Posted on 08/30/2006 9:28:44 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.
According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.
What is a "dialogue"? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union.
According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.
Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.
Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website:
"We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007"
Though the US administration insists that the SPP does not undermine US sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty?
The website also states SPP's goal to "[i]mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the US taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?
Also alarming are SPP pledges to "work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products." That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans' health freedom.
Even more troubling are reports that under this new "partnership," a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the US taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the US more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm.
This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.
Paul is turning into a conspiracy kook.
No I haven't seen those statistics. I'm sure there are many such regulations. I DO NOT consider that a good thing.
There are far too many regulations from a through z and beyond, and this is the reason why.
When a representative has to stand up and defend new regulations, that's when you and I get a chance to affect the process. With NGOs, we get nothing but the shaft.
SPP and FTAA are unrelated, but if and when FTAA kicks of, security issues will have to be addressed.
Seriously Ben, do you see an SPP as a benefit to our nation when we can't even get our own borders under control? Our borders are not under control and now we want to add a corrupt government to the south and drug cartel pressures to the equasion. This is like our worst immigration, border and homeland security nightmare squared.
The ultimate goal is to relax our border crossings between the United States and our two neighbors. How we could get more relaxed is beyond me, but that's the goal.
I do not support this.
You might think he was correct, but the rest of us are wondering how many more decades we have to wait to see it.
Thanks 1rudeboy - I did a search and turned up nothing.
I searched 'all words' under 'post time,' and "united nations north american." My experience is that searching under 'relevance' (which is the default) is practically useless.
What an idiotic thing to say.
And Congress has to put immigration reform in place before they can deal with SPP.
Ben, the United States should be responsible for it's own safety and sovereignty. That's the long and short of it. If Mexico and Canada want to increas their security, I'm all for it, but if they don't, I could care less. If they want to implode or sink into the primordial muck, I shouldn't have to give a damn.
If we want to be safe, all we have to do is get our borders under control and stop letting people immigrate or even travel here from terrorist states.
The explanation for joining of our security, is preposterous. It's unsupportable for people who wish our nation to be sovereign, for our Constitution to continue to mean something.
We have zero ability to control the corrupt oligarchy referred to as Mexico..and we never will short of a military invasion. However, Mexico has adversely impacted the U.S.
What does "extra-constitutional" mean?
As I might try to discuss the desirability of securing the supply chains that come with a world market economy in a post 9-11 world, your probably thinking about the "chi coms" operating a port and find it a threat.
You have been overtaken by time.
Whatever she wants it to mean. [chuckle]
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.