Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Spiff
I'll give Pence credit for trying to come up with something workable and I'll give Tancredo credit for pointing out the flaws in the plan. Now, if Tom and Mike would get together, to come up with a Tancredo/Pence plan, I think they could give us all a reason to come out and vote (R) this fall.
82 posted on 08/30/2006 8:24:20 PM PDT by FlashBack (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: FlashBack

We have bigger problems than an Immigration BIll:

Congressman presses on 'superstate' plan
Asks Bush administration to fully disclose its activities


Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala.
A congressman is pressing the Department of Commerce to fully disclose a congressionally unauthorized plan to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that critics say could lead to a North American union.

Referring to an attached letter from a constituent, Rogers wrote to Gutierrez:


Judging by information contained in this letter, a number of legitimate concerns are raised regarding the implementation and operation of the SPP, including the membership and charge of its working groups; potential memoranda of understanding with foreign countries; and whether there has been any Congressional oversight of these working group, to name a few.
Rogers concluded by asking Gutierrez for a prompt review of the issues and for a response "as soon as possible."

The attached constituent letter was written by Eunie Smith, president of Eagle Forum of Alabama and by Bob Couch. They posed the following questions to Rogers:


What is the membership of the 30 SPP working groups?

What is the charge/working agenda of each of the 30 SPP working groups?

Please provide to me any trilateral memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada.

Please provide findings, reports and presentations of the working groups.

Under what congressional action are these working groups constituted?

What congressional oversight is there of this process?

Are the working groups redefining American laws to make them tri-lateral?

What specific plans are there for reporting to Congress?
The constituents' letter also suggested four lines of inquiry should congressional hearings be convened to examine SPP working group activities:


Is the sovereignty of the United States threatened since it has been reported that a North American court and a parliamentary body are being proposed, complete with the "Amero" to replace the U.S. dollar?

Wouldn't an "outer security perimeter" remove the capacity of policing our borders from the hands of United States citizens?

Isn't "harmonizing entry screening and visa and asylum regulations" code for a quantum leap in liberalizing our country's immigration laws?

What about the May 2005 CFR Task Force documents calling for a "seamless North American market" and for "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico" and for a "permanent tribunal for North American dispute regulation," as well as calling for allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the U.S.
The constituents' letter also attached a copy of a July 2005 article by Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly entitled, "The Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada."

Schlafly was one of the first analysts and commentators to question the purpose of SPP. In her article, she wrote that the Council on Foreign Relations task force report entitled "Building a North American Community" let the "cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries."

Schlafly argued the CFR task force report "spells out a five-year plan for the 'establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community' with a common 'outer security perimeter.'"

She commented:


This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin 'committed their governments' to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.
Rogers' letter to Gutierrez supports a demand for information made last month by Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.

Smith, on behalf of Eagle Forum of Alabama, told WND she is "very pleased" with Rogers' commitment to inquire into the SPP operations.


85 posted on 08/31/2006 6:35:42 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

To: FlashBack
Additional information:

Tancredo confronts 'super-state' effort
[Demands full disclosure of White House work with Mexico, Canada]


Responding to a WorldNetDaily report, 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 for 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.
87 posted on 08/31/2006 6:42:12 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson