Skip to comments.North American Union Threatens U.S. Sovereignty
Posted on 08/21/2006 5:13:48 AM PDT by NapkinUser
The problem with the Bush administration is that not enough of its officials have read the U.S. Constitution. Take, for example, Section 2 of Article 2. When dealing with foreign nations, it says that the President shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur .
So, why is President Bush and his administration seeking to establish a North American Union that would, in effect, abolish the borders between Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America?
Moreover, it would involve our government in so many common regulatory mandates with these two nations as to render the sovereignty of the United States a memory of what national self-governance is supposed to be.
The name of this effort is called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) and, guess what, it has not been submitted to the Senate for its oversight or concurrence because, by some magic of governmental definition, it is not a treaty. Instead, its administration is buried in the bowels of the Commerce Department.
It does have, however, the blessing of the political and corporate elites of all three nations. A visit to the SPP website says it was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing.
It is an attack on American sovereignty. In the smoothest and most soothing writing you will find anywhere, the website spells out the wonders of SPP. They include the North American Competitiveness Council, the North American Energy Security Initiative, the North American Emergency Management plan, and plans for smart, secure borders. And right now there are working groups whose purpose is to improve productivity, reduce the costs of trade, and enhance the quality of life.
And if you like snake oil, permit SPP to sell it to you by the barrel, but the boxcar, and by the tanker.
The SPP didnt start out as an idea the presidents of the three nations started kicking around on March 23, 2005 in Waco, Texas, but it became the official policy of the United States at a special summit convened by President Bush and joined by then Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.
Like so many really bad foreign policy concepts, SPP owes its origins to the Council on Foreign Relations; in this case, CFRs Task Force on North America. Its report, Building a North American Community envisions the elimination of U.S. borders in just five years. Like termites eating away at the sovereignty of the United States of America, this grandiose scheme is a major threat to American security and prosperity.
The Marxist majordomo of this task force is Professor Robert Pastor who told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee The best way to secure the United States today is not at our two borders with Mexico and Canada but at the borders of North America as a whole. Oh, yeah????
This surely explains why Mexico is doing such a great job of stopping the drug smugglers or the one million Mexicans who each year consider the U.S. border a mere fiction in their pursuit of jobs President Bush keeps telling us Americans wont take. This is pure bunk and dangerous bunk at that.
I have many Canadian friends, but it seems to me Canada took too long to discover it had some fanatical Muslims in its midst who were plotting terrible things. Frankly, I want us to cooperate against a common enemy, but I do not want to place the responsibility for Americas security in anyones hands, but our own.
A North American Union promises not only security, says SPP, but prosperity too. Without SPP, however, the three nations already do more than $800 billion in trilateral trade.
Surely the U.S. needs Mexicos help to improve our economy? As the economist, Robert J. Samuelson, noted in a June column, The subtext for the United States immigration debate is Mexico. Why doesnt its economy grow faster, creating more jobs and higher living standards? The answer to that has something to do with the endemic corruption that infests all levels of Mexicos governmental and business sectors. Something is very wrong when Mexicos economy must literally depend on the billions its illegal aliens send home from the U.S.
In 2002, the then-Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castanega explained to the local press that destroying the border involved the metaphor of Gulliver, of ensnarling the giant. Tying it up, with nails, with thread, with 20,000 nets that bog it down: these nets being norms, principles, resolutions, agreements, and bilateral, regional and international covenants.
Bush43 is carrying out Bush41s daft and dangerous new world order and his indifference to Americas illegal immigration crisis is symptomatic of the SPP objectives.
On June 15, U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican Economy Minister Sergio Garcia de Alba, and Canadian Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier joined North American business leaders to launch the North American Competitiveness Council. The objective is the promotion of regional competitiveness in the global community.
As if the floundering economies of the member nations of the European Union were not warning enough, it is proposed that the United States enter into a similar union.
A lot of corporations with global interests like this idea. Among those sponsoring the North American Union are FedEx Corporation, Mittal Steel USA, General Motors Corporation, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Campbells Soup Company, Gillette Inc., Merck & Company, and Wal-Mart Stores.
Since the United States is already a signatory to NAFTA and CAFTA, why is SPP necessary? Just how many treaties, agreements and protocols are necessary to promote trade and economic growth?
Just how many nets and norms, traps and snares, will ultimately undermine U.S. prosperity, drive down the wages of Americas middle class, and improve the ability of the Mexican drug cartels to deliver their goods?
