Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old May 22nd, 2006 #1
Devere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,867
Default "The North American Union" -- our new "nation"

Again from Hal Turner. The tyranny's direction. I advise you to read it carefully.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/art...t=yes&id=15017

-----------------------------------------


The Plan to Replace the Dollar With the 'Amero'

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted May 22, 2006

The idea to form the North American Union as a super-NAFTA knitting together Canada, the United States and Mexico into a super-regional political and economic entity was a key agreement resulting from the March 2005 meeting held at Baylor University in Waco, Tex., between President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin.

A joint statement published by the three presidents following their Baylor University summit announced the formation of an initial entity called, “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The joint statement termed the SPP a “trilateral partnership” that was aimed at producing a North American security plan as well as providing free market movement of people, capital, and trade across the borders between the three NAFTA partners:

We will establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our borders.

A working agenda was established:

We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has produced a SPP website, which documents how the U.S. has implemented the SPP directive into an extensive working agenda.

Following the March 2005 meeting in Waco, Tex., the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published in May 2005 a task force report titled “Building a North American Community.” We have already documented that this CFR task force report calls for a plan to create by 2010 a redefinition of boundaries such that the primary immigration control will be around the three countries of the North American Union, not between the three countries. We have argued that a likely reason President Bush has not secured our border with Mexico is that the administration is pushing for the establishment of the North American Union.

The North American Union is envisioned to create a super-regional political authority that could override the sovereignty of the United States on immigration policy and trade issues. In his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Pastor, the Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, stated clearly the view that the North American Union would need a super-regional governance board to make sure the United States does not dominate the proposed North American Union once it is formed:

NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual bilateralism, driven by U.S. power, continue to govern and irritate. Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance that rules, not power, will resolve problems.

This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new North American Advisory Council. Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European Commission, the Commission or Council should be lean, independent, and advisory, composed of 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation. Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the implementation of the resulting agreements.

Pastor was a vice chairman of the CFR task force that produced the report “Building a North American Union.”

Pastor also proposed the creation of a Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment with the view that “a permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” The intent is for this North American Union Tribunal would have supremacy over the U.S. Supreme Court on issues affecting the North American Union, to prevent U.S. power from “irritating” and retarding the progress of uniting Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. into a new 21st century super-regional governing body.

Robert Pastor also advises the creation of a North American Parliamentary Group to make sure the U.S. Congress does not impede progress in the envisioned North American Union. He has also called for the creation of a North American Customs and Immigration Service which would have authority over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security.

Pastor’s 2001 book “Toward a North American Community” called for the creation of a North American Union that would perfect the defects Pastor believes limit the progress of the European Union. Much of Pastor’s thinking appears aimed at limiting the power and sovereignty of the United States as we enter this new super-regional entity. Pastor has also called for the creation of a new currency which he has coined the “Amero,” a currency that is proposed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso.

If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero,” we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election. Pursuing any plan that would legalize the conservatively estimated 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States could well spell election disaster for the Republican Party in 2006, especially for the House of Representative where every seat is up for grabs.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
 
Old May 22nd, 2006 #2
Durban
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Now what does the word COUNCIL translate to in Russian........Oh yeah, Soviet.
 
Old May 23rd, 2006 #3
Devere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,867
Default

Quote:
The idea to form the North American Union as a super-NAFTA knitting together Canada, the United States and Mexico into a super-regional political and economic entity was a key agreement resulting from the March 2005 meeting held at Baylor University in Waco, Tex., between President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin.

A joint statement published by the three presidents following their Baylor University summit announced the formation of an initial entity called, “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The joint statement termed the SPP a “trilateral partnership” that was aimed at producing a North American security plan as well as providing free market movement of people, capital, and trade across the borders between the three NAFTA partners:

We will establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our borders.

A working agenda was established:

We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has produced a SPP website, which documents how the U.S. has implemented the SPP directive into an extensive working agenda
Now think about this for a moment. We have these THREE "elected" politicians of three major "democracies" deciding for the entire North American continent that this continent will no longer be comprised of three separate countries, that the White race will be submerged in the brown and destroyed.

That this (the turning of America into a 3rd world dictatorship with three crackpot dumb dictators in charge of hundreds of millions of White lives, in absolute life and death charge of the most successful and powerful White civilization in the history of the world) -- that this should be happening in my lifetime is just amazing and unbelievable. But it IS happening before our eyes. I guess when we're thrown into their concentration death camps, we'll believe it at last.
 
Old June 30th, 2006 #4
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Investors Push NAFTA Super-Highways

Investors Push NAFTA Super-Highways

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jun 30, 2006

Critics have recently argued that plans to form NAFTA Super-Highways in the United States were largely “urban legend” or just pure “hype.” These same critics note that many state departments of transportation are strapped for cash and that states north of Texas have no current plans to build super-highways, extending the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) north to Canada.

