October 21, 2006
As If There Weren't Enough....
.... to be concerned about, we now have the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership looming on a horizon of uncertainty.
The stated goals of this entity are to "enhance security, prosperity and opportunity" for the North American community. Hmmm.
According to the Welch Report,
The CFR Task Force calls for the “creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March, 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders (of the three nations) that ‘our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.’ Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within the movement of people, products and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe.”
To those ends, the CFR report called for establishment of a common security border perimeter around North America by 2010, along with free movement of people, commerce and capital to be facilitated by the establishment of a North American Border Pass that would replace a U.S. passport for travel between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Also envisioned by the CFR task force include a North American Court, a North American inter-parliamentary group, A North American Executive Commission, a North American Military Defense Command, a North American Customs Office and a North American Development Bank.
The task force report is important to the debate over the official Security and Prosperity Partnership because the language used in the CFR task force report and SPP documents, so far, have proven to be nearly identical. Clearly the CFR task force report is being used as the blue print to establish the North American Union.
CFR is the U.S. Committee on Foreign Relations.
That doesn't sound like there is a whole lot of remaining room in the deal for any picayunes, like, perhaps, U.S. sovereignty, does it? It sounds more like that economic failure across the Atlantic, there, the one they call the European Union. In fact, the only difference I can see is the number of countries involved.
The name Security and Prosperity Partnership is employed, obviously, because North American Union would be a whole lot less palatable to Americans who have already seen what such a compromise of national political determination and sovereignty has done
for to the countries of Europe.
I had known about this for some time, at least peripherally, but only seen a few brief articles on it -- the entire project has thus far excluded the media and Congress, has been a "private" project of President Bush and the leaders of Mexico and Canada. Yesterday, while following a link on an unrelated matter, courtesy of informed and astute commenter Civil Truth, I ran across the above link at the same site and that clinched it, I felt the need to look at it more closely.
What we are looking at here is a plan, to be fully executed in less than half a decade, to incorporate the United States, Canada and Mexico in the same way the EU has incorporated the nations of Europe. If you read the "myths" dispelling page of the SPP website, also linked above, you'll find the same sort of bland, you-American-voters-are -stupid-people-so-believe-this language the administration used to try to convince us that amnesty for criminal aliens would be the best thing that could ever possibly happen to the American people.
This plan would place yours and my freedoms in the hands of Canadian socialism and Mexican whatever it is they have down there that doesn't work. Billions of dollars of our tax money would be invested in Mexico to try to fix their failed economy that doesn't work only because they have a corrupt government that is only interested in the richest of the rich and couldn't care less about the common man, and because their citizens, at least those who aren't wealthy enough to buy them, don't enjoy the rights we do here in America. Politicians of that same government would have a say in our lives and our rights.
To date, Congress has passed no specific legislation to authorize the activities of the SPP, nor to funds it is spending. Congress has had no official involvement in the process and has no oversight.
Congressman Tom Tancredo, (R-Colo) has demanded that the Bush Administration fully disclose the activities of the SPP working groups, including revealing the names of the members of those groups. No answers to his demands have yet been received from the Bush Administration, though the activity continues to move forward. NAFTA Super Highway Quietly, the Bush Administration is working to advance a plan to build super highways through the heart of the United States to transport goods from Mexico and Canada. The highways are part of the original North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA). The plan is now being advanced through an operation called “North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc” (NASCO). Since being exposed to the general public, NASCO is now denying it is building the highways, but plans go forward.
Beginning at the southern tip of Mexico, passing through Laredo, TX, the highway heads to an “inland port” in Kansas City, where a “Sentry System” will electronically inspect the cargos, before they head East or West, or continue on North through Duluth, Minnesota and into Canada.
The Super Transnational System includes multiple lanes for cars and trucks. Speed limits will be relaxed as well as safety inspections for vehicles from Mexico and Canada. Trucks will be allowed to carry extra tonnage and be extra long. A Railway system will travel up the center of the highway.
