14 April 2008
Sovereignty at Risk
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: Constitution in Peril .
Thanks to Peter Anderson for forwarding this important article. I have read about SPP from the government website and many other sources. Some people have very sincere feelings about the value of joining Canada, Mexico and the US into a European Union style regional government. I am convinced that it will destroy our economy. There is no question that it will destroy the Constitution. I would recommend using the link to read the full article.
North American Union: It’s the real deal
by Phyllis Schlafly
…By definition, conspiracies are usually secret. There’s nothing secret about… plans to morph the United States into a North American Union.
The elites, however, must be feeling the heat. Following the Hudson Institute’s helpful suggestion to change the name of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the fourth annual SPP meeting to be held in New Orleans on April 21 will now be called the North American Leaders Summit, and the promoters of the TransTexas Corridor are trying to change its name to “regional loop.”
To see what the elites are planning, you don’t have peek through keyholes or plant a spy under the table. Just read their published reports.
The words most frequently used to describe their goals are “economic integration,” “labor mobility,” “free movement of goods, services and people across open borders,” and “harmonization” of regulations.
The Council on Foreign Relations published a major report May 17, 2005, only two months after the Security and Prosperity Partnership was announced by President Bush, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005. The Council on Foreign Relations document explaining SPP’s goals and methodology was posted on the U.S. State Department website, thereby confirming its authenticity.
The report explains that the three SPP amigos at Waco “committed their governments” to “Building a North American Community” by 2010 with a common “outer security perimeter,” “the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico,” allowing Mexican trucks “unlimited access,” “totalization” of illegal immigrants into the U.S. Social Security system, and “a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution.”…
The Hudson Institute published a 35-page white paper in 2007 called “Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosperity Partnership.” It states that SPP is the vehicle “for economic integration” with Mexico and Canada and even “combines an agenda with a political commitment.”The white paper explains that SPP’s “design” is for the executive branch to exercise full “authority” to “enforce and execute” whatever is decided by a three-nation agreement of “civil service professionals” as though it were “law.” That means evading treaty ratification and even congressional legislation and oversight.
Don’t forget the importance of the Wall Street Journal and its longtime, very influential editorial-page editor, the late Robert Bartley. When Mexico’s Fox called for NAFTA to evolve into something like the European Union, Bartley wrote: “There is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper.”
In his book “Post-Capitalist Society,” influential business writer Peter F. Drucker wrote, “The economic integration of the three countries into one region is proceeding so fast that it will make little difference whether the marriage is sanctified legally or not.”
When Larry King asked Fox about plans for a “Latin America united with one currency,” Fox answered in the affirmative. He said that one currency was part of the “vision” of the Free Trade Area of the Americas that Bush agreed to in the Declaration of Quebec City in 2001.
So now we know why the Bush administration won’t build a fence to interfere with “labor mobility” across open borders. Now we know why Bush won’t pardon former Border Patrol agents Ignatio Ramos and Jose Compean, while winking at the prosecutor’s deal to give immunity to a professional drug smuggler.
Now we know why Bush thumbed his nose at the overwhelming congressional votes (411-3 in the House and 75-23 in the Senate) to exclude Mexican trucks from U.S. roads. Now we know why Bush has been more persistent in pursuing “totalization” to put illegal immigrants into Social Security than to promote his proposal to privatize a small part of Social Security for U.S. citizens.
This is no conspiracy. It’s all part of the “economic integration” of the North American countries that’s been openly talked about for years.
6 Comments so far...
Angela Rogin Says:
14 April 2008 at 9:35 am.
I am afraid the weakness of the dollar and strength of the euro will make people think we will have a strong currency if we follow the path of the Europeans and have a regional government. It won’t be the same for a lot of reasons and even if it was I wouldn’t want to do it. Don’t people realize how much Mexico would pull us down?
Cameron Says:
14 April 2008 at 10:22 am.
Angela, I agree with you. The big fallacy here is that so many people think there is endless wealth in America and that if Mexico was combined with us then they would all have what we have. But the truth is, we would be pulled down for so many reasons like you said. With all the problems we have with government, it is nothing compared to theirs. Their politicians and police are so corrupt there would be no controlling them. They would try and take advantage of us at every turn.
Too many of their people have a sense of entitlement like there are money trees here and they should have it all without doing to work to help create wealth. They have 39 men who own most of the wealth there and they won’t be wanting to see that change so we will carry the burden of their poor.
We are delusional if we think they will give up what they want for the common good just like we have been with China and globalism. Way too many Mexicans want to take back the land they lost in the war 150 years ago. They want their people and culture to dominate the southwest and they are working hard toward that goal.
Then last but not least is that those treaties would supersede the Constitution and we would lose so many of our freedoms. The balance of power created by our founding fathers would be lost. We would no longer be able to even pretend to keep our government in check.
Bryon Says:
14 April 2008 at 10:35 am.
You’re right Angela. We can’t let this happen. A few people may praise this combination by giving it titles like, “progressive movement” or “another step towards world unity.” They will change their mind as the unemployment rate soars and the economy is severely crippled.
Pickles Says:
14 April 2008 at 12:16 pm.
I have some good friends who are Mexican and I love them to pieces but I don’t want to live in MexAmerica, I want them to be just plain old Americans. If you want to bring a country down then destroy its culture. Make everyone think it is better to be multi-cultural and be ashamed of American culture.
T. Fan Says:
14 April 2008 at 2:07 pm.
My boss and I were talking about this. He learned about it from his uncle and is very upset about it. He has been a big supporter of Bush but he isn’t now. He doesn’t care if Bush is a good man who really thinks this is the best way to go. Legally it is treason to make treaties that trump our constitution and the president swears an oath that makes what he is doing illegal. Whether or not he is doing it out of altruistic feelings or not, it will still take away our freedoms if it goes through. It has to be stopped.
Benjamin Says:
14 April 2008 at 2:19 pm.
Eye opening article and eye opening comments.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.