Currently no state except Texas currently has plans to build TTC-like highways, with designs to build transportation corridors up to four football fields-wide that integrate highway toll roads, railroad transportation and utility zones for oil and natural gas pipelines, alongside towers to transmit electricity to businesses and homes along the route. Moreover, most state treasuries are already strapped just to maintain existing highways. A study by the National Chamber Foundation of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce concluded that even the Highway Trust Fund will have a zero cash balance in 2008 unless gasoline taxes are raised.

Yet key players, including the investment bankers and the worldwide capital investment funds, have a plan to address these fiscal shortcomings with their own resources. On April 30, 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed Executive Order No. 12803 on infrastructure privatization, a move that cleared the way for private capital to invest in U.S. infrastructure projects, including highways. As noted by C. Kenneth Orski, editor and publisher of the transportation industry publication Innovation Briefs, the model has been established in Europe:

In Europe, virtually all major toll road authorities have been privatized. Italy’s state-owned toll authority, Autostrade SpA, was sold to private investors in the late 1990s (and will soon be merged with Spain’s Abertis, creating a vast 6,700 km (4,200 mile) network of private toll roads throughout Western Europe). In France, the three largest toll enterprises in which the government had retained controlling interest, Autoroutes Paris-Rhin-Rhone (APRR); Societe du Nord et de l’Est de la France (SANEF, operator of the Autoroute du Nord and Autoroute de l’Est); and Autoroutes du Sud de la France (ASF, operator of the Autoroute du Sud), were put up for sale in late 2005; their privatization is currently in process of being completed. By the end of the year, 8,175 km (5, 109 miles) of France’s toll roads will be in private hands, according to the French toll road association, AFSA. In Spain and Portugal, all major toll roads are, likewise, in private hands.

Capital groups such as Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructures de Transport in Spain and the Macquarie Infrastructure Group and Transurban in Australia are positioned to make substantial investments in the build-out of NAFTA Super-Highways along I-35 extending north from Texas, as well as in the various NAFTA corridors identified throughout the United States.

With the trillions in infrastructure investment dollars needed to build the next generation of super-highways in the United States, especially under the emerging North American Union structure, investment bankers and those who run capital investment funds stand to make hundreds of millions, probably even billions, in fees. This alone is enough to drive forward the NAFTA Super-Highway movement and to make sure politicians willing to support the movement have ample funds with which to run their campaigns and live their lives comfortably.

The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) can be seen as the “test case.” The investment world is carefully watching, anticipating that the Texas Department of Transportation will succeed with Cintra in constructing what is called TTC-35 along I-35 from Laredo at the southern border to the northern border heading toward Oklahoma City. Final hearings are being held by the TxDOT in July and August and final federal approval is anticipated by the summer of 2007. The TxDOT plans to sign final contracts immediately thereafter and begin construction. Already, investment bankers and international capital groups are in discussion with state officials throughout the United States, with the intention of replicating the TTC design in the build out of a NAFTA Super-Highway network throughout the United States.

I have previously written that the plan behind building the TTC is disclosed on the Kansas City SmartPort website. The goal is to open ports in Mexico, such as Lazaro Cardenas, which can receive containers with goods manufactured by cheap labor in China and the Far East, to be transported into the heart of America by using Mexican trucks and NAFTA railroads originating in Mexico. A key feature of the plan is to bypass and undercut U.S. labor unions, including the Longshoremen’s Union, the railroad United Transportation Union and the Teamsters. This is more than a Bush Administration globalist plan to advance open borders and open skies in the name of free trade. Across the NAFTA Super-Highways will flow millions more Mexicans, now armed with North American border passes and biometric identification, as defined by the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America working groups organized within the Department of Commerce.

There's no objection to the infusion of international private capital into the nation’s highway infrastructure per se. With the large trade and budget deficits that we have experienced under President Bush’s leadership, an unprecedented amount of dollar foreign exchange currency is held by nations including China and Japan, as well as by Middle Eastern oil producing countries, including the UAE. For some of that dollar foreign exchange currency to return to the U.S. through international infrastructure investment may well be desirable.

In 2005, a Cintra-Macquarie consortium successfully negotiated a deal to lease the Chicago Skyway for 99 years, a deal worth $1.8 billion to the city of Chicago. Just this week, the Cintra-Macquarie consortium moved to conclude the transaction to lease the Indiana Toll Road in a deal worth $3.8 billion to the state.

Ken Blackwell, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Ohio, has proposed leasing the Ohio Turnpike, with the plan to invest a substantial portion of the proceeds into a development fund that would be utilized in conjunction with banks in the state to promote business development and home ownership in Ohio’s poverty areas. The “Blackwell Initiative” involves constructing no new roads and the envisioned lease would cap increases the leasing operator could place on toll charges. The plan is aimed ultimately at lowering Ohio’s high state taxes, providing an anticipated stimulus to much needed business development within the state. The Ohio Turnpike, even under a lease, is not planned to connect into Canada or Mexico directly, except through the existing network of interstate highways and established border crossing points.

What is objectionable is the plan to form a European Union-style North American Super-Highway system whose primary goal is to establish trilateral links for the open passage of freight transportation and the virtually unrestrained “migration” of people among the three countries. Building NAFTA Super-Highways that effectively erase the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada is a concern, especially if the NAFTA Super-Highways contribute to accomplishing in a de facto manner the integration of the United States into a North American Union, thereby threatening the currently established sovereignty of the United States.

What is needed is a robust and honest discussion of these important issues, with the American people fully involved and engaged in the debate. To date, President Bush has remained largely silent on the extent and true nature of his plans to create a North American Union that can openly be navigated via NAFTA Super-Highways. If the Bush Administration’s plan is to create the North American Union and the NAFTA Super-Highways incrementally -- through technical actions taken within the confines of executive branch meetings -- that process of implementation will be inconsistent with the processes of constitutional democracy we currently believe we enjoy in the United States. It’s up to Bush to come forward and present honestly his plans regarding these critical issues of our nation’s future so the American people can enter a properly informed debate.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15839
 
Old June 30th, 2006 #5
Ural
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durban
Now what does the word COUNCIL translate to in Russian........Oh yeah, Soviet.
No. Assembly. In Russian "sovet". This word is different from soviet.
 
Old June 30th, 2006 #6
Two Clicks Right
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Deep in Enemy Held Territory
Posts: 650
Default

I've been following these shenanigans by the CFR and the plan for the combining of the US, Canada and Mexico for some time. So much of the infrastructure is already in place, it's just waiting to be utilized in their plan.
Will it happen? Sorry to say, yes, I believe it will.
__________________
If it weren't for me, where would I be?
 
Old July 2nd, 2006 #7
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Defeat the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement

Help Preserve Jobs and National Security & Independence:





Defeat the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement!



What's it all mean?


We have a golden opportunity to derail the NAFTA/CAFTA series of "free trade" agreements that are producing massive job losses for Americans and eroding national security and independence.
The U.S.-Oman FTA (Free Trade Agreement) was approved by the Senate yesterday with a vote of 60-34. The vote on this agreement is expected to be much closer in the House.
In light of the winning margin of just two votes on last year's CAFTA bill, and election-year jitters over controversial votes, the U.S.-Oman deal could be defeated in the House.






NOTE: A vote by the full House is expected in July, so you have to contact your representative now! (Please!)





You'll even have a chance to contact your rep directly during his "Independence Day District Work Period," July 3-7. Keep on the lookout!



Reasons for Opposing the U.S.-Oman FTA:
  • The U.S.-Oman FTA threatens American jobs. For example, AMTAC (American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition) states that the agreement includes a ridiculously large tariff preference level (TPL) of 50 million square meters of textiles annually for 10 years, which will mean that Chinese yarns and fabrics will be shipped to Oman, cut and sewn into garments and then exported duty-free to the U.S.
  • The U.S.-Oman FTA threatens national security. As reported on the Lou Dobbs Tonight show of June 28, "Under the Oman free trade agreement, foreign port operators would have a right, an absolute trade agreement right, to establish operations, to acquire, to operate, to run port facilities within the U.S." Under the "Cross Border Trade in Services" chapter of the U.S.-Oman FTA, a Dubai Ports World-type enterprise could acquire a company in Oman, and then operate U.S. ports through that company.
  • The U.S.-Oman FTA threatens our national independence. Just as a European-wide free trade agreement has led to the loss of sovereignty of European nations to the European Union, and just as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area) is now being converted into a sovereignty-destroying North American Union through the creation last year of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, the U.S.-Oman FTA is designed to help bring about a Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA), which would be another sovereignty-destroying, supranational organization to which the U.S. would belong.
Recommended Action Plan:
  1. Contact your representative in-person, or by phone, fax, or email before the House reconvenes July 10 and demand a NO vote on the U.S.-Oman FTA based on the reasons above.
  2. Click here to see whether your rep voted yes on the CAFTA bill last year, which should be a good indicator of whether he is likely to vote yes on the U.S.-Oman FTA this year.
  3. Click here to find your rep's phone and fax number.
  4. Click here to send an email with an editable message to your rep.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman...cle_4031.shtml
 
Old July 5th, 2006 #8
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Kansas City customs port considered Mexican soil?

Kansas City customs port considered Mexican soil?
WND investigation finds new evidence U.S. facility to be on foreign territory

Posted: July 5, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

A Mexican customs facility planned for Kansas City's inland port may have to be considered the sovereign soil of Mexico as part of an effort to lure officials in that country into cooperating with the Missouri development project.

Despite adamant denials by Kansas City Area Development Council officials, WND has obtained emails and other documents from top executives with the KCSmartPort project that suggest such a facility would by necessity be considered Mexican territory – despite its presence in the heartland of the U.S.

The documents were obtained with the assistance of Joyce Mucci, the founder of the Mid-America Immigration Reform Coalition, under the provisions of the Missouri Sunshine Law from the City of Kansas City, Mo., and from the Missouri Department of Economic Development.

The documents reveal a two-year campaign initiated in 2004 and managed by top SmartPort officials to win Mexico's agreement to establish the Mexican customs facility within the Kansas City "inland port." Kansas City SmartPort launched a concerted effort to advance the idea, holding numerous meetings with Mexican government officials in Mexico and in Washington to push the Mexican port idea in concert. The effort involved Missouri elected officials, including members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.


The documents make clear that Mexico demanded Kansas City pay all costs.

To date, the Kansas City Council has voted a $2.5 million loan to KC SmartPort to build the Mexican customs facility in the West Bottoms near Kemper Arena on city-owned land east of Liberty Street and mostly south of Interstate 670.

"Kansas City, Mo., is leasing the site to Kansas City SmartPort," Tasha Hammes of the development council wrote to WND last month. "It will NOT be leased to any Mexican government agency or to be sovereign territory of Mexico."

Yet, an email written June 21, 2004, by Chris Gutierrez, the president of the KC SmartPort, stated that the Mexican customs office space "would need to be designated as Mexican sovereign territory and meet certain requirements."

Even more recently, an email dated March 10 of this year was sent by Gutierrez to a long list of recipients that left no doubt that KC SmartPort has not yet received federal government approval to move forward with the Mexican customs facility. Gutierrez informed the email recipients that the processing a critical form, designated "C-175," needs approval by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection before the form is passed to the State Department for final approval. The processing and approval of the C-175 application is holding up the final approval of the Mexican customs facility.

In the same memo, Gutierrez reported on a recent meeting in Washington: "Both sides (U.S. and Mexican officials) met several weeks ago and the 'document' or as the U.S. refers to it the 'C-175' is near completion. This document is the basis for the procedural, regulatory, jurisdictional, etc. for the project. It defines what will happen and how and what laws, etc. allow this to happen. Both sides have put a lot of effort into this document."

Gutierrez appeared concerned that the intensive lobbying done by KC SmartPort could be a wasted effort if the final U.S. government approvals were not completed before Mexico elected a new president this week.

"The process for the document is for U.S. Customs to present the document to the acting Commissioner and officials with the Dept of Homeland Security," he wrote. "This will happen in March. The document will then be reviewed by the U.S. State Dept who has been consulted on the document all along so they are aware of it. State will make the recommendation on the diplomatic status of the Mexican officials and the documents fit with existing agreements, accords or treaties. Mexico will wait for this recommendation and then get the sign off of their Foreign Ministry (Secretary [Luis Ernesto] Derbez and Under Secretary [Geronimo] Gutierrez are well versed on the project and support it). The hope of both sides is that this will be completed before the Mexican presidential elections in July."

Gutierrez's March 10 email ended by expressing a hope that discussion of the Mexican customs facility issue could be kept from the public, obviously concerned that press scrutiny might end up producing an adverse public reaction that could destroy the project. Gutierrez specifically proposes a low-profile strategy designed to keep the KC SmartPort and the Mexican customs facility out of public view.

"The one negative that was conveyed to us was the problems and pressure the media attention has created for both sides," he wrote. "They want us to stop promoting the facility to the press. We let them know that we have never issued a proactive press release on this and that the media attention started when Commissioner (Robert) Bonner was in KC and met with Rick Alm. The official direction moving forward is that we can respond to the media with a standard response that I will send out on Monday and refer all other inquiries to U.S. Customs. I will get the name from them to refer media calls."

Robert C. Bonner is the commissioner of CBP within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Rick Alm is a reporter for the Kansas City Star.

On May 16, Bonner addressed the Chamber of Commerce in Kansas City, saying the Mexican customs facility idea "could be enormously important to Kansas City and the surrounding area, and would – or should – facilitate trade for U.S. exporters by expediting the border clearance process for U.S. goods and products exported to Mexico." Bonner added that "If the Kansas City SmartPort is implemented, Kansas City could become a major new trade link between the U.S. and Mexico."

Among those copied on Gutierrez's email of March 10, 2006, was George D. Blackwood, the president of NASCO (North America's Super Corridor Coalition, Inc.). Blackwood is an attorney with Blackwood, Langworthy & Tyson in Kansas City. He also served as the former chairman of the North American International Trade Corridor Partnership, which he helped found in 1998 when he was serving as mayor pro tem of Kansas City. NASCO supports the Kansas City SmartPort's initiative to establish a Mexican customs facility as part of the NASCO SuperCorridor project.


http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=50918

Last edited by Robert Bandanza; July 5th, 2006 at 12:50 PM.
 
Old July 5th, 2006 #9
Oy Ze Hate
We're the Good Guys
 
Oy Ze Hate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pediatric Burn Unit
Posts: 4,776
Default

No matter where you go in the world, the rich and elite are always the same. They always implement the same schemes, they always advocate for mixing races, they always throw their extra millions at causes destructive towards the middle class, they always hoard their wealth, they always promote degeneracy and filth in the cultural and entertainment milieus, they always harbor a deep seated resentment towards average people. We get bread and circuses (porn and drugs) while they run the nation by paying the bulk of the income taxes. Just look at the top rich bastard of all, Dubya. What a f'n idiot that guy is. You'd think rich people would be smart and wise, but no! They're all a bunch of gd assholes. Check out what the two richest Americans, Gates and Buffett are throwing their money at in another thread. Nigger bellies for fucksake!

Another nation falls to class warfare, heedless of the racial blood call. Just another class of rich race traitors selling out their own people out of sheer spite and hateful malice.

Spiritually Jews, when not physically.

We little people ought to seriously think about recruiting to our Racial Nationalism based solely on economic factors. For the time being...

Down with the rich. Power to the people!
 
Old July 5th, 2006 #10
Devere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,867
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oy Ze Hate
No matter where you go in the world, the rich and elite are always the same. They always implement the same schemes, they always advocate for mixing races, they always throw their extra millions at causes destructive towards the middle class, they always hoard their wealth, they always promote degeneracy and filth in the cultural and entertainment milieus, they always harbor a deep seated resentment towards average people. We get bread and circuses (porn and drugs) while they run the nation by paying the bulk of the income taxes. Just look at the top rich bastard of all, Dubya. What a f'n idiot that guy is. You'd think rich people would be smart and wise, but no! They're all a bunch of gd assholes. Check out what the two richest Americans, Gates and Buffett are throwing their money at in another thread. Nigger bellies for fucksake!

Another nation falls to class warfare, heedless of the racial blood call. Just another class of rich race traitors selling out their own people out of sheer spite and hateful malice.

Spiritually Jews, when not physically.

We little people ought to seriously think about recruiting to our Racial Nationalism based solely on economic factors. For the time being...

Down with the rich. Power to the people!
No. Itz the jews.
 
Old July 5th, 2006 #11
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default NASCO Alters Super-Corridor Message

NASCO Alters Super-Corridor Message
by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jul 05, 2006

NASCO has altered the organization’s website homepage, apparently in direct response to the North American Union series we have published here, including discussion of NASCO and NAFTA Super-Highways.

NASCO appears to be reacting from recent publicity deriving from our argument that NASCO actively supports the goals of their members, including the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the Kansas City SmartPort. TxDOT plans to start the first segment of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) as early as next year and the Kansas City SmartPort plans to house a Mexican customs operation within their Inland Port design. These are new infrastructure developments along the North American NAFTA Super-Corridor that NASCO as a trade organization was created to support.

A box has been inserted to the left of the NASCO map on the homepage, emphasizing the following:

This map is not a blueprint or plan of any kind. The Infrastructure depicted on this map is not drawn to scale. The highways shown EXIST today, and have been enlarged to highlight the NASCO Corridor focus area. The rail lines have been placed on the map to show NASCO’s multimodal approach.

The subtitle on the home page still reads “Secure Multi-Modal Transportation System,” evidently referring to the automobile, truck, and railroad nature of the “NASCO Super-Corridor” described in the top title on the page. By so adding to the homepage, NASCO appears engaged in a public relations marketing effort to defuse concerns that the organization supports any new NAFTA Super-Highway development that would include TTC features.

This modification to the homepage echoes an email the author received from Tiffany Melvin, NASCO’s Executive Director, on June 23, 2006, in which she wrote:

If the map were drawn to scale, it would be very difficult to see our focus area. The map is designed for marketing purposes, to highlight the highways we are focusing on. It is for our Coalition. That’s it.

