troops patrolling it would have been for use against the Indians not the Mexicans since the only raids by Mexicans was Pancho Villas' during the Mexican Revolution. Often the troops were to prevent Indian raiding parties from escaping back INTO Mexico.

[Tammy8]

Spain and later Mexico did share a somewhat murky border with the French and later the US before the Mexican War; Spain took incursions into it's territory seriously, they captured wanderers, many from the US and took them to Mexico City for trial. In places even today the border is not very defined- that is why we need a major fence.

There was no defined border before the Mexican War and yes the boundary disputes started in Texas, and in what is now New Mexico on the Rio Grande. Most of the boundary skirmishes started when Texas was preparing to become a US State, so the US was involved. Texas had already had it's battles with Mexico, the disputes at the time of Texas statehood were between the US and Mexico.

The most serious and famous raid was done by Pancho Villa, it was not the only one by far. Border raids and skirmishes did happen pretty often. There was problems with the border even then. The soldiers were mostly after Indians, but the military was also assigned to protect the border, and did chase Mexicans too. Many of the border skirmishes between Mexico and the US of the time were solved by the Gadsden Purchase, because a lot of that area was in dispute still even after the Mexican War. After the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and leading up to the Gadsden Purchase, skirmishes on the border had become so serious, many thought we were headed for a second war with Mexico. We actually bought the land to build a railroad, but that purchase did settle a lot of the problems of the border at the time. The US and Mexico have a long history of not being that neighborly, and from time to time there have been flare-ups.

Border enforcement started with retired Texas Rangers and Arizona LE and US Marshalls. The BP as we know it started over 70 years ago. It was considered serious enough that the Border Patrol was formed as a seperate agency.
You can nitpick all you want, this border has been protected in the past, even by use of the military. The border may or may not be seen as that serious by today's politicians, but it has not always been that way.

BTW, have you ever lived on the Mexican border?

[justshutupandtakeit]

American adventurers and semi-official expeditions into Spanish territory were always a problem for them and they were understandably concerned.

The activity of the US Army in controlling illegals has never been much. Indians, Mexican bandits etc. were almost its entire concern.

I have never lived along the border but am very familiar with Illegals since I have lived in Chicago for 40+ years. We have LOTS of Illegals here. More than almost any other city.

[Tammy8]

I have heard there are large numbers of illegals in Chicago, are they from all over the world or mostly from Mexico and other Latin American countries?

I have no idea what impact illegals have on cities other than cities in the Southwest. I do know the border problems are not just people crossing illegally. There is an organized crime network on the border that is involved with smuggling people as well as drugs and almost anything else you can imagine. There is associated violence, other crimes, bribery, and corruption on both sides of the border.

That is why my priority has always been border security. If the border was secure, then I think there would be more support for a plan to deal with the illegals already here. It is complicated and won't be solved overnight, but without the border secure- it won't be solved at all. Even if a guest worker plan is implemented there will be people who do not qualify or do not apply that will have to be deported if the plan is to succeed. Without securing the border those deported will return in hours or days as they do now.

I don't see how any plan to deal with illegals can work unless the border is secured first.

[dmanLA]

This is a small case but last week we had a Canadian competing in the U.S. National Spelling Bee....

[La Enchiladita]

I have been posting this reference to the speech for months. It's amazing how many people don't respond to it.

Well, put a "Duh" next to my name because I did not really respond until Veto! posted the link... whatever works, huh? I recall you've posted the quote many times and I did not look further. The whole speech gags me, but this in particular is astounding:

The future of this hemisphere lies with the creation of millions of small businesses among the poor - the surest path out of poverty. But the poor in Latin America often have no access to small amounts of working capital -- to credit cards or bank loans -- that would help them buy something as simple as an oven to bake and sell bread. So I support what are called "microloans" -- small, no-collateral loans allowing the poor to build a business and employ their neighbors. As president, I will ask Congress for $100 million dollars to help microcredit organizations that are working in Latin America. And I will ask the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank to add to this investment. We will apply the power of markets to the needs of the poor.

How prophetic and insightful Lawrence Auster was in his deeply honest commentary:

But, if conservatives do mark their ballot for W. on Nov. 7 [2000], they should do it without illusions -- and they should be prepared to fight President Bush every inch of the way to preserve what remains of our national identity and sovereignty.

That is precisely what we are doing and must do. Another meaning of 'coyote' in Southwest Indian lore is 'trickster.' GWB is King of the Coyotes. We are just going to have to be trickier.

[La Enchiladita]

BTW, raybbr, I appreciate and admire your perseverance in continuing to post the speech and the excerpts. It is truly the template we are dealing with now.

[xzins]

I can live with the United States of North America.

I can probably live with a few different military or economic alliances with other nations located on the NA continent.

I can not live with a change in sovereignty from our government to some unelected government patched together by elitists........whether of the left or the right

[La Enchiladita]

Very true, Czar, but each time something like this is uncovered the truth resonates ever more deeply. It is so hard for some to give up their delusions and hopes re this president, because we were desperate for change in 2000.

But, one by one, conservatives -- sadly and with outrage -- come to see the light. It has happened numerous times on this forum, so repeatedly posting the historical speeches and information helps to finally bring it home.

Each day I am realizing moreso what a critical time this is for our nation, no less than the time in our history that led to the American Revolution. We are it. We patriots are being called to save our nation. And to do it we have to fight the president we elected, as well as the quisling congress.

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." -- Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill on the eve of Britain's entry into World War II
- from RR76's homepage.

[RR76]

I love any of Churchill's quote, but that one more than any other describes what we're facing with this immigration issue. It seems that the House and the American people are the only ones that can save this nation.


The great Republican Teddy Roosevelt said this:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes up short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

[La Enchiladita]

Yes, I am a HUGE TR fan also. He would not stand for any of this nonsense.

The House and the American people... Any day now, I expect that the House members who will go to 'conference' with the Senators will be named. Stay tuned.

[Czar]

"We are it. We patriots are being called to save our nation. And to do it we have to fight the president we elected, as well as the quisling congress."

Kind of reminds me of that wonderful line from the Pogo comic strip: We have met the enemy and he is us..."

Incredible, isn't it?

[La Enchiladita]

I wish we were merely alarmists, Czar, as some have said but this time I think not.

[raybbr]

Well, put a "Duh" next to my name...

No need. Whatever gets the message out. At least you will be able to find this atrocity on illegal threads where I post it.

Keep a barf bag handy.

:-)