Like termites eating away at the sovereignty of the United States of America, this grandiose scheme, hatched in some darkened cavern of the Council on Foreign Affairs, is a major threat to American security and prosperity.
It was been introduced by fiat, by executive action, by a summit of the three nations leaders, and the time is long overdue for the Senate to demand to exercise its Constitutional responsibility and right to determine if it wishes to give its consent to yet another entangling alliance.
...and the MSM [all members of the CFR] isn't saying a word about it. It's all part of the plan.
Well, think about it. We'd have all the oil we'd need (Mexico and Canada) All the Natural Gas, too. All the cheap labor, all the cheap votes, and all the Cuban cigars we could smoke!..................
"North American Union Threatens U.S. Sovereignty"
It certainly does, Ollie!
Welcome aboard and good morning.
Council on Foreign Affairs? Did the CFR change its name?.........
"Moreover, it would involve our government in so many common regulatory mandates with these two nations as to render the sovereignty of the United States a memory of what national self-governance is supposed to be."
Sounds just like the European Union.
It appears as though Jerome Corsi exhausted himself finding new ways to type the same thing, so someone else has taken over.
As this does not come from the hated WorldNetDailey and from the often "dissed" Corsi, cannot wait for the "W" apologists and "My President--Right or Wrong" crowd to come up with ways to attack this article.
I voted for Bush (twice) and generally like him. Nevertheless, in issues such as this (as well as his continued disregard for our safety and security thru his intransigence in promoting this Shamnesty proposals) I wholeheartedly disagree with him and I have (AND WILL) continue to criticize him, when deserved--regardless of all the crap I (and others) get when we have the temerity of taking exception with their (and OUR'S, don't forget) "glorious leader."
Here ya' go, I'll start: "articles" usually have examples . . . since this has none, it's more of an opinion-piece.
Freudian slip? Did you mean to type Wilhelm?
There is an easy resolution to this problem.
Simply annex all of Canada, with the exception of Quebec (which would be allowed to declare sovereignity), then admit each of the provinces individually as states.
Then annex all of Mexico, admitting each each of their states on an individual basis as well, as soon as they have achieved a basic competence in English for the majority of their citizens, and the legal code is reformed so it comforms with, or at least eliminates the parts that conflict with, common law in the United States.
Now, stop bothering us about that. We got a global war to fight.
Quebec could be treated the same as Texas. They can join provisionally. If they don't like it, then they can leave the union...........
That's a perfect idea.
If I hadn't heard of this before, I'd just see it as the rant of some paranoid reactionary.
But I HAVE seen this before, and now I'm starting to wonder if the outrageous leaps that these and similar articles have made are accurate (open borders, unified currency, etc.).
If so, it's a suicide pact with Canada to drink the Mexico kool-aid.
It seems that regardless of the subject matter of an issue, the author seems to carry more weight than the substance, especially for those inclined to be blinded by prejudice.
You neglected to bring into play Net World Daily, which in itself (along with Corsi) is automatic grounds for denigration and derision.
See my post #9
Here ya' go, I'll start: "articles" usually have examples . . . since this has none, it's more of an opinion-piece.
Ah, exactly what would you call the following, if not an "example," the author's "imagination?"
"The SPP didnt start out as an idea the presidents of the three nations started kicking around on March 23, 2005 in Waco, Texas, but it became the official policy of the United States at a special summit convened by President Bush and joined by then Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin."b>
In addition, you know what they say about opinions, right? There just like a**holes, everyone's got one, which I attribute to all those who refuse to EVEN consider the possibility that our President--who whatever faults or virtues he may possess--one CANNOT DISSMIS his desire and support for a North American Union, as false, when considering the fact that he has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help secure our borders, and is OPENLY ADVOCATING, amnesty for ALL illegal aliens.
As my pappy used to say, "where there's smoke ......" or if it "walks like a duck, talks like a duck......."
There was talk of this North American Union on talk radio a couple of weeks ago.
A couple of truck drivers called and said they had there trucks inspected and instead of a state sticker the inspectors put a North American Union sticker on the truck. The sticker had three crossed flages, that's right, the U S; Canada and Mexico flags.
It's already started folks.
You may complain all you wish about the methods used by this author's (or Corsi's) detractors, but he leaves them no other choice but to respond the way they do. From a rhetorical standpoint, it's comic. This "article" is a virtual "kick me" sign.
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.