Posted on 06/29/2006 6:06:13 AM PDT by NapkinUser
The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), signed by President Bush with Mexico and Canada in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005, was fundamentally an agreement to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada.
As I have documented below, the SPP “working groups” organized within the U.S. Department of Transportation are signing trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements with Mexico and Canada designed to accomplish the open borders goal incrementally, below the radar of mainstream media attention, thereby avoiding public scrutiny. Congress is largely unaware that SPP exists, let alone knowledgeable about the extensive work being done behind the scenes by the executive branch to advance the agenda articulated by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to establish a North American Union as a new regional super-government by 2010.
The June 2005 “Report to Leaders” references that the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America was announced at the Waco summit in March 2005. Yet, the SPP declaration was neither a treaty nor a law. The legal status of the declaration was not much more than a press release issued by President Bush, President Vicente Fox, and then-Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin. Still, somehow SPP.gov conveys the impression that the Waco declaration created de facto a new NAFTA-plus legal status between the three countries that is designated the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or “SPP” for short.
Evidently using this quasi-press release as legal justification, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) has proceeded to organize extensive “working groups,” drawing freely from the executive branch. These SPP working groups are housed under the auspices of the SPP program in the NAFTA office, as directed by Geri Word, a DOC administrator. The June 2005 SPP “Report to Leaders” makes clear the extensive implementing work already undertaken:
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 series of detailed actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.
Ms. Word confirmed by telephone that the membership of these “working groups” had not been published, not even on the Internet. Neither have minutes or transcripts of the many meetings with “stakeholders” and others been published, nor the “actions and recommendations” of the working groups. This revelation prompted a Freedom of Information Act request designed to bring these materials into the light of congressional public scrutiny. I also cannot find U.S. congressmen or senators who will identify any specific congressional examination or oversight that have been exercised over these SPP working groups that apparently have been convened to implement what amounts to only a joint press release declared from the trilateral summit in Waco.
Also found in the June 2005 “Report to Leaders” is that that the SPP working groups organized in DOC are reporting to three U.S. cabinet secretaries: Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Comparable cabinet-level working groups are referenced to government websites in Canada and in Mexico.
More than 20 working groups are identified in the June 2005 “Report to Leaders” and decisions have been made to open U.S. borders and skies to virtually unlimited “migration” and trade from Canada and Mexico.
Regarding “open skies,” three working groups are working on aviation issues, groups designated as “Aviation Safety,” “Airspace Capacity,” and “Harmonized Air Navigation Systems.” I am told that a tri-lateral agreement to create a North American Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) was signed in 2005, and that five WAAS stations were planned to be put in place in Canada and Mexico in 2005. Implementing WAAS in Mexico and Canada involved sharing the U.S. Global Positioning System with Mexico and Canada. I am told that the three countries executed a Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) agreement in January 2005 to allow for Mexican and Canadian aircraft to confirm to U.S. air spacing requirements. I found that the three countries released a North American Aviation on a Joint Strategy for the implementation of performance-based navigation in North America. This initiative included Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) in North America.
None of the referenced agreements are found on the SPP website. Yet, the working groups on aviation appear to have already accomplished opening U.S. skies to free and unrestricted navigation by Mexican and Canadian aircraft. It could be concluded that aviation authorities in Mexico and Canada have been given the tools to identify the location of all aircraft flying over the United States at any time, including military aircraft. I found no discussion on the SPP website that establishes the SPP aviation working groups were acting within specific authority granted by Congress, or even that the SPP aviation working groups were reporting to Congress.
Later in the June 2005 “Report to Leaders” I found that SPP working groups have already established a “trusted traveler” program for North America, including procedures “to enhance the use of biometrics in screening travelers destined to North America with a view to developing compatible biometric border and immigration systems.” Moreover, “a single, integrated global enrollment program for North American trusted travelers” would be implemented within the next 36 months.
These descriptions suggest that all “trusted citizens” of the U.S., Mexico and Canada would be considered “trusted citizens of North America,” issued the type of biometric identification that would make crossing the border as simple as passing your credit card through a charge-out terminal at a retail store. Once these procedures are fully in place, the SPP working groups will have eliminated “illegal immigration” for the most part. By definition, all “trusted travelers” in the three countries would be permitted to “migrate,” and supposedly to work, wherever in North America they choose to be. Again, there is no SPP reference to congressional authorizing legislation or oversight.
In reference to commercial truck traffic in North America, the June 2005 “Report to Leaders” notes that FAST lanes are being developed at North American ports of entry such that within 12 months “trusted trade” commercial trucks with SENTRI electronic identification will be permitted rapid entrance into the United States. This will allow Mexican trucks carrying containers from China off-loaded in Mexican ports such as Lazaro Cardenas to pass through the border at Laredo, Tex., as fast as a U.S. car today equipped with an E-Z Pass zips through toll stops on U.S. limited access highways. Again, there is no SPP reference to Congress.
