Posted on 06/15/2006 5:47:10 AM PDT by Trupolitik
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of an office implementing a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that apparently could lead to a North American union, despite having no authorization from Congress.
As WND reported, the White House has established working groups, under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the Department of Commerce, to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005.
The groups, however, have no authorization from Congress and have not disclosed the results of their work despite two years of massive effort within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
Tancredo wants to know the membership of the SPP groups along with their various trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements reached with counterparts in Mexico and Canada.
Tancredo's decision has been endorsed by Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project.
"It's time the Bush administration to come clean," Gilchrist told WND. "If President Bush's agenda is to establish a new North American union government to supersede the sovereignty of the United States, then the president has an obligation to tell this to the American people directly. The American public has a right to know."
Geri Word, who heads the SPP office, told WND the work had not been disclosed because, "We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public."
WND can find no specific congressional legislation authorizing the SPP working groups nor any congressional committees taking charge of oversight.
Many SPP working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.
No, but you out yourself as a liberal by spending your entire time on Free Republic, a conservative forum dedicated to promoting conservatism, attacking conservatives. I urge anyone - especially Free Republic management - to review your posting record as that is ALL that you do here.
One of the most conservative members of Congress is Rep. Tom Tancredo. All you do is attack him, smear him, slander him, etc. World Net Daily is a conservative website. All you do is attack it. The conservatives in the House of Representatives, urged on by conservatives in general, have passed a border security first bill. All you do is attack that conservative bill, attack the conservative supported goal of securing the borders, and attack the conservative ideal of enforcing our laws. You further attack them by implying racism, hate, and ethnic animus as their motivation for passing or enforcing border security and immigration control laws. That is all you do here. Attack. Attack. Attack conservatives.
If you're not a liberal, then why do you keep attacking conservatives?
Again spiff, let the facts state that I haven't taken a taxpayer paycheck from the govt. for 12 years(ala your hero tom tancredo).
Actually I have never taken a govt. job, again unlike your hero tom tancredo.
It seems that, depending on how it is handled, it could be a deal that greatly increases our hegemony throughout North America.
If the Congress doesn't approve of it, it would seem that it could squash it.
This is from the "Dallas-Fort Worth Star-Telegram - Not World Net Daily
Title- "It's time for a North American Union"
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/14787918.htm
"It would start with massive subsidies from the United States to Mexico, a Tex-Mex Marshall Plan, with the goal of decreasing disparities on the Mexican side of the border and fostering a climate riper for investment. This would create more jobs in Mexico and foster a middle class, homeownership and better schools, roads and health care. Mexicans would stay home, becoming consumers of U.S. products."
Wouldn't you at least agree that we should know what is meant by "Massive Subsidies" or do you think that Mexico should become a "Welfare State" of the United States - you appear to be for cutting back "Welfare"
Oh, lovely, Tom T is buying the tinfoil?
Dammit we need him to stay solid, not go into apoplexy about CFR, NSA, Tri-Lateral Commission illuminoid silliness.
My prediction: this marks the beginning of the end for the anti-illegal push. After some choice quotes come out, Tom will have marginalized himself. I know the Tancredo and Bucky fans will see this as red meat (I can see that from the thread already), but outside of that group this stuff will be perceived as a Dean-scream moment.
Another way of looking at the future impact of a NAU on our national sovereignty is to examine what examined with the failed acceptance of the EU Constitution. From everything I can gather, it looks like the people some countries were vehemently opposed to an all encompassing Constitution because it would create a new superstate gov't that would have a great impact on how each country is governed because the new apparatus would most likely have the power to override the wishes of individual states.
If we join this new NAU, it's very conceivable that our God given Constitutional as well as legal protections would be sacrificed on the altar of the new superstate gov't. It would be insane to forfeit all of that in order to make a few bankers, retailers and crooked politicans richer than they are already.
How does asking questions about an obvious attempt by the executive branch to integrate ourselves even further with one of the most corrupt, narco driven gov't in this hemisphere qualify for tin foil status?........and all of which is being done without Congressional oversight?
BTW, do a web search with the keywords, "tancredo,vietnam".
I don't think you as a tancredo fan, will like the results.
Well we already have the EU, and who prey tell was responsible for that unholy union? The people voted it down and still it was rammed through. An American Union is inevitable, the same elites that oversaw the creation of the EU are hard at work on America. Would the people really revolt if they rammed it through? I doubt it, just go back to watching your big screen and drink some more beer...thats it a nice cold complacent sleep.
What does that have to do with the argument at hand?
Nothing(WFBFan)
Actually it does, since bill clinton never went through boot camp either.
bill clinton went to Oxford to get out of Vietnam service as an excuse, tom tancredo used childhood depression to be 4F.
You (and many of your cohorts) really need to stop with the Soviet style tactics of trying to portray those who disagree with you as mentally ill. We are on to this type of tactic and it makes YOU look silly.
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.