Several such highways are contemplated. Environmental impact studies have already been completed. In Texas, efforts are already underway as 584,000 acres have been targets for takings through Eminent Domain.
An OpEd at Renew America observes,
Recently, Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez Baustista floated a "trial balloon" during a speech at the University of Texas, ominously revealing a possible answer. According to Baustista, Mexico and the United States should eventually become "integrated," thus forming what can only be construed as the hub of a "North American Union," no doubt eventually including Canada as well.
President Bush has indicated a disturbing sympathy towards such thinking, refusing to characterize Mexican immigrants as "illegal." In contrast, he implies illegality by the "Minutemen" who now protect the border, having described them as "vigilantes."
Conversely, he discusses the actions of the "undocumented immigrants" as "pursuing their dreams," seemingly indifferent to the fact that Americans will be forced to shoulder the burden of fulfilling those dreams, ultimately at the expense of their own.
In a Canadian perspective, from Global Research,
If the existing system were being respected, why would the planning and implementation be so secretive, and government statements not supported by facts? And if it’s for our benefit, why aren’t politicians, who love to show how much they are achieving for their constituents, promoting it in glowing terms? DeWeese concludes, "The United States is the most unique nation on earth. We were created out of a radical idea that free people, with their freedoms protected by the government would be happy and prosper beyond imagination. The idea worked. Now, the Bush Administration is ignoring this historic fact to “harmonize” us with Canada and especially Mexico, which is not a free country; has no [right of] property and has just proved its unworthiness of conducting free and fair elections. At risk are our culture, our wealth, and the once proud American way of life."
Further citing the same sort of stealth among Canadian officials,
Government Secrecy: Canadian officials silent
Organizers of the event in Canada were the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, an elite club of Canada’s richest CEOs, and the Canada West Foundation, a very right-wing and pro-SPP think-tank based in the Alberta oil patch.
We Canadians have been encountering total stonewalling from our own government on the subject. Even recent and current Prime Ministers, who know perfectly well what is going on, have refused to discuss it. And because they have not permitted the issue to arise during any recent election, there is certainly no mandate from the Canadian public to negotiate an agreement to terminate the country.
Stockwell Day, a former leader in the Conservative (or as it was then called, Alliance) party, and now Minister of Public Safety in the Conservative federal government, was an active participant in Banff. His office is flatly refusing to answer questions from journalists.
This was disclosed by the founder of the citizen watchdog group Council of Canadians, Maude Barlow, who has pointed out that it’s the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) which lobbies the government and continually pushes the notion that because the economies of the two countries are already partly integrated, Canadian “domestic laws are essentially redundant.” (Ref. 12). Her concern is that the idea of redundancy of our laws will be extended to the government itself, and that because its government is seen as redundant, Canada itself will be made to disappear.
Now, while I am not a fan of Canada's political make-up, I will be the first to say that they are an ethical bunch who look out for their citizens' interests.
Mexico, on the other hand... well, the same way I don't believe in giving amnesty to people whose very presence on our soil has been a violation of our laws, I wouldn't even consider giving a government that encouraged its citizens to sneak into our country illegally, just to shed themselves of people they had no interest in helping themselves, a seat at the table where laws and rights in this country are concerned. If the Mexican government has no respect for American laws, who in their right minds would want them to have a say in making laws for us?
And make no mistake, the only way a North American Union could play out would be, in order to consummate a smooth flow of inter-union commerce and security proceedures, if laws in all three member states were adjusted to be on the same page.
We're definitely running out of time here....
How's that for something else to be concerned about?
Posted by Seth at October 21, 2006 10:55 AM
Seth-- GREAT research here and...many of us have heard little bits here and there BUT this is starting to blow it all out.
We need to get the media to cover this -I wonder if they will? I don't mind an actual security pact-- a group of allies who stick together in good times and in bad times. BUT can we call the Mexicans allies? I think not.