SPP “working group” executive branch activity expands over every facet of commerce, trade, environment, and health imaginable -- ranging from e-commerce, to “a fully integrated auto sector,” to North American harmonized energy and steel policies, to clean air, a reliable food supply, and “a healthier North America.” Throughout the document there are references to “North America” as the province for the ultimate planning and regulations, always with an assumption that the current disparate regulations of the United States, Mexico and Canada will be “harmonized” or “integrated” into a trilateral structure of common and compatible regulations.
None of the many “memoranda of understanding,” “trilateral agreements,” or other accords to which the June 2005 report refers are printed in the report or listed through links to Internet addresses where the relevant compacts can be reviewed.
What the SPP June 2005 “Report to Leaders” documents is the knitting together of a new regional super-government, the North American Union, being accomplished in executive branch closed committees whose membership remain unnamed. The United States has never experienced a coup d’etat, let alone a coup d’etat pulled off by the executive branch under cover of “working groups.” Yet, what has been described in the June 2005 SPP “Report to Leaders” demands being scrutinized to see if that charge is here supportable.
I have filed a FOIA request to get the information needed to determine exactly what is going on within the Bush Administration's SPP policy. Is the United States being replaced by a North American Union? This is a question Congress should also demand be answered. Why aren’t congressional hearings being scheduled?
If the plan is to evolve the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America into a new regional North American Union super-government through executive action, the American people have a Constitutional right to know the truth. Is what is going on within SPP.gov is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution definition of executive branch rights and responsibilities, or not?
President Bush needs to come forward and explain SPP to the American people, explicitly and directly, and he needs to do so soon.
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.
And one far more zealous of defending its sovereign prerogatives than is "our" government.
That absolutely has to change.
If they don't respect us, it only will encourage more of the same. It breeds the corruption you allude to. It enhances the potential for mischief if your dark fears eventuate.
If we are worried about a revolution in Mexico, we just need to be prepared to take over. No ifs, no buts. No more communists in this Hemisphere. Period.
The ultimate Reagan Doctrine.
Feel free to argue for a "weak presidency." Any number of constitutional scholars have. And quit the BS about "elementary civics." I had that in 5th grade.
But by all signs then, you flunked out.
No response, huh? Would you care to discuss Tribe, Rotunda, or Chereminsky (sp?). All have writted treatises of the highest order. You have read them, haven't you?
I'm open for a more accurate description of those that consistently harass and scorn those of opposite opinion on this particular topic. Being careful not to attach it to any particular person, I anticipated that the ones the shoe fit would wear it as a crown. Civil debate and counter debate is really the most desired state of mature conservatives. FReepers need to leave the harassing nazi youth tactics to the ones that embrace it and teach it.....in the DU camp.
What is your opinion of the Law of the Sea Treaty?
He can't change policy on his own. Is that what you are calling "lifting a finger"?
That doesn't make for a weak presidency.
A weak character makes a weak presidency. Just enforcing the laws we already have provides a bit of latitude. But there is no "latitude" to completely disregard the existing laws, such as national security requirements or immigration laws, etc.
In any case, all we do here is exchange opinions. Some opinions are more worthy of ridicule than others. There is no requirement that every opinion deserves a fair hearing, or that every opinion should be given equal weight. In other words (using an extreme and recent example), posting a link about concentration camps on a Corsi thread doesn't help matters in any fashion, regardless of where you fall on this issue.
FWIW. This was on Lou Dobbs yesterday.
Turning now to our illegal immigration crisis, our border security crisis, the government accountability office this month sent an astonishing reports to the United States Senate, exposing the lack of immigration enforcement in the workplace.
The GAO determined that workplace enforcement is a low priority for the government. The agency found that in 1999, the INS devoted only 240 agents to work side enforcement. That was then about 9 percent of their staff. Shockingly, seven years later, only 100 agents, just 4 percent, are tasked to address the issue.
With reports like these, the Government Accountability Office aims to improve federal programs, ensure that government work and accurately represents the will of the American people. David Walker heads the GAO, as comptroller general of the United States and joins us here tonight. Good to have you with us.
DAVID WALKER, UNITED STATES COMPTROLLER GENERAL: Good to be with you Lou.
DOBBS: This is an astonishing report. To lay out this fact, what is your reaction? You have got a pulse, you have concerns like any citizen as well as your role. How do you explain this?
WALKER: We have a serious problem with illegal immigration. The fact of the matter is we are not enforcing existing laws adequately. We are not dedicating enough resources to it. We're not leveraging technology enough. And as a result, we have a lot of situations where people who are not legal are able to gain employment and that is serving to draw more people in to the United States because of the economic implications.
DOBBS: Your office also released a report in March stating that the immigration benefit fraud is a very serious problem in the country. Do you believe the U.S. citizenship and immigration services is capable of administering a so-called guest worker amnesty program of any sort, of the scale being discussed.
