SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stopping the North American Union -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (30)7/20/2007 2:31:03 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Respond to of 111
 
Write your congressman and senators, too:
One Reporter's Opinion — No to North American Union!

George Putnam
Friday, April 20, 2007
Where are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and the others in speaking out against the proposed North American Union?

It is this reporter's opinion that hot on the heels of the president's visit to Yuma, Ariz., we are being bombarded by a massive propaganda campaign to convince the American people that our borders are, or soon will be, under control.

We are told it is time to pass a "comprehensive immigration reform bill," code for a massive guest-worker program — and amnesty.

Flashback: the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) let the cat out of the bag with its 60-page CFR document that spells out a five-year plan for the establishment, by the year 2010, of a North American economic and security community with a common outer security perimeter.

"Community," which means integrating the United States with the corruption, socialism, and poverty of over-populated Mexico and Canada.

"Common perimeter" means wide open U.S. borders – U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

Clandestine Meeting

There were meetings March 23 at Waco, Texas, and later on June 27 in Ottawa, Canada, in which the three leaders, President George Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada adopted the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

Story Continues Below



The CFR document called for creating a North American conference so that employers could recruit low paid workers from anywhere in North America.

Recently Daniel Sheehy, author of "Fighting Immigration Anarchy," traced the following:

# March 2005 — Call for the creation of a North American Community with the United States, Mexico, and Canada by the year 2010.

# March 10, 2005 — CFR member Condoleezza Rice meets with Mexico's Foreign Secretary Ernesto Derbez in Mexico City to discuss "hemispheric integration."

# March 23, 2005 — Bush meets with Fox and Martin in Waco where they agree to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.



# May 2005 — The CFR report is published, entitled "Building a North American Community" in which Bush, Fox, and Martin commit their governments to integrating the three countries.

# June 23, 2005 — The Supreme Court rules 5-4 on Eminent Domain in which private property is taken against the owner's will to be used in private development.

# June 30, 2005 — The U.S. Senate approves the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

At this point, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., speaking in loud protest, says "I am now convinced that the president's true objective is the absorption of the United States into some sort of borderless ‘North American Union' with Canada and Mexico.

"That's why they have done nothing to secure our borders.

"That's why they seek to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

"That's they're building a massive ‘North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] superhighway,' which will speed foreign goods and labor from Mexico into the heart of America and up into Canada.

"That's why, rather than anger their Mexican partners, the Bush administration threw the book at agents Ramos and Compean.

"And frankly, that's why I am now so seriously considering a run . . . to become president of the United States."

A Fight for Our Identity

Tancredo says "Our culture, our language, our heritage, our sovereignty, our security, our prosperity — indeed our very survival — are at risk."

There is so much to be told concerning the proposed North American Union (NAU) but too many members of our American media are suspiciously silent.

Where are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and the others in speaking out against the proposed North American Union?

Why does Michael Medved call the North American Union a "conspiracy theory" labeling those of us exposing this as a shameless collection of lunatics and losers, crooks, cranks, demagogues, and opportunists?

The nations of Europe have been swallowed up by the European Union (EU). Time is running out.

Don't let it happen to America!

If our America is to be preserved, we've got to become involved and support local, state, and federal officials fighting for our American sovereignty.



To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (30)7/21/2007 3:59:22 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Respond to of 111
 
Lifelong Republicans are dumbfounded by President Bush’s support of the amnesty bill. Yet FSM Contributing Editor John Lewandoski observes that it all makes sense when the Security Prosperity Partnership comes into view. Just how threatening to our national sovereignty is the SPP? .

Immigration Deception Reveals SPP Threat to America

familysecuritymatters.org

By John Lewandoski



When the common sense approach to a public issue is conspicuously avoided by Washington power brokers, it’s a good time to suspect ulterior motives. Such is the case with our Mexican border and why it “can’t” be secured. Bottom line: border control is not designed to remedy the security problem. Rather, the border is designed to be eliminated.