An insert box has been placed on the homepage in the Atlantic Ocean area east of Massachusetts, reading “NASCO Myths Debunked.” We understand that our articles are among the “myths” intended to be “debunked.” The first line of text in the 4-page document linked to the “debunked box” reads: “There is no new, proposed ‘NAFTA Superhighway.” The next paragraph seems to say the NAFTA Super-Highway already exists -- it is evidently the current I-35:

As of late, there has been much media attention given to the “new, proposed NAFTA Superhighway.” NASCO and the cities, counties, states and provinces along our existing Interstate Highways 35/29/94 (the NASCO Corridor) have been referring to I-35 as the “NAFTA Superhighway” for many years, as I-35 already carries a substantial amount of international trade with Mexico, the United States and Canada. There are no plans to build a new NAFTA Superhighwary -- it exists today as I-35.

The “debunked text” even wants to de-emphasize the “Super” in the NASCO “Super Corridor” name. As Ms. Melvin expressed in a June 22, 2006 email to the author:

We have been using the name “SuperCorridor” since 1996. It does not mean huge, mega highway. We use “Super” in the sense of “more inclusive than a specialized category” (dictionary definition). Like Superman was not a huge, giant four football field wide man. He was MORE than a man. We are MORE than a highway coalition. We work to promote the use of multiple modes of transportation. We work on economic development along the corridor. We work on environmental issues. We work on networking inland ports. We work on developing business relationships for our members.

Perhaps NASCO would be well advised to review the Trans-Texas Corridor website of its member TxDOT agency. There the 4,000 page Environmental Impact Study (EIS) clearly describes the 1,200 foot new Super-Highway that TxDOT plans to build parallel to I-35. Page 4 of the EIS Executive Summary shows an artist’s rendition of the full build-out of the TTC-35 concept, an automobile-truck-railroad corridor with a utility space for energy pipelines and electronic circuits, along with tower electricity strung out on the perimeter. No artist’s conception of the TTC drawn by the TxDOT bears any resemblance to the current I-35 in Texas or anywhere else.



This TTC-35 description belies NASCO’s contention that the organization does not support the constructing any new Super-Highway infrastructure.

Perhaps NASCO wants to advance the argument that no state north of Texas will continue the TTC-35 project to connect through Oklahoma City with the Kansas City SmartPort, continuing north toward Duluth, or that TTC-35. As we have already shown, the investment bankers and international capitalists who are funding the development of TTC-35 can be expected to develop extend this NAFTA Super-Highway north, whether NASCO or the states north of Texas have the funds or current plans to do so.

From a public relations point of view, NASCO’s emphasis that the “NASCO Super-Corridor” only involves existing highways, truck routes, and rail lines is a strategy consistent with a desire to stay below the radar of public awareness, so as to avoid criticism that might otherwise stop or impede NASCO’s true mission -- to support the development of a NAFTA Super-Highway, either through enhancements to the existing north-south corridor along Interstate Highways 35/29/94 (the NASCO Corridor), or any Super-Highway enhancements its members initiate, including the TTC and the Mexican customs facility in the Kansas City SmartPort.

Today, there are some 50,000 miles of interstate highway in the U.S. and the TxDOT is proposing a full build-out of the TTC network that will build some 4,000 miles of TTC Super-Highways in Texas over the next 50 years. The TTC project at full development will involve the removal of as much as 584,000 acres of productive Texas farm and ranchland from the tax rolls permanently, while displacing upwards of 1 million people from their current residences. The 11 separate corridors planned will permanently cut across some 1,200 Texas roads, with cross-over unlikely for much of the nearly quarter-mile corridor planned to be built. Our research shows that dozens of small towns in Texas will be virtually obliterated in the bath of the advancing TTC behemoth. Reviewing statistics such as these, we can see why NASCO might prefer a low profile, preferring to stay below the radar of public scrutiny.

We also note that George Blackwood, NASCO President, attended the January 10-11 meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, held by the Council of the Americas and the North American Business Committee to conduct a “Public/Private Sector Dialogue” on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. A key finding of this meeting was that associations in the U.S. organized to promote particular corridors needed since the dawning of SPP in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005, to coordinate their efforts in a less provincial style, more reflective of the North American regional orientation of SPP itself:

For instance, conversation at the Louisville forum raised the potential for commonalities and/or synergies between disparate transportation efforts in the US Midwest (the “SuperCorridor” initiative), the North American West (“CANAMEX Corridor”), and in the Southeast United States and Mexico (the “Gulf of Mexico Trade Corridor” initiative). Before SPP, there was no obvious mechanism through which to promote coordination of these discrete activities.

The Louisville SPP meeting also advised “the establishment of bilateral or trilateral commissions to facilitate border and cross-border infrastructure.”

