Posted on 10/05/2007 6:05:05 AM PDT by pissant
Those who seek to understand what's behind the chatter about President George W. Bush's Security and Prosperity Partnership as a possible prelude to a North American Union, similar to the European Union, should read the 35-page White Paper published recently by the Hudson Institute called "Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosperity Partnership."
The Washington, D.C., think tank is blunt and detailed in describing where the Security and Prosperity Partnership is heading.
Here's how Hudson defines the Security and Prosperity Partnership's goal: "The SPP process is the vehicle for the discussion of future arrangements for economic integration to create a single market for goods and services in North America."
The key words are "economic integration," a phrase used again and again, into a North American "single market," another phrase used repeatedly.
"Integration" with Mexico and Canada is exactly what North American union means, but there's a big problem with this goal. "We the people" of the United States were never asked if we want to be "integrated" with Mexico and Canada, two countries of enormously different laws, culture, concept of government's role, economic system and standard of living.
Here's how Hudson explains the Security and Prosperity Partnership's process: "The most important feature of the SPP design is that it is neither intended to produce a treaty nor an executive agreement like the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) that would require congressional ratification or the passage of implementing legislation in the United States. The SPP was designed to function within existing administrative authority of the executive branch."
Hudson explains further: "The design of the SPP is innovative, eschewing the more traditional diplomatic and trade negotiation models in favor of talks among civil service professionals and subject matter experts with each government. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States."
Indeed, the Security and Prosperity Partnership is very "innovative." The arrogance of the Security and Prosperity Partnership's "design" to give the executive branch full "authority" to "enforce and execute" whatever is decided by a three-nation agreement of "civil service professionals," as though it were "law," is exceeded only by its unconstitutionality.
The Hudson White Paper admits the problem that the Security and Prosperity Partnership completely lacks "transparency and accountability." Hudson freely admits "the exclusion of Congress from the process"; constituents who contact their Congressmen discover that members know practically nothing about the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
Hudson states that, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, one of the U.S. challenges is "managing Congress." Is Congress now to be "managed," either by executive-branch "authority" or by "dozens of regulators, rule makers, and officials working with their counterparts" from Mexico and Canada?
The Hudson White Paper reminds us that the 2005 Council on Foreign Relations document called "Building a North American Community" bragged that its recommendations are "explicitly linked" to SPP. The Council on Foreign Relations document called for establishing a "common perimeter" around North America by 2010.
Hudson praises the Council on Foreign Relations document for "raising public expectations" about what the Security and Prosperity Partnership can accomplish. Hudson explains that, while immigration is not an explicit Security and Prosperity Partnership agenda item, "mobility across the border is central to the idea of an integrated North American economic space."
"Harmonization" with other countries is another frequently used word. One of the Security and Prosperity Partnership's signature initiatives is "Liberalizing Rules of Origin."
The Hudson Paper reveals the Security and Prosperity Partnership's cozy collaboration with "some interest groups and not others." Translated, that means collaboration with multinational corporations, but not with small business or citizen groups.
After the heads of state of the United States, Mexico and Canada met in Waco, Texas, in March 2005 and announced the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership by press release, the North American Competitiveness Council emerged as "a private sector forum for business input" to Security and Prosperity Partnership working groups. But, according to Hudson, it wasn't merely "private" because it was "given official sanction."
After the three amigos met in Cancun, Mexico, in 2006, President Bush provided taxpayer funding for a think tank called the Center for Strategic and International Studies to meet secretly and produce a report called "The Future of North America." That document's favorite catchword is "North American labor mobility," which is a euphemism for admitting unlimited cheap labor from Mexico.
The Hudson White Paper states that "SPP combines an agenda with a political commitment." That's exactly why those who want to protect American sovereignty don't like the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
Among the people who take the Security and Prosperity Partnership seriously are Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., who introduced a House resolution opposing a North American Union and a NAFTA Superhighway, similar resolutions introduced into the state legislatures of 14 states, and California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter's amendment to prohibit the use of federal funds for Security and Prosperity Partnership working groups, which passed in the House by a vote of 362-63 on July 24.
The Hudson white paper suggests that it might be "necessary" for the Security and Prosperity Partnership to change its name and acronym. It is unlikely that a change of name will silence the American people who are outraged by the Security and Prosperity Partnership's goals and process.
Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded "Supremacists." She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org.
LOL at you, laughing you to scorn.
Laughing it off is your only course, because you have no rebuttal to the fact that the scholars contradict Phyllis.
My daughter always thought Bush was the anti Christ, she may be onto something.
I wonder what kind of mark we will need to buy those Mexican products
To date you haven’t proven your case, Ben. So, I’m laughing at you.
Maybe you should go back and read those replies and the Hudson report itself?
Maybe you can show me where Hudson says what Phyllis says they say?
Now is the time and this is the place for you to prove it.
You apparently haven’t read all the posts between BillF and me. Take a look at his #55 and my reply to 55.
As for the Hudon report’s claim that SPP isn’t a prelude to the NAU, as Emerson wrote, “The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”
LOL.
What is relevant is that all the security and prosperity plans are being implemented.
Most recently..............
FERC has OKed the connections between the Texas and Mexican grids,
Kansas City Southern will be building a new bridge across the Rio Grande, or, as some say, the Rio Bravo.
The first port expansion at Cardenas is complete.
According to the media, Congress will be appropriating billions for Mexican security.
This is another example of why you and I don't have to listen to mis-info from Phyllis. Rather than listen to her BS, we can go on the internet and we can read the NACC recommendations. For 2007, 2008, and 2010.
Now I don’t know what point you’re arguing. I thought the issue was whether Schlafly was making stuff up about the SPP being a possible lead-in to the NAU or not.
What Texas is doing in the case of those two small Texas power companies wanting to connect to Mexico is a bit disturbing. Texas has kept its grid independent of other U. S. States for many years, but now they’re willing to hook up to Mexico? Bizarre.
But there are a number of international bridges across the river between the U. S. and Mexico already, so your mention of Kansas City Southern’s plans is not a huge deal at this point.
BTW, just because you don’t understand the relevance of the Emerson quote doesn’t make it irrelevant. It’s right on the money.
No, the issue was that she was lying when she said that the "Scholars(at Hudson) explain president's plan for a North American Union".
She knows that she doesn't have much credibility so she tries to deceive you into thinking that a more credible source(to some) was in agreement with her.
I’ve written to her asking about that. I’ll let you know what she says.
Why even respond to these silly conspiracy theories? Its all moot anyway since citizenship is just a “state of mind”.
Um, did y’all see this????
LOL...that's why the last time I've seen you on a thread....it was AGAIN claiming that Schlafly is a liar and making misrepresentations/false claims/allegations. You just "love Schlafly" so much, all you do is dump on her and what she says.
‘merely a flesh wound’...
hehehe!
Thanks for the ping.
I’ve been lurking on this thread since it opened.
You’ve got mail.
okers!
Thanks for the ping... will read now.
I had missed it... and it’s even still in the “news” category! ;-)
Good stuff!
I should have pinged you to this one earlier today.
Lots of overlap to SPP
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1908554/posts
XXV Border Governors Conference - Text of Joint Declaration (signed by U.S. and Mexico Governors)
thanks! I’ll bookmark to read tomorrow.
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.