Unnoticed by much of mainstream America, there is an unholy cabal that’s slithering past them. Among the geo-economic power elite in Washington, with our President at the core, is an effort that if not averted will, by 2010 or thereabouts, lead America into a hardened amalgam of tri-national partnership, and eventually into international organization. The result of this could, and more likely will, be the abolishment of our Constitution and national sovereignty; i.e., America in name, but a “nation-less” country. It appears that Mr. Bush doesn’t want a common border between Mexico and the U.S., and thus is doing his best to win and maintain favor with the Mexican government and its people, who have everything to gain by border dissolution.



A recent and firm clue that the President is willing to go to extreme ends to maintain this Mexican favor is the Ramos/Compean border agent case that has slapped two U.S. Border Agents with federal penitentiary terms of over a decade each, all as a result of a flagrant miscarriage of justice perpetrated against them by the Bush Administration. Just ask any of the 70 congressmen who signed legislation in January 2007, introduced by Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), calling for a reversal of the outrageous convictions, and that the two agents be freed from jail immediately. As of July 2007, no public action whatsoever has been taken by the President to comply. Worse, facilitating the convictions were the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, the total machinations of which produced the sham case and trial resulting in the sentences. [For much more detail, do a “Ramos Compean” Google-search or see www.minutemanproject.com – article “Invasion USA Ignacio Ramos reported in ‘emaciated’ condition.”



What is it that makes this President defy common-sense conduct…

· by not wanting border security tightly (and easily) implemented, especially in a post- 9/11 environment?

· by pandering to corrupt, ill-run Mexican administrations when he should be protecting America from such things?

· by going to inexplicable lengths to use his power to facilitate incrimination of U.S. Government Border Agents in favor of Mexican appeasement?



Answer: largely, it’s the Security Prosperity Partnership (SPP). You may have heard the term SPP, but my guess is that unless you frequent credible alternative news sources, this may be your first exposure.



Back on March 23, 2005, in Waco, Texas, President Bush, then-President Vicente Fox of Mexico and Paul Martin, then-Prime Minister of Canada, met at a summit meeting to enter into an agreement between the three countries that is designed, trilaterally, to bring “security, partnership, and prosperity” to these three North American land masses. Critics, however, believe that the agreement will do nothing more than join these lands commonly together, erase northern and southern U.S. borders and form a North American continental perimeter instead. They further believe that the idea is to proceed rapidly forward as the next step in the process of NAFTA and CAFTA, both of which propel these three countries toward the North American Union (NAU) and some say ultimately to integration with the overarching New World Order or One World Government.



This isn’t an Orwellian novel. It appears the idea here, via the SPP, is to make this transition gradually, incrementally and generally unnoticed, for were it to be revealed as it should be, I’d suspect there’d be civil uprisings nationwide. When it does come under scrutiny, the SPP firmly denies its aims are ultimately toward the NAU, but the framework and underlining implications of the SPP scream otherwise.



Nonetheless, the SPP has a dedicated following and support, as revealed in Marcela Sanchez’s recent Washington Post column, all of which indicates SPP is doing a fine job of convincing some of its “public-spirited” intents. In short, the SPP is so well crafted it appears to promote altruistic “progressive” outcomes no one in his right mind would refute - that is, if one believes the hype. Columnist Sanchez points out, after all, SPP goals such as “…leaders (President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon) are expected to announce an integrated strategy to combat pandemics…” ; and “…trilateral regulatory cooperation framework, meant to enhance competitiveness, while maintaining high standards of health and safety”. She also states the SPP makes “…no mention of erasing borders and establishing a separate legal system, (or) adopting a single currency…” Well, of course it doesn’t, even though those tenets are clearly inferred. Has Ms. Sanchez reviewed the European Union’s (EU) structure lately? The parallel between it and what’s brewing here in Washington is strikingly similar.



Why is the Washington Post promoting SPP support while other qualified journalists counter the Post’s position diametrically, stating that through cunning and design, the SPP is actually an evolving press conference which has already produced signed documents that constitute an agreement (although the SPP indicates no “agreement”, per se, was ever signed. The SPP is carefully not a law or treaty, because those actions must involve Congressional approval and ratification. So, it appears that our president knowingly side-stepped constitutional protocol by operating a deception to avoid exposure to the other arms of government and, of course, to the American people…at least at this stage of the game.



A good “home” for this new agreement between the three countries then was found in the U.S. Dept. of Commerce. From there, the White House manages many working groups, and according to distinguished historian/writer, Dr. Jerome Corsi, the groups are within the Department of Commerce (DOC); exactly what the relationship is to the DOC, however, is unknown to the general public. The DOC highly refutes direct DOC oversight, stating SPP is a “…White House-led initiative…”. But it is interesting that the “big three” directly responsible for SPP development under the President are Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, Condolzeza Rice, Secretary of State, and Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security.



Something of a counter-constitutional stench is wafting out of Washington if we start connecting dots the mainline media are ignoring by ignorance, bias, or neglect. Even the SPP’s own website provides their organizational framework of the SPP. Included are the Departments of Energy, Transportation, Health & Human Services and more--- all cabinet level reporting groups that report to aforementioned Gutierrez, Rice, and Chertoff. And paralleling the US team, assisting in this overall developmental effort, are the parallel governmental bureaucracies of Mexico and Canada.



So what we have metastasizing in Washington, unbeknownst to the general public, are policy making groups, appointed officials, committees, advisory boards and essentially trilateral, parliamentary councils all hard at work in restructuring (destroying, actually) our U.S. constitutional way of American life to create a new world order, pure and simple. Too bold a statement? Although the SPP denies any infringement on our Constitution, the ultimate and inevitable outcome of any combined, tri-lateral/national construct, by definition, can mean nothing less than a re-written tri-national document.



These working groups compose a “shadow government”, or a parallel of our Founding Father’s constitutional bureaucracy that includes bureaucracies of the other two North American countries in the process. The eventual result of this new, comparable, trilateral bureaucracy is the fear, and some say certainty, that our U.S. laws and regulations will be rewritten to harmonize with those of Mexico and Canada – and all this, now, being accomplished in the Executive arm of U.S. Government, all without congressional oversight or review!



Our continually eroding Constitution, in Article 1, Section 1, declares that all legislative powers shall be vested in the Congress of the U.S. But Congress has abdicated its responsibility by allowing the Executive branch, by means of the SPP, to steal law-making authority to which it’s not entitled. Just recently, as the Senate’s immigration bill bit the dust, inserted in that bill --- by parties unknown --- was an after-the-fact endorsement of the SPP scheme.



The credible journalist/editor, Cliff Kincaid, of www.aim.org states, “… The White House was most likely behind this stealth attempt to get Congress to approve SPP, which forms the basis of the North American Union (NAU).” (aim.org report, July 9, 2007). This ram-through legislation is precisely what seasoned constitutional journalists all along have predicted would precipitate SPP congressional approval. Although the SPP maneuver was included in the now dead immigration bill, don’t remotely assume it, too, is dead; it’s only in a coma, certain to be revived for another stealth presentation snow-job by the same “parties unknown” who placed it there this time around.



Thus is the general overview of the SPP currently buzzing in our Department of Commerce. It is hoped that the reader is stirred enough to contact Washington legislators to demand accountable, limited government in America, and complete uncovering, inspection, and removal of the SPP.



Your national sovereignty is at stake.



To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (30)7/24/2007 6:17:48 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 111
 
I received this reply to my concerns about NAU and SPP from Congressman Peter DeFazio:

"The Bush administration cannot unilaterally change U.S. laws with respect to trade, immigration, security, currency or any other areas without the support of Congress. Should the administration request any changes to U.S. laws in order to harmonize them with our Mexican and Canadian neighbors to create the "borderless" future you expressed concern about, I would certainly approach such a request with extreme skepticism. I do not believe that the U.S. should cede sovereignty to others, whether it is the WTO or some European Union like body to oversee North America."



To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (30)8/5/2007 12:30:03 PM
From: Ann Corrigan  Respond to of 111
 
Call Rush Limbaugh..possibly he would start investigating the situation. Nothing would open millions of Americans eyes quicker than a few words from Rush.