North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA

In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.

SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Econom�Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernaci󮠃arlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.

Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:

In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.

This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight.

Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed.

The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure.

Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as “our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles …” or “we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding …,” or “we have signed a declaration of intent …” etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.

What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.

Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.

The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of Mexico, Canada, and the United States is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled “Building a North American Community.”

The Task Force’s central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. (page xvii)

The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within:

Its (the North American Community’s) boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. (page 3)

What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the “Amero,” the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union. The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions:

While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.

The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24)

Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.

Most of the Chicago Illegals are from Mexico. There are large neighborhoods of the Spanish speaking. In mine there are lots of Polish and Russian Illegals and elsewhere lots of Irish and Greek.

Here there is not much of a problem from them and they do a lot of work in construction. Since the Unions here have driven up the costs of such work to astronomical levels it would be undone without the Illegals. I spent a fortune on an addition and later found out that most of the work was by Polish Illegals. Had the contractors used Union labor it would have cost me twice as much. Another big employer is the restaurant industry where at least 20% of the work force is Illegal. It would collapse without them.

There was a big article in the Sun-Times today about Mexico building a fence of wilderness and thick shrubbery to reduce the traffic across the border. I see no real chance to control them unless Mexico becomes more developed.

If you read the above carefully you will see we are making the same point.

I noticed that and only wanted to emphasize and reinforce the point.

I made the above comment because I believe it is pointless to argue intentions. Discussing results is more persuasive and thus the better strategy.

I hope so. FWIW I think different people have different strengths as well as different perceptions of things. The multiplicity of opinion found on FR is itself a strength as it allows a variety of tacks to be taken. Different strategies with the same aim can reach different people. IMO.

Thanks for the reply.

TE, I have read your posts for quite a while now, and always admire your insight and eloquence. Of all of your writing that I have read, this is the only opinion of yours with which I disagree.

Doggone it. Doggone it all that is simply unacceptable! /sarc ;^)

Thank you, joanie-f. From you that is most high praise. Sincerely.

I see and understand all you have said. In some respects my only defense is the feeling that America is a sleeping giant and that the wakeup call will come. I suppose that thought is tainted by hope. I'm not much on hope. I try to keep my mind in the present moment and hope (as well as fear) is always a result of dwelling on the past or future.

I agree, in some respect, with the thought that it is a lost battle. For some time I have felt that the only possibility of restoring the republic is in the streets. My desire is to avoid that and it is that and one other reason that I continue to fight in the arena of ideas. And you have already stated that reason...

But, unless and until the battle is lost, we are called to continue to do our part to keep the enemies (both foreign and domestic) at bay. To do any less would hold us just as accountable as those passive, 'sideline Americans' who choose not to be a part of the crusade to reclaim this republic ...

--------------------------------------------------------

I figure it’s better to temporarily shelve my political opinions altogether than to don rose-colored glasses and verbalize an optimism that I don’t honestly embrace.

It is definitely best to be true to yourself. Nothing good will come from bending to please others. But I think you're right to let it go with those who don't want to hear it. You can't jam thoughts in a mind that's not ready for them. I suspect that when that wake up call comes you won't be able to shut those people up about it. ; )

Thanks for the kind words, and excellent analysis (especially, 'The consequences of actions are inevitable whether intended or not.' … a seemingly simple sentence containing a mountain of significance.)

I can't take credit for that. That's just pure Dharma. The law of cause and effect. After a few short years on my cushion and one or two moments of actual meditation I am beginning to see that "karma," as the law of CaE has come to be known, goes far deeper than most of us ever suspect. Not a breath or a passing thought goes without its results.

“Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826

If old Tom could see his country now he'd be trembling like a leaf. But would it be from fear or anger? Hmmm.

I guess it's a fight that will never end. If the republic ceases to exist we'll still fight for liberty.
It sure will be a nightmare though and those who sleep now will find no rest.

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.