While the NASCO “debunking text” is correct in asserting that NASCO is a trade organization, not a government organization, NASCO officers appear deeply involved in working with federal and state departments of transportation, local and state governments, and regulatory agencies in promoting the goal of developing a “Super Corridor” structure for “integrating” the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into a corridor-dimensioned transportation system to promote NAFTA trade. NASCO trade organization professionals evidently are much more comfortable working in professional SPP conferences and dealing with government bureaucrats in the closed confines of their offices than answering the questions that public citizens are openly discussing on the Internet.

The NASCO “debunking text” continually asserts that a primary NASCO concern is transportation security, much as SPP itself asserts that the North American Partnership is put in place to promote security and prosperity, two goals SPP could assume no one would object to pursuing. The idea seems to be that NASCO wants to present itself as only concerned about security and efficiency as the volume of traffic on the existing “NASCO SuperCorriror” of existing interstate highways gets expanded under NAFTA.

NASCO’s “debunking text” asserts that the organization’s mission is “develop (NOT BUILD) the world’s first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America.”

Given this, we have a challenge. Let’s see NASCO come forward and repudiate the TTC-35 plans of their TxDOT member, because clearly the TTC-35 plan to build 4-football-field-lengths wide of NAFTA Super-Highway corridors is inconsistent with NASCO’s goal as expressed in the “debunking text” of only using existing transportation infrastructure. We also challenge NASCO to come forward and repute the Mexican customs facility plans of its Kansas City SmartPort member. Otherwise, we will assert that NASCO is continuing to say one thing for public relations effect, while doing something quite different -- quietly supporting their members as the members build the “new and improved” NAFTA Super-Highway infrastructure along the NASCO Corridor.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15875
 
Old July 7th, 2006 #12
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Docs reveal plan for Mexican trucks in U.S.

Docs reveal plan for Mexican trucks in U.S.




Internal e-mails belie public statement, suggest aim to expand quietly




Posted: July 6, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern






By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com








Despite claims to the contrary, a planned Midwest "inland port" with a Mexican customs office will not be restricted to railroad traffic, according to internal documents obtained by WorldNetDaily.





As WND has reported, Kansas City SmartPort plans to utilize deep-sea Mexican ports such as Lazaro Cardenas to unload containers from China and the Far East as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement super-highway plan.




The plan would include the hotly contested allowance of Mexican trucks on U.S. roads, WND has reported, but Tasha Hammes of the Kansas City Area Development Council has insisted the port will be restricted to railroad traffic.



Hammes has argued the railroad link is "nothing new, other than the fact that Kansas City Southern acquired the Mexican railroad serving this port and that major work has been done on the port of Lazaro Cardenas so that it has higher capacity and can handle larger containers."




But internal e-mails make it clear that officials, hoping to stay below the radar of public opinion, plan to expand from rail to trucks after the Mexican customs facility is operational.




The Mexican customs facility project was championed by David W. Eaton, president of Monterrey Business Consultants in Monterrey, Mexico, and the former executive director of North American International Trade Corridor Partnership, a non-profit group with the aim of internationalizing U.S. highways to facilitate trade with Mexico and Canada.




In a Jan. 7 e-mail, Eaton writes:




They are still going back and forth on the rail and truck focus. However, according to Manuel [Manuel Ruiz, a Mexican customs official], the first stage will most likely be "rail only" with trucking added later.


Kenneth Hoffman of the law firm Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, outside council to KC SmartPort, was copied on Eaton's e-mail. A few minutes later, Hoffman answered, supporting the phase-in strategy:



My feeling is that we need to get this done in such a way that [the Mexican customs facility] is successful when it opens. If it starts small that is fine as long as there is productive work that we can point to as evidence that the effort was worthwhile. We can expand to trucks after getting the process up and running.


The e-mails are consistent with a position paper Eaton authored for the Montreal-based Institute for Research on Public Policy, entitled "Roads, Trains, and Ports: Integrating North American Transport."




In the paper, Eaton argued railroad transport should be developed as the first mode to bring containers from China through Mexican ports into the U.S., because "one unit train can carry the equivalent of approximately 250 trucks."




Moreover, Eaton had argued that use of Mexican trucks was impaired by the poor condition of Mexico's roadways and the wear and tear on Mexican trucks resulting from overuse. Eaton had concluded "North America would be well served by linking its rail infrastructure and systems," which has been advanced by Kansas City Southern's acquisition of Mexican railroads.



An examination of the internal e-mails from Kansas City SmartPort over the last two years shows the development of the city's international "inland port" concept – including the Mexican customs facility – involved an ambitious multi-year process with the aim of tying into the emerging corridor-oriented NAFTA Super-Highway network.




Development of the KCSmartPort vision included active involvement of the North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition, or NASCO, a non-profit group "dedicated to developing the world’s first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America."




Chris Gutierrez, president of KCSmartPort, frequently copied NASCO President George Blackwood on details of the negotiations with Mexican and U.S. officials regarding the Mexican customs office.




An April 26 e-mail from Gutierrez included Blackwood among the list of recipients. In his message, Gutierrez reported he worked directly with the office of Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., and with Mexican government officials to apply political pressure to influence the State Department and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, to move faster in approving the Mexican customs facility application:




CBP told me that the State Department is reviewing the C-175 [form needed to approve Mexican customs facility]. Bond's office has calls into the State Dept; letter to Gil Diaz [Mexican Secretary of Finance] went out last week asking him to encourage CBP and State Dept to move it along. Here is the draft letter to Minister [Luis Ernesto] Derbez [Mexican Foreign Ministry Secretary]. I was still tweaking it but here it is for your review.


In 1998, before becoming NASCO president, Blackwood established the North American International Trade Corridor Partnership while he served as mayor pro tem of Kansas City. The NAITCP has been absorbed into NASCO.




A NAIPC summit meeting in 2004 was attended by Mexican officials, including Secretary of Finance Gil Diaz, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Geronimo Guiterrez, Deputy Counsel of Mexico Noemi Hernandez, Counsel of Mexico in Kansas City Everardo Suarez. Also in attendance was Kansas City, Mo., Mayor Kay Barnes and the president and CEO of Kansas City Southern railroad, Mike Haverty.



Photographed on the first page of the summit executive summary is Robert Pastor, an American University professor who has written "Toward a North American Community," a book promoting the development of a North American union as a regional government and the adoption of the amero as a common monetary currency to replace the dollar and the peso.



[Pastor also was vice chairman of the May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force entitled "Building a North American Community" that presents itself as a blueprint for using bureaucratic action within the executive branches of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada to transform the current trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America into a North American union regional government.



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50938
 
Old July 8th, 2006 #13
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default More evidence Mexican trucks coming to U.S.

More evidence Mexican trucks coming to U.S.
Internal document anticipates increasing volume of traffic




Posted: July 8, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern





By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com






(TTNews.com)

An internal document shows a planned "inland port" in Kansas City anticipates an increasing volume of Mexican truck traffic, despite claims it will be restricted to railroad transports from south of the border.




WND has obtained, via a Missouri Sunshine Law request, an internal spreadsheet analysis prepared by the port project, Kansas City SmartPort, indicating that "with marketing," it projects that in 2010 a high of 508 trucks per day would pass through a Mexican customs facility located at the port. The volume would grow to a projected high of 881 trucks per day in 2015.



As WND has reported, KC SmartPort plans to utilize deep-sea Mexican ports such as Lazaro Cardenas to unload containers from China and the Far East as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement super-highway plan.


The plan would include the hotly contested allowance of Mexican trucks on U.S. roads, WND has reported, but Tasha Hammes of the Kansas City Area Development Council has insisted the port will be restricted to railroad traffic.



Internal KC SmartPort e-mails obtained by WND show that both Kansas City and Mexican officials were concerned that enough truck volume would be processed through the Mexican customs facility to make the project economically viable for Mexico to maintain a customs staff on site.



A Jan. 13, 2005, e-mail from David Eaton, the president of Monterrey Business Consultants in Monterrey, Mexico, who is credited with first proposing the Mexican customs facility, stresses the need for success:



Other communities such as Dallas and San Antonio have requested that Mexican Customs put facilities in their communities. Mexico has determined that our project will be the Pilot and others will not be approved until it is determined that this works … as Ken Hoffman [outside counsel to KC SmartPort] said … we need to make sure this works! [ellipsis in original]

An e-mail dated Jan. 10 from Jose M. Garcia, representative of Mexico's Ministry of Finance in Mexico's Washington, D.C., embassy, asks KC SmartPort President Chris Gutierrez to be more precise. Garcia wrote:



The statistical data show in the study hardly offers us a list of potential users (targets), those that we (Mexican Customs and USCBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection]) must attract and convince to move their cargo through [KC SmartPort] and be cleared by US and Mexican Customs. This list will be used for our promotional efforts.

Replying to Garcia's e-mail, Erendira Rodriguez of KC SmartPort affirmed Jan. 17 that "SmartPort has $400,000 specifically to market the [Mexican customs] facility and the increased exports of U.S. products to Mexico. The marketing will not start until there are more assurances that the facility will open."



KC SmartPort consistently has maintained to WND that the Mexican customs facility was intended to be for outbound exports to Mexico only and would separate from the Lazaro Cardenas-to-Kansas City corridor. In a June 29 e-mail to WND, Hammes of the Kansas City Area Development Council emphasized the distinction:



The proposed KC Customs Port and Lazaro Cardenas to KC Corridor (made possible by KCS [Kansas City Southern]) are two non-related, separate efforts that KC SmartPort is supporting. (One is rail