Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A North American United Nations?
Ron Paul ^ | August 2 8, 2006 | Ron Paul

Posted on 08/28/2006 9:47:14 AM PDT by Dubya

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: blackhelicopters; cafta; cuespookymusic; kooks; libertarianmoonbat; morethorzineplease; nafta; nwo; ronpaul; spp; tinfoil; un
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last
American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.

Sign me up Ron.

1 posted on 08/28/2006 9:47:15 AM PDT by Dubya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dubya
If Ron wasn't so honest and forthright, he could be elected President.

Unfortunately he's also opposed to the WOT, for drug legalization, and for open borders. He's right, though, that if we eliminated the welfare state programs, and required anyone coming into the US to support themselves with a job and to pay taxes, or starve; if we held drug users accountable for their behavior; and if we quit buying our allies with foreign aid and playing favorites with foreign nations, we wouldn't have the problems we have today.
2 posted on 08/28/2006 10:02:51 AM PDT by Small-L (Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya

another great idea from the unelected power mongers in the USA.

Fight it at all costs.


3 posted on 08/28/2006 10:03:24 AM PDT by o_zarkman44 (ELECT SOME WORKERS AND REMOVE THE JERKERS!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

ping


4 posted on 08/28/2006 10:49:02 AM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya

What we need now, is someone in Congress, that can help us devise a plan to stop this. Do you think Congressman Paul can help? He knows what is going on, and how they are doing it. Surely there are Congressmen who will step up to the plate. I am sure they could get a significant grassroots effort, which is out there but unorganized, on the track to regain our country.


5 posted on 08/28/2006 11:04:03 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

ping


6 posted on 08/28/2006 11:06:53 AM PDT by jmc813 (.)(.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DumpsterDiver

Thanks for the pings


7 posted on 08/28/2006 11:10:49 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; nicmarlo; texastoo; William Terrell; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; cinives; Czar; ...

FYI


8 posted on 08/28/2006 11:11:24 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya

This is very serious. John Cornyn has backed away from this but the bill is still there. According to Cornyn this bill will not get out of committee.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3622.IS:

North American Investment Fund Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 3622 IS


109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 3622
To authorize the President to negotiate the creation of a North American Investment Fund between the Governments of Canada, of Mexico, and of the United States to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 29, 2006
Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. COLEMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations






A BILL
To authorize the President to negotiate the creation of a North American Investment Fund between the Governments of Canada, of Mexico, and of the United States to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `North American Investment Fund Act'.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN INVESTMENT FUND.

The President is authorized to negotiate with the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico to establish a North American Investment Fund (referred to in this Act as the `Fund') by--

(1) agreeing to certain amendments to the November 1993 Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning the Establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank; or

(2) negotiating an agreement with the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico to establish and administer the Fund.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of the Fund shall be--

(1) to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy;

(2) to reduce the income gap between Mexico and Canada, and between Mexico and the United States; and

(3) to promote economic development in Mexico in the areas of infrastructure, education, technology, and job training.

SEC. 4. PROJECTS FUNDED.

(a) In General- Grants shall be awarded from the Fund for projects to carry out the purposes described in section 3, including projects--

(1) to construct roads in Mexico to facilitate trade between Mexico and Canada, and Mexico and the United States;

(2) to encourage the development and improve the quality of primary, secondary, and post-secondary education throughout Mexico;

(3) to expand the deployment of communications and broadband infrastructure throughout Mexico, with emphasis on rural and underserved areas; and

(4) to expand job training and workforce development for high-growth industries in Mexico.

(b) Project Selection-

(1) IN GENERAL- The agreement described in section 2 shall include guidelines for determining which projects will receive financial assistance from the Fund.

(2) PRIORITY- In selecting grantees to carry out projects described in subsection (a)(1), priority should be given to projects in the interior and southern regions of Mexico that connect to more developed markets in the United States and Canada.

SEC. 5. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FUND.

(a) In General- The agreement described in section 2 shall require the Governments of Canada, of Mexico, and of the United States to contribute to the Fund, subject to the limitations under subsection (b).

(b) Limitations on Contributions by the United States and Canada- The agreement described in section 2 shall include provisions that permit Canada and the United States to contribute to the Fund if the Government of Mexico--

(1) increases the tax revenue collected by such Government, with the goal of annually collecting an amount of such revenue that is equal to 18 percent of the annual gross domestic product of Mexico; and

(2) carries out a program of reforms to increase private investment and economic growth, reduce poverty, and maintain economic stability in Mexico.

SEC. 6. TERM OF THE FUND.

The agreement described in section 2 shall require that the Fund--

(1) operate for an initial period of 10 years; and

(2) cease operations at the end of such 10-year period, unless the Governments of Canada, of Mexico, and of the United States agree to extend the period of operation beyond such initial period.

SEC. 7. REPORT.

Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Government of Mexico complies with the criteria described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 5(b), and once every 180 days after such date of compliance and before the finalization of the agreement described in section 2, the President shall submit a report to Congress detailing the progress made by the Government of the United States to establish the Fund in accordance with this Act.


9 posted on 08/28/2006 11:14:36 AM PDT by texastoo ("trash the treaties")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya
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.

So, Ron, should we tear up all the roads leading to our borders?

10 posted on 08/28/2006 11:15:24 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya
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.

Whoops.

Opening Statement [excerpt]
Chairman Dan Burton
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
Committee on International Relations
U.S.-Canada Relations”
May 25, 2006

President Bush met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada and President Vicente Fox of Mexico two months ago to move ahead with the agenda for the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) for North America. The SPP framework is ambitious and if its goals are realized, our countries will benefit from greater competitiveness and security. Our governments are constantly looking for ways to streamline border infrastructure to benefit our shared economic and security interests.

Source
11 posted on 08/28/2006 11:25:24 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texastoo
(2) to reduce the income gap between Mexico and Canada, and between Mexico and the United States;

"If we're going to reduce income gaps, shouldn't we start here at home by helping our own working poor?", asked Hillary!

No tax dollars to Mexico. (I am cheap.)

12 posted on 08/28/2006 11:28:57 AM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I don't understand. Why did you post that excerpt in response to the oversight statement?

13 posted on 08/28/2006 11:30:13 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scaleAND foreign control vs sovereignty and respect for private property and the will of the people. Hmmmmm, such a hard choice /sarc
14 posted on 08/28/2006 11:33:00 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell

Because Rep. Paul is claiming that Congressional oversight is "non-existent." I just proved that some form of oversight exists. Now we can proceed to debating what degree of oversight exists, without his admission of ignorance.


15 posted on 08/28/2006 11:33:26 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell; 1rudeboy
Because He's a perpetual disruptive tread crapping
PAID open border lobbyist.

 

16 posted on 08/28/2006 11:41:32 AM PDT by Smartass (The stars rule men but God rules the stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Smartass

Disrupting since Since Jan 21, 1999, n00b. Show some respect. LOL


17 posted on 08/28/2006 11:47:26 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
You really believe that Congress (legislative branch) and the President (executive branch) are the same thing?

18 posted on 08/28/2006 11:57:23 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell

Where did you get that silly notion?


19 posted on 08/28/2006 11:58:17 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DumpsterDiver

Actually, I think we can thank Jerome Corsi for questioning this bill.

I agree with you, no more money for Mexico. We have given them too much money now. NAFTA surely was and is a failure.


20 posted on 08/28/2006 12:14:56 PM PDT by texastoo ("trash the treaties")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson