Posted on 07/14/2006 8:00:42 AM PDT by weps4ret
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
Report to Leaders
June 2005
On March 23, 2005, you announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. At that time, you instructed Ministers to create an architecture which would further enhance the security of North America while at the same time promote the economic well-being of our citizens and position North America to face and meet future challenges. This effort builds on the excellent, long-standing relations among our three countries. The response to your request is attached.
-snip-
The post is too long for full posting. Do not know if anyone else has seen this.
(Excerpt) Read more at spp.gov ...
The ostrich brigade will be along shortly.
We live on a continent whose three countries possess the assets to make it the strongest, most prosperous and self-sufficient area on Earth. Within the borders of this North American continent are the food, resources, technology and undeveloped territory which, properly managed, could dramatically improve the quality of life of all its inhabitants.
It is no accident that this unmatched potential for progress and prosperity exists in three countries with such long-standing heritages of free government. A developing closeness among Canada, Mexico and the United States--a North American accord--would permit achievement of that potential in each country beyond that which I believe any of them--strong as they are--could accomplish in the absence of such cooperation. In fact, the key to our own future security may lie in both Mexico and Canada becoming much stronger countries than they are today.
No one can say at this point precisely what form future cooperation among our three countries will take. But if I am elected President, I would be willing to invite each of our neighbors to send a special representative to our government to sit in on high level planning sessions with us, as partners, mutually concerned about the future of our continent. First, I would immediately seek the views and ideas of Canadian and Mexican leaders on this issue, and work tirelessly with them to develop closer ties among our peoples. It is time we stopped thinking of our nearest neighbors as foreigners.
By developing methods of working closely together, we will lay the foundations for future cooperation on a broader and more significant scale. We will put to rest any doubts of those cynical enough to believe that the United States would seek to dominate any relationship among our three countries, or foolish enough to think that the governments and peoples of Canada and Mexico would ever permit such domination to occur. I for one, am confident that we can show the world by example that the nations of North America are ready, within the context of an unswerving commitment to freedom, to see new forms of accommodation to meet a changing world. A developing closeness between the United States, Canada and Mexico would serve notice on friends and foe alike that we were prepared for a long haul, looking outward again and confident of our future; that together we are going to create jobs, to generate new fortunes of wealth for many and provide a legacy for the children of each of our countries. Two hundred years ago, we taught the world that a new form of government, created out of the genius of man to cope with his circumstances, could succeed in bringing a measure of quality to human life previously thought impossible.
Now let us work toward the goal of using the assets of this continent, its resources, technology, and foodstuffs in the most efficient ways possible for the common good of all its people. It may take the next 100 years but we can dare to dream that at some future date a map of the world might show the North American continent as one in which the people's commerce of its three strong countries flow more freely across their present borders than they do today.
Ronald Reagan - November 13, 1979
What Reagan said in 1979 has absolutely no bearing on the here and now.
The citizens of the United States should not be forced into a union of this nature without their expressed consent.
Just because you say so. Well, that's reasonable /sarcasm
Reagan created a large part of the problem with his amnsety in 86'.
It's probably the only true failure of his presidency.
Seen it? We're worn out by it. This is, conservatively, the 30th posting of something about this NAU.
It's a trading partnership. That's all. No relinquishing of sovereignty, no loss of freedom, no compromise of the constitution.
What this conjured up conspiracy does do, however, is provide a moneymaking opportunity for shysters like Jerome Corsi, who has whipped up the kookburgers into a frenzy.
They are guaranteed to buy his book.
There is also a little issue in there about raising taxes in America and Canada to pay for infrastructure improvements in Mexico. I wish I could say I found this on my own, but, Rick Roberts in San Diego was talking about it this morning. Oh, and the Senate did not fund the wall. Guess that is the wrong kind of infrastructure improvements.
It was supposed to be a secret.
hmmm, how would $100 a barrel oil, change your mind?
"Seen it? We're worn out by it. This is, conservatively, the 30th posting of something about this NAU."
We're worn out by the global/open borders brigade trying to defend the indefensable.
It's hard to take anything you say seriously, when you make a statement that Reagan's speech about us working closely with Mexico and Canada, has "ABSOLUTLY NO BEARING" on the same thing be discussed today.
Well drat, I guess I am now in the same catagory as Rove, and Novak. I revealed a secret. Somebody please hide me from Fitzgerald. /sarcasm off
Wouldn't change it in the least.
To be fair, you simply had to be at the press conference. LOL
How do "working closely with" and being invaded by differ?
I know, do you?
What's indefensible about enhancing trade between the three countries with common borders in the Americas?
Have you noticed that the only wedgies over this are occurring in the fringe kook internet community and on the ample ass of Lou Dobbs?
One word: Amero.
I'd answer it the same way I approved of NAFTA even though Clinton was president at the time.
Is it being labeled a "kook" that bothers you so much?
Why not "The Greater North American Co-Prosperity Sphere" instead? It's got that historic feel. ;)
We did consent. We elected the people who are creating the union...and can't be bothered to de-elect them. So I guess that means we approve. ;)
Amero? That sounds like a made-up Corsi term.
Actually, I think the credit goes to some egghead in Canada.
Well, I read the SPP outline and you may have me there. On page 472, par 3, it says Canada and Mexico are both allowed 2 invasions per calendar year.
But only along the NAFTA Supercorridor. And they must pay toll.
In that case mexico has grossly exceeded it's quota by allowing 10% of it's population to cross unwelcome into our country.
Mark
So what do you think of Cornyn's plan to create a tax that would help mexico pay to upgrade it's infrastructure?
The house is going to get all kinds of new furnishings and carpet at even lower prices, more people who live in the house will be working, and houses on either side will be remodeled and upgraded.
The house will be locked. No, what I'm sensing is, you just don't like the looks of your neighbors.
I haven't read about it yet, but I have a feeling it's not quite that simple.
But hey! Why would you oppose it? It would create construction work in Mexico and keep those brown people off your roof.
When all else fails your side always sinks to race baiting sinkspur. It's really sad. Never mind that I have always consistently said that I want all illegals returned home regardless of where they come from.
I would oppose it because I want my tax dollars spent here on Americans, not in a foreign country on it's citizens.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3622.IS:
Get to reading sinkspur.
Show me where that is in writing, EXACTLY how you presented it, and then I'll comment on it. I generally don't waste time commenting on fictitious bogeyman.
By the way sinkspur, in the event that the legislation reminds you of something but you can't quite place it be sure to look at how things are done in the EU.
The two bear a striking resemblance.
That's not a tax bill, unless you count U.S. legislation to raise Mexican taxes as one.
Take a look at post 39 slick.
Not a tax? Really? Just where do you think the U.S. is going to get the money for it's portion of the "fund" if not from taxes?
From the tooth fairy?
You are not going to deport 12 million people. They will have to be encouraged to go back, not herded back in buses.
I see Cornyn's suggestion as a "pay me now or pay me later" proposition.
What legislation? There's no legislation.
That legislation said nothing about creating a new tax.
Not a tax bill. If you can't understand the difference, don't bother.
Slick, you said create a new tax. They could shift money that has already been allocated for some other purpose.
Yeah, I guess the unions had absolutely nothing to do with driving wage costs so high that manufacturers look around for a guy who can turn a screw for less.
And the cheap goods at Wal-Mart benefit everybody, including American workers.
Your final sentence is so silly as to not even deserve a reply.
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.