Posted by: Raven at October 21, 2006 12:31 PM
If this is happening at the rate it is, and the three governments are managing to keep this tight of a media lid on it, I believe we're in serious trouble.
As I see it, the only country that benefits is Mexico -- our tax money would necessarily be committed in massive amounts to "fix" their mismanaged country, and I mean continuously as they continued to screw thing up.
The country that loses the most is ours, not only in terms of money -- can you imagine the tax hikes we'll face, supporting Mexican welfare? We'll end up paying the unreasonably high rates they pay in Europe, and eventually with a smaller percentage of working people paying for a larger percentage of non-workers.
Posted by: Seth at October 21, 2006 12:41 PM
I've heard bits and pieces about it too, Seth, but you've put together the most comprehensive article on it I've seen yet. Kudos! Not that I needed anything else to worry about, mind you!
I do not understand Bush going along with this??? I'm also surprised that Fox News hasn't covered it, at least not as far as I can tell. Possibly they aren't covering it because it may result in hurting the GOP come November, but that's exactly why the rest of the MSM would cover it!
I'm in Texas, and I've already seen the beginning of the work being done on this. (shudder)
What really surprises me is that since Bush is for it, why aren't the Dems against it? I know they love the illegal immigrants, but really, anything Bush is for they are automatically against, even if they are secretly for it too! It's a wonder they haven't blasted Bush on this! I'm glad they haven't, because Dems in power is an even worse nightmare than this plan is.
I'm not worried about Canada, especially since they have a conservative PM now. But I still would like to hang on to our original borders. One thing for sure, I don't want any part of Mexico!
Posted by: Gayle at October 21, 2006 02:37 PM
America is gone. It doesn't exist. We are now the AU (American Union).
Posted by: Ogre at October 21, 2006 02:43 PM
It looks like Bush was an initiator of this, rather than going along with it.
As far as media coverage goes, except for a WSJ reporter who was privvy to one meeting, it looks like the media's been shut out of this altogether, just as Congress has.
As long as the people putting this together continue to keep an effective lid on it, as they're doing, we won't hear a whole lot about it... As far as the Democrats go, in their present state, even with all their anti-Bush rhetoric, the concept of a NAU would suit them just fine -- what better, faster way to usher in a blatant socialist environment than to dilute the Constitution with laws passed with Mexico and Canada sitting in the new Senate?
And yes, Mexico is the last place we need to go for lawmakers.
We ain't seen nothing yet!
Posted by: Seth at October 21, 2006 03:11 PM
Thank you Seth; you're right, it does look as though Bush is the initiator of this, but I do not understand it. I am completely confused as to why he would want to do such a thing. It simply doesn't make any sense! :(
Posted by: Gayle at October 22, 2006 06:43 AM
I know several conservatives who are concerned that GWB has served as a Trojan horse when it comes to our national sovereignty.
Posted by: Always On Watch at October 22, 2006 07:57 AM
You should contact Sixth Column about this. The team over there has been following this information since this past summer.
Posted by: Always On Watch at October 22, 2006 08:01 AM
It appears that he is, or has become, one of those who believe in having a world government -- I should have thought that to be more in line with today's Democrats' thinking by the way they want to run everything by the UN or their justices prefer to consult European law rather than the U.S. Constitution in forming decisions.
I'm beginning to wonder if there's not a bipartisan angle here that's being kept secret.
Posted by: Seth at October 22, 2006 08:31 AM
It appears they may be right. It is unconceivable that any American President could contemplate something like this, thus it comes as a shock -- our country, our Constitution and the rights we enjoy here are unique in the world and what this means is the end of 230 years of this great and unique political enterprise engendered not by outside enemies, but by enemies within.
Thanks for the tip, I will email Sixth Column today.
