Idaho lawmakers want out of SPP

Lawmakers in Idaho have approved a "joint memorial" that urges the U.S. Congress to use "all efforts, energies and diligence" to get the United States out of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a multinational plan that opponents believe is being used to blend the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

As WND has reported previously, many other state legislatures have resolutions pending that condemn the idea of a "North American Union," but Idaho's is the first to pass such a measure.

The "memorial," which is similar to a resolution, was written and adopted "to send the message to the Congress of the United States … that the First Regular Session of the Fifty-ninth Idaho Legislature … that the Congress of the United States, and particularly the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho, are hereby urged and petitioned to use all of their efforts to withdraw the United States from any further participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and any other bilateral or multilateral activity which seeks to advance, authorize, fund or in any way promote the creation of any structure to accomplish any form of North American Union."

The SPP, according to its own description, "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."

While federal officials, up to and including the White House, say that the plan doesn't and won't infringe on U.S. sovereignty, because it is just a dialogue among the nations, documents uncovered by WND show otherwise.

A State Department cable released to WND shows Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez has been pressing to implement major trilateral initiatives to help "capture the vision of North American integration."

The cable was among some 150 pages of State Department SPP documents recently released to WND under a Freedom of Information Act request.

Howard Phillips, who has formed a coalition to block development of a "North American Union" and formation of NAFTA superhighways, told WND the document "makes clear that the agenda of SPP is to pursue major economic integration that redefines U.S. businesses into a 'North American' definition."

By leading with economics, SPP is crafting a North American regulatory structure that transforms U.S. regulations by 'harmonizing' them with Mexican and Canadian regulations, all without specific congressional approval," said Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus.

The State Department communiqué, dated May 20, 2005, documents a March 13, 2005, meeting between Gutierrez, Mexican Secretary of Economy Fernando Canales and Canadian Privy Council Assistant Secretary Phil Ventura. The meeting was held just prior to the announcement of SPP at the trilateral summit with the country's three leaders in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005.

The cable notes Gutierrez opened the discussion by stressing that the July 23, 2005, "Report to Leaders" needed "to show results" that would be "enduring and create an on-going process."

Gutierrez suggested each working group should propose one "big ticket" issue, rather than the "50-60 smaller initiatives" that were then in the SPP "matrix," allowing the "SPP ministers" to capture the attention of the "SPP leaders" with major North American integration goals that were both tangible and important.

Officials report that Idaho was one of 14 state legislatures where such resolutions have been introduced to oppose the SPP and North American Union. Only Idaho has completed the approval process, and in one other state, Utah, the Senate failed to vote on that state's encouragement to have the U.S. withdraw from the SPP.

Other states where proposals are pending are Arizona (S.C.M. 1002), Illinois (H.J.R. 29), Georgia (S.R. 124), Missouri (S.C.R. 15 and H.C.R. 33), Montana (H.J.R. 25), Oklahoma (S.C.R. 10), Oregon (S.J.M. 5), South Carolina (S. 416 and H. 3185), South Dakota (S.C.R. 7), Tennessee (S.J.R. 88), Virginia (S.J.R. 442 and S.J.R. 387), and Washington (H.J.M. 4018 and S.J.M. 8004).

The Idaho plan noted that "actions taken by the SPP to coordinate border security by eliminating obstacles to migration between Mexico and United States actually makes the United States-Mexico border less secure and more vulnerable to possible terrorist activities, and Mexico is the primary source of illegal immigrants, illegal drug entry and illegal human smuggling into the United States."

The document also noted that the U.S. Department of Commerce confirms that U.S. trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly increased since the North American Free Trade Agreement was launched.

"The stability and economic viability of the U.S. ports along the western coast will be seriously compromised by huge cargos off-loaded by cheaper labor costs from foreign traders into the ports of Mazatlan and Lazaro Cardenas."

The vast increase in trucking that would trigger then would "threaten the American people and undermine the very charge given to our homeland security agency to defend our borders against these threats."

"WHEREAS, we strongly object to any treaty or agreement, which threatens to violate national security, private property, United States commerce, constitutional rights and American sovereignty…"

"Be it further resolved that we are asking our congressional delegation, our U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters and President Bush to reject appropriated federal fuel tax dollars for such SPP or NAFTA."

Sent to some of the better Colorado legislators.

Prayers this starts a wild fire around the nation and we
begin to take our nation back from the new world order
crowd!!

Why we might even restore our inalienable rights - RTL anyone?

Why....I can't wait for all those truck drivers. Added to all the other illegal drivers on the road, interstate travel is becoming quite the adventure.

Idaho...,I wish Kaliforneeeya had your intestinal fortitude.

How can this be? There is no "Americas." There is no NWO. This doesn't exist. President Bush would never allow this to happen. Just ask those Bushbots who know. < / sarcasm >

This thread would get a better response if the title wasn't so ambiguous, the subject discussed here is very important to our country. Anyone who wants to read any more about this open borders topic, there's a great article in the May 24th issue of Range Magazine. No way to open borders and one world government GW.

It is for those very reasons, I will not be supporting a NAFTA/CFRer (Thompson) for President.

Does anyone have any information on any connection between Jerry Patterson, Texas Land Office Commissioner, Victor Carrillo Texas Railroad Commissioner and the TTC/NAFTA Superhighway or eminent domain?

I don’t think I’ve ever come across any articles.

What I’ve read, however, is that Thompson has voted in favor of legislation that has expanded NAFTA and a page of his opinions on Free Trade/Globalization.

“On globalization - we’re not afraid of it. It works to our benefit. We innovate more and invest in that innovation better than anywhere in the world. Same thing goes for services, which are increasingly driving our economy. Free trade and market economies have done more for freedom and prosperity than a central planner could ever dream and we’re the world’s best example of that. So why do we want to take investment dollars out of growth, and invest it in government?”

http://www.issues2000.org/International/Fred_Thompson_Free_Trade.htm

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

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.