Posted on 06/09/2007 4:42:06 PM PDT by dvan
Pursuing the "North American" Agenda Vol. 40, No. 2 September 2006
The hottest issue at the grassroots is illegal immigration and what our government is not doing to stop it. The question most frequently heard is, Why doesn't the Bush Administration get it?
Maybe the Bush Administration doesn't want to stop the invasion of illgal foreigners and wants to declare them all legal through amnesty lite and guest-worker proposals. Maybe the Bush Administration is pursuing a globalist agenda by means of a series of press releases (without authority from Congress or the American people).
Consider this chronology.
On March 23, 2005, President Bush met at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, with Vicente Fox of Mexico and Paul Martin of Canada in what they called a Summit. The three heads of state then drove to Baylor University in Waco, where they issued a press release announcing an agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).
On May 17, 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations issued a 59-page document outlining a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter" to achieve "the freer flow of people within North America."
This document is full of language spelling out an "integrated" strategy to achieve an "open border for the movement of goods and people" within which "trade, capital, and people flow freely." The document calls for "a seamless North American market," allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access," "totalization" (the code word for putting illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system), massive U.S. foreign aid, and even "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution."
(Excerpt) Read more at eagleforum.org ...
How much plainer can it get?”
Don’t forget the Navy hospital ship that just went to S.A. on a “goodwill tour”
OMG! A ship! On water! In another country!
It must be a bigger conspiracy than anyone thought.
BTTT!!!!
How DARE they give humanitarian assistance to other countries!
And in South America. It’s not just a North American Union, it’s a Whole American Union.
That means a whole lot of non-Americans in America, and no way to reliably assess their visa status.
If you thnk that through, any person who appears "foreign" will be able to claim Z visa eligibility, and there will be no way to verify. The new new laws of S.1348 give such people de facto immunity from immigration law. The Z visa gives them a "right" to be here.
For a while, at least, we'll have a de facto "open borders" situation.
Meant to ping you, dvan.
True ... and if the amnesty bill squeaks through, the number of new trails blazed between Mexico and the U.S. border will make the Oklahoma Land Rush trails look like a bicycle path in comparison.
Beware of the stonecutters....
The short version is that those in power had a completely different version of events than the People did, only both those in power and the People didn't know it - that is, until the McCarthy field workers went into action.
I worked New Hampshire and Upstate New York.
Every person that I got to talk to thought, until they met me, that they were the only ones who thought Johnson was lying.
When people realized they were not alone, they started a wave that washed the invulnerable Johnson away, in about 2 and a half months.
Why we wound up losing is an interesting story, and maybe I'll pick it up tomorrow.
But the point is, the political class has their version of events, and the people have theirs. Once you wake the peple up, and they learn they are not alone, a lot can happen in a short time.
FR needs to start backing this.
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North... (Introduced in House)
HCON 40 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. CON. RES. 40
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 22, 2007
Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. WAMP, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. PAUL, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. DUNCAN, and Ms. FOXX) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
Whereas the United States Departments of State, Commerce, and Homeland Security participated in the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, representing a tri-lateral agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico designed, among other things, to facilitate common regulatory schemes between these countries;
Whereas reports issued by the SPP indicate that it has implemented regulatory changes among the three countries that circumvent United States trade, transportation, homeland security, and border security functions and that the SPP will continue to do so in the future;
Whereas the actions taken by the SPP to coordinate border security by eliminating obstacles to migration between Mexico and the United States actually makes the United States-Mexico border less secure because Mexico is the primary source country of illegal immigrants into the United States;
Whereas according to the Department of Commerce, United States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly increased since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);
Whereas the economic and physical security of the United States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA and the SPP;
Whereas the regulatory and border security changes implemented and proposed by the SPP violate and threaten United States sovereignty;
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union to facilitate trade between the SPP countries;
Whereas the State of Texas has already begun planning of the Trans-Texas Corridor, a major multi-modal transportation project beginning at the United States-Mexico border, which would serve as an initial section of a NAFTA Superhighway System;
Whereas it could be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would likely increase the insurance rates for American drivers;
Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities; and
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would likely include funds from foreign consortiums and be controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—
(1) the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;
(2) the United States should not allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to implement further regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and
(3) the President of the United States should indicate strong opposition to these acts or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.
Co-sponsors:
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] - 5/15/2007
Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] - 2/16/2007
Rep Davis, David [TN-1] - 3/1/2007
Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] - 3/1/2007
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 1/22/2007
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 1/22/2007
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 4/19/2007
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 2/27/2007
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 5/9/2007
Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] - 4/19/2007
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 1/22/2007
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] - 4/19/2007
Rep Marshall, Jim [GA-8] - 4/19/2007
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 2/27/2007
Rep Norwood, Charles W. [GA-10] - 1/30/2007
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 1/22/2007
Rep Regula, Ralph [OH-16] - 2/8/2007
Rep Saxton, Jim [NJ-3] - 2/8/2007
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 1/22/2007
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 2/16/2007
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] - 2/8/2007
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 1/22/2007
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HC00040:@@@L&summ2=m&;
I am PROUD that my rep, Phil Gingrey is a co-sponsor. At least I have ONE representative who isn’t a back stabbing weasel.
If they really bring the SPP out in the open it will go hard on the elites. I believe the people will not like this type of activity being executed in the back rooms. I don’t know where this is all going to end but this “merger” is being worked in an aconstitional manner without the people’s knowledge or consent. Deals brokered in darkness generally end badly.
Best --
Dave
You may find this article of interest.
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.