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.
Along these lines, I've always wondered where a Pres. is able to issue 'executive orders' that seemingly have no constitutional basis yet carry the force of law.......I'll forever rememeber Paul Begala's famous line about "stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool"......how ridiculous would it be to have that kind of power in the hands of Pres. Hillary?
I always felt sorry for Charlie.
I refuted a specific part of the article, that dealing with aviation matters with which I'm intimately familiar, to illustrate the overall lack of knowledge of the writer. The specific items mentioned by Corsi in that para are technical issues related to aviation safety and have been accepted worldwide for the purpose of making aviation safer and more efficient.
For Corsi to throw those technical issues into a soup of other issues to illustrate the beginning of the end of the USA reveals a lack of knowledge on his part about what those specific agreements accomplish and make anything else he has to say on the issue suspect. He's using scare tactics to stampede folks not familiar with certain aspects of aviation into believing the agreements I cited are a lessening of our national sovereignty. I suspect the rest of the article is more of the same.
FOX news just did a Fox News Alert to say that this deal was passed for the State of Indiana to LEASE highway I-69 to a foreign company. I looked it up and found this (note that it says nothing about NAFTA):
INDIANAPOLIS — In the biggest highway privatization deal in U.S. history, state officials last week signed an agreement to turn the 157-mile Indiana Toll Road over to a foreign consortium that will operate it for a profit for the next 75 years.
Under the lease, Spanish-Australian consortium Cintra-Macquarie will pay the state $3.8 billion up front and will be responsible for operating and maintaining the highway. It will get to keep the toll revenue it collects.
Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels said the upfront payment will help pay for OTHER transportation projects and create jobs.
Opponents argued it violates the state constitution and have sued. They said the constitution requires that proceeds from the sale of any public works be used to pay off state debt.
The Daniels administration said the arrangement is not a sale but a lease.
The state hopes to close the deal and transfer the highway to the consortium by June 30.
The lease authorization passed in the Republican-controlled General Assembly by the bare minimum of votes. All but two Democrats opposed it, saying the state should not turn over a major asset to a private, foreign entity, and noting the consortium would reap billions of dollars through toll revenue and rate increases.
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/124820
Company name caught my eye, searched for Cintra-Macquarie NAFTA....found this:
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has proposed that the $2 billion Indiana portion of I-69 be funded through a combination of transportation money from a high-profile contract and tolls. The state’s $3.85 billion deal to lease the Indiana Toll Road to Macquarie-Cintra, an Australian-Spanish consortium, will provide the state with enough money to fund a host of transportation projects. The governor is asking for $700 million of that deal’s funds to be EARMARKED FOR THE NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY. The Indiana Department of Transportation plans to raise the other $1.3 billion through public-private partnerships, which means putting in tolls so that the companies that spend money on road building can recover their investment. The legislature has given the go-ahead for feasibility studies about making portions of the I-69 corridor in the Hoosier State a toll road.
http://www.governing.com/articles/5highway.htm
MORE:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1564911/posts
http://www.roadsbridges.com/rb/index.cfm/powergrid/rfah=|cfap=/CFID/3119/CFTOKEN/13356081/fuseaction/showNewsItem/newsItemID/10785
TODAY'S TRUCKING NEWS:
http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2006/Apr06/040506.htm
I don't get it.
If I understand the bidding process, even Hutchison-Whampoa could bid on operating toll roads within the United States. Hutchison-Whampoa, thanks to Jimmy Carter, now operates the Panama Canal. Also, thanks to Mexico's Vincente Fox, HW will pump 20 billion into the Punta Colonet project on the Baja Peninsula, that will lead to the eventual shut down or melt down of the Ports of Los Angeles, and Long Beach. Conceivably HW could out bid others on the NASCO Corridor and have the Chinese Army cutting right through America's heartland.
Phil Brennan
Wednesday, June 13, 2001
From Panama to the Philippines, an arm of Hutchison-Whampoa, Hutchison Port Holding (HPH), has become the world’s largest seaport operator, embedding itself in strategic seaports all across the globe.
Hutchison holds the exclusive contract to operate the Panama Canal.
An animated map on the Hutchison-Whampoa Web site shows the extent of the encircling movement with seaport operations in Africa (Tanzania International Terminal Services Ltd.) in the Western Hemisphere with seaport services in Beunos Aires, Argentina; Freeport, the Bahamas; Veracruz, Mexico; and at both ends of the Panama Canal.
HPH’s latest acquisition, announced last month, involved eight Philippine ports. New ports in Mexico, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Tanzania and Thailand make Hutchision-Whampoa the world’s largest private port operator with 23 cargo berths, bringing its worldwide total of ports to a staggering 136.
Other ports include Jakarta, Indonesia; Karachi, Pakistan; India (where the company runs the cellular phone services); Burma; China; and Malaysia. There are port operations in Britain at Harwich, Felixstowe (Britain’s largest port), and Thamesport, and in the Netherlands at Rotterdam. The last acquisition has caused alarm at the European Commission.
According to the latest reports, the company is interested in locating at South Korea’s largest port, Pusan, and has finalized an agreement to operate out of Kwangyang, another South Korean port.
The company boasts of its worldwide scope on its Web site: "The World of Hutchison Port Holdings covers a broad spectrum of port operations and related service companies spanning the entire globe. With operations and services ranging from container ports, mid-stream operations and river trade to cruise terminals, warehousing, haulage and e-commerce companies, HPH has become a key provider of comprehensive logistics services for the global supply chain.”
Just what is Hutchison-Whampoa?
According to a 1999 investigative report by the American Foreign Policy Council, "Hutchison Whampoa, through its Hutchison International Terminals [HIT] subsidiary or Panama Ports Company, has substantial links to the Chinese communist government and the People's Liberation Army.
"The Panama Ports Company is 10 percent owned by China Resources Enterprise [CRE], which is the commercial arm of China's Ministry of Trade and Economic Co-operation. In its investigation into China's attempts to influence the 1996 U.S. presidential campaign, the U.S. Senate Government Affairs Committee identified CRE as a conduit for ‘espionage - economic, political and military - for China.’ Committee Chairman Senator Fred Thompson said that CRE has ‘geopolitical purposes. Kind of like a smiling tiger; it might look friendly, but it's very dangerous.’”
Sen. Trent Lott has described the Hong Kong firm as "an arm of the People's Liberation Army."
The company is headed by a Li Ka-Shing, the chairman of Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. Intelligence sources say he has deep connections with the Chinese Communist government.
"Li has invested more than a billion dollars in China and owns most of the dock space in Hong Kong. In an exclusive deal with the People's Republic of China's communist government, Li has the right of first refusal over all PRC ports south of the Yangtze river, which involves a close working relationship with the Chinese military and businesses controlled by the People's Liberation Army,” the AFP report stated.
"Li has served as a middle man for PLA business dealings with the West. For example, Li financed several satellite deals between the U.S. Hughes Corporation and China Hong Kong Satellite [CHINASAT], a company owned by the People's Liberation Army. In 1997 Li Ka-Shing and the Chinese Navy nearly obtained four huge roll-on/roll-off container ships, which can be used for transporting military cargo, in a deal that would have been financed by U.S. taxpayers.”
According to the Thompson Committee, Hutchison Whampoa's subsidiary, HIT, has "business ventures with the China Ocean Shipping Company(COSCO) which is owned by the People's Liberation Army.”
COSCO, which failed in a notorious Clinton-backed attempt to lease the former U.S. Naval base in Long Beach, Calif., has been criticized for shipping Chinese missiles, missile components, jet fighters and other weapons technologies to nations such as Libya, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, the AFP report revealed.
"In 1996, the U.S. Customs Service seized a shipment of 2,000 automatic weapons aboard a COSCO ship at the port of Oakland, California. The man identified as the arms dealer, Wang Jun, is the head of China's Polytechnologies Company, the international outlet for Chinese weapons sales. Jun also sits on the Board of CITIC, China International Trust and Investment Corporation, the chief investment arm of the Chinese central government. It is also the bank of the People's Liberation Army, providing financing for Chinese Army weapons sales and for the purchase of Western technology.”
Li is also a board member of CITIC. U.S. intelligence sources have described the company as a front for China's governmental State Council.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., has stated that CITIC has been used as a front company by China's military to acquire technology for weapons development.
Last year a report by NewsMax.com.’s Christopher Ruddy and Stephan Archer noted that a declassified report by the U.S. Southern Command's Joint Intelligence Center, prepared in October 1999 and obtained by the government watchdog Judicial Watch, said that "Hutchison Whampoa's owner, Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-Shing, has extensive business ties in Beijing and has compelling financial reasons to maintain a good relationship with China's leadership."
The military intelligence report also warns that "Hutchison containerized shipping facilities in the Panama Canal, as well as the Bahamas, could provide a conduit for illegal shipments of technology or prohibited items from the West to the PRC, or facilitate the movement of arms and other prohibited items into the Americas."
Adm. Thomas Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has noted that "the Chinese have always indicated that the proper way to fight a war was not to make a frontal assault but rather to get around behind the enemy and cut off all their supplies.”
Get NewsMax.com's special report Christopher Ruddy in Panama.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Panama Canal
What is that a map of, the best Drug Runner routes?
Conceivably HW could out bid others on the NASCO Corridor and have the Chinese Army cutting right through America's heartland.
See what I mean? This is moonbat material.
I was speaking of how the Chinese Army will appear out of thin air on our border and travel the SuperSlab straight into our heartland, presumably without paying tolls.
Well I wouldn't think the Chinese Army or anyone for that matter could appear out of thin air. Jimmy Carter gave the Chinese all the air in the world to breath in Panama, and Bill Clinton did likewise with COSCO at the old Terminal Island Naval Base in Long Beach, CA. To not already know, that Hutchison Whampoa are included in Mexican Port expansion and operations, and then to exclude them from any other NAFTA bidding, is not clear thinking.
Conceivably, yes, Hutchison Whampoa could bid on any American public works projects, including the Trans-Texas Corridor, and NASCO Corridor. And the way the U.S. is going, I wouldn't be a bit surprised after the Dubai fiasco. That's my opinion, and I stick by it.
I see now, that when you wrote of "the Chinese Army cutting right through America's heartland" you were writing figuratively.
I used to do major problem solving, not on this magnitude though! Like a game of chess, you always line up the known actors, and attempt to second guess all potential moves, and of why they are moving. You must always include all variables and players. Hutchison Whampoa is a large and major player. We know HW are involved in Punta Colonet, Mexico and other Caribbean Gulf ports such as Tampico etc. Although the Chinese have a small contingent in Panama, no I don't visulize them marching up I-35, and yes, I agree with you, that would be far fetched or moon bat thinking! Hopefully, we're not there yet.
Thank you. I don't play chess anymore, and less with games. Chinese ambitions are scary, but I guess they say the same about us. I don't know why we trade so much with them. I'd be happy to pay more for the same product made here in America. You know, we as nation can't be isolationists, and it's very important to trade world wide. But, what's going on with NAFTA and all that's out there on the subject, scares the life out of me.
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.