WALKER: They'll have to impose a lot more controls, leverage technology at a lot greater extent and we'll have to use a lot tougher enforcement mechanisms if we want any system to work. We were supposed to have tough enforcement after the last reform act in 1986 but haven't had it.
DOBBS: The idea that border security is an issue, almost five years after September 11, the Department of Homeland Security, I have to tell you, honestly, millions of Americans, I wonder, how can we call it a Homeland Security Department when we're not securing our ports, not securing our borders.
WALKER: It is a huge undertaking. There is no question that we are going to need more resources in the form of human resources, financial resources. We'll need to also use technology to a greater extent. But we're going to have to have enforcement as a key part, especially on immigration. You and I can walk around any city in this country today and there are places where you can go every day and see illegals congregate and yet nothing is being done about it.
DOBBS: Let's go to some other issues that sometimes I think many don't associate with your office and your role in the federal government. Looking at the federal debt, the national debt, the trade debt. We're talking trillions of dollars, unfunded liabilities, for Social Security, for Medicare, for Medicaid. What in the world does Congress say when you tell them, folks, this is no way to run a government?
WALKER: Well, many people know that we have a serious financial problem. But they don't realize how serious. We have gone from $20 trillion in total liabilities and unfunded commitments five years ago $46 trillion.
DOBBS: Can you say that again?
WALKER: From 20 trillion to 46 trillion in five years and it is going up every second of every minute of every day because we're still running debts at or near record rates. Demographics are working against us. Interest costs are compounding against us because we're a debtor, not an investor.
DOBBS: Is there, I won't say it that way. Are there any number of senators in Congress who are actually paying attention to what you and your office and your great staff are doing? Are they responding in any way?
WALKER: Well, more people are paying attention now. Congressman Wolf recently proposed that there be a bipartisan tax and entitlement reform commission to try to jump start this effort. We clearly need to do something. We need to do it soon because time is working against us.
DOBBS: Dave Walker, controller general of the United States, good to have you here.
WALKER: Good to see you Lou.
DOBBS: Thank you for the good work you and your people do in the federal government. We don't often get to say that.
WALKER: Thank you very much.
If we can't enforce our laws in the US, how do you
propose we enforce laws in Mexico when we merge?
I agree. Nobody gave Bush the right to pledge our life away. He's dreamin' if he thinks that's his job. He best go read the constitution...
Tex, you are jumping from "A" to "Z." Ain't nobody merging with anybody. It's true that some kind of North American Union stuff is inevitable eventually.
But, and it's a big butt, nobody knows what form the political end of the union is going to take. In the EU, Italy doesn't enforce laws in England.
That's why we're all so testy on these threads. Nobody knows "Who," "What," "Where," "Why," "When," or "How Much." Study the links, and the so far hypothetical post-NAFTA political plans for the North American Continent will scare the pants off you. But until we get the straight information, there's no use panicking over what right now is just the gleam in the eyes of the wonks on these "working groups."
Call your congressman. Let's find out exactly what's going on. Maybe then, we SHOULD panic!
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.....at the least to fellow conservative FReepers. Gotta exit for now and take care of some business. I'll check back later. It's been my pleasure. - OB1
Well welcome to the absurd real world. That's the way it is.
You should read the authentic Framers and not derivative treatises.
The U.S. Constitution:
Article IINote the general relation between the branches is laid out therein, and what you are calling a weak presidency is nothing of the sort, after all, he can adjourn one or more of the houses of Congress. BUT, he must enforce only what laws the Congress issues. Not his own "policies."
Section. 2.The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
He can only recommend such to them. I.e.,
...recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedientHe can't arbitrarily simply begin doing things in controvention of law, and attempt to subvert the Constitutional design. The President might issue a bunch of tough Executive Orders, and secret ones at that, but they better have some grounding in existing policy authority of law. And foreign policy is also circumscribed. The notion of Agreements bypassing the Treaty-making requirement of Senate concurrence was never imagined. And he is ultimately answerable to Congress if he fails to keep to his oathe of office. If he gets too big for his britches, or manifests treasonous betrayal of the Constitution and country, as did Clinton, Impeachment is the ultimate retort available.
I have a Federal District Court ruling sitting on my desk (that I haven't read yet, because it is long) that rejected your argument. And the U.S. Supreme Court rejected even hearing it.
Was it the ninth circuit?
Nope. The Supreme Court tends to review and overturn 9th Cir. opinions, not uphold them.
The same court which just today trumped the President's Constitutional War powers with their lame liberal interpretation of the Geneva Convention?
Big Whoop. Then these courts have dishonored their offices and betrayed the Constitution and country. A ruling doesn't make it so. And they are not the final arbiter of the Constitution, much as they pretend so. And the plain meaning is not contravened by foreign opinion, or the length of time of leftwing bilge leftover from the FDR/Truman administration.
Hopefully W finally gets it that pushing for conservatives on the bench, not merely those disinclined to liberal activism, is vital.
Let's see the cite to that.
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.