Posted by: Seth at October 22, 2006 08:40 AM
This issue is most distressing. As to the 'why',
one wonders if it is an extension of NAFTA, economically driven by special interests. Any
thoughts of the reasons behind such an action?
I see no benefits, particularly in security and
believe it would open our already porous borders!
Posted by: BB-Idaho at October 22, 2006 01:58 PM
There have long been those who believe in creating a world government, most of them people who are either wealthy enough and/or politically embedded to the extent that they will always exist above the level of the common man. This goes beyond any specific political dogma, it is purely marketplace oriented.
The first step in creating such a body would be establishing regional bodies, getting local governments under the umbrellas of continental unions, the next step would be combining them under one unified governing body, which would then relegate the element unions to the equivalent of individual states, countries to parishes.
This SPP deal could well be that first step in our neck of the woods.
I long ago stopped trusting politicians of either party, which is why I let their track records speak for them and take what they say with a grain of salt. If Bush is behind this tri-lateral deal, then shame on him -- he is committing treason by engaging in activities that undermine the Constitution and jeopardize the sovereignty of the United States.
If I am misreading this entire situation, which I would like to believe I am, then I'll be profoundly relieved.
Returning to the SPP -- I agree that it will not benefit us in terms of security. Mexico is a 3rd World country. It is run like a 3rd World country. Its economy and the integrity of its national security and law enforcement aparat are those of a 3rd World country. Its shores and borders are as porous as collanders. Widening our security perimeters to include Mexico would prove a disaster in every sense of the word.
This SPP -- more accurately, North American Union, is in anything but our best interests.
Posted by: Seth at October 22, 2006 03:25 PM
My first reaction was that these allegations were in the same category of believability as warnings about the Trilateral Commission or Christian Reconstructionists. However, I also believe in following the money, and since there are definitely commercial interests who stand to benefit from a North American regional state, I think this does need to be monitored, especially since the U.S. Congress has already set a precedent for allowing the U.S. Constitution to be subordinate to supranational entities.
What I found quite intriguing was that this state was to be a North American state which is planning the establishment of a common security border perimeter around North America by 2010. Since there would be no northern border to be sealed, this would establish Mexico's southern border as the principal security line.
The irony is intense: Mexico, which protests any efforts by the U.S. to control its border with Mexico, is promoting strict control over its southern border. Of course, this is no surprise since Mexico has long discriminated against immigrants into its country and brutalizes immigrants from the south with such intensity that dwarfs anything the U.S. has done. (A google search will find you multiple stories.)
Posted by: civil truth at October 22, 2006 05:13 PM
Civil Truth --
When I first ran across rumblings of this, I also discounted them. I mean, c'mon, why would Bush or any other patriot want to try something like that, right? Our total sovereignty and self rule are inherent to the very principles that make America the greatest country in the world.
But then I began reading other accounts of the activities of the SPP folks, about the meetings that excluded the media and about the fact that none of our politicians had made any reference to the issue. A couple of months ago, I started thinking, "what if...?"
Like you, I believe in following the money, and I began thinking about how appealing such circumstances would be to the richest of the rich who could thrive on a multinational marketplace with uniform business, import-export and banking laws. So I began paying attention.
A couple of weeks back, I don't recall exactly where, I read an account by a Canadian journalist of the conference on his turf that was held without the media permitted to attend, wherein he cited former high ranking Bush Sr. staffers and other govt officials as having attended. Then there were reports of W, Fox and the former Canadian PM having signed an agreement without consulting their respective congresses/parliaments.
The SPP website denies this, but as I said in my post....
When I followed the second link you included in a comment on that other thread, I spotted the Welsh Report link, skimmed it and decided that this was the time to investigate the issue more thoroughly.
There is simply too much out there from too many sources to disregard it.
I believe it's very real and will, indeed, be monitoring it.
As far as Mexico goes, the very idea of placing that country between us and our outer security perimeter is downright chilling.
Posted by: Seth at October 22, 2006 09:57 PM
Truly a great post. This is such an important issue; it isn't separate from, but rather, part of, the same problem we face with Islam.
The reason is (at the most superficial level - it really goes a lot deeper) that Islam, including al-qaeda and Hezbollah, have strong relationships with many Latin American organizations, especially in the "Tri-Border Region" (Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina). Their closest allies are the drug cartels who run the gangs, including here in the US.
Probably by this time, most of us have heard on Fox about the corruption problem among our own border guards (oh, well, since there is no effective border, why not?). Even a senior FBI has been hauled into court on major bribery charges.
More and more, the area between Mexico and the U.S. is becoming a No-Man's Land rather than a border, and is nothing more than a conduit through which, for a price, thousands of "OTMs" (Other Than Mexicans), including hundreds of Middle Easterners, have been smuggled into the United States.
Not long after 9/11, a forensic economist who makes his living by chasing down "paper trails" in white collar financial crimes, followed paper trails that led from the now very well known UN "oil-for-food" scandal, wherein UN trucks carried food and medicine into Iraq, and when emptied, were reloaded with WMDs which were then transported to Syria. Some of these were re-loaded onto ships bound for Canada, where they received documents allowing them to be transported, without any inspections or restrictions, anywhere. Ultimately, many of these trucks with various components of WMDs came across the border with Canada, and were dispersed and hidden throughout the United States.
Obviously, it occurs to many of us that the terrorists are taking similar advantage of the border situation with Mexico; after all, they may be evil, but they aren't stupid.
Even further problems are that many of the Latin American gangs are sending members to join up with our military, where they receive the same training as all our other military members. They go to Iraq etc. along with everyone else, where they gain urban combat experience - ain't THAT a hoot - and then return here to re-up with their old gangs and train them. They also steal equipment from the military; for example, several times in the last couple of years, an Army base a few miles south of where I live has gone into lockdown because of such thefts. The last time, about 8 months ago, was for the theft of night-vision goggles.
This whole border thing is desparate. The "Project World-Wide Caliphate" of Islam is horrendous, but at least it is somewhat longer range because it is so recognizable, and to some degree, it is being opposed.
The border aspect of the problem is largely unrecognized and unopposed, and so represents a more immediate danger.
We MUST get on the stick here. We are in the "squeeze-play" of our lives here.
Once the North American Union (can you imagine saying "I pledge alliegiance to the flag of the North American Union"?) is in place, the floodgates will be completely open, and the Enlightenment principles of rights and freedom embodied in our Constitution will be unrecognizably diluted, and eventually destroyed, as will our sovereignty. Many of us already recognize that they are being severely and rapidly eroded.
It won't stop with the European Union (the first to be implemented) and the North American Union; other blocs will be formed - the "Asian Union," the "African Union," etc., and the ultimate goal of these globalists is to form the "World Federation of States."
This will eliminate any progress in thinking, including the kind of thinking that led us out of the Dark Age, into the Renaissance, and from there to the Enlightenment, and to the Constitution of the United States.
We will be trapped in a new Dark Age that may last far longer than the old one.
Down with the "World Federation of States!"
Posted by: cubed at October 25, 2006 10:23 AM
I have been saying for some time, just based upon the political direction and consequent significant changes our country has experienced since I was a teenager, that I am supremely glad I've passed the half century mark, because I don't think I want to see what people only just turning 21 will be witnessing after I'm gone.
However, I never imagined that I would live to see the day officials of our own government would work to so completely obliterate this most successful of all political enterprises. America works, and has from the beginning, better than any country in history.
That they would even consider diluting our country thus by sharing its governance with other governments is pure treason, yet it is in the works.
The trouble that will enter the equation because of our wide open borders will not be pleasant, especially given some of that which you cite above, and the government's response will include the first of several retractions of our freedoms.
That will be the beginning of the end.
Posted by: Seth at October 25, 2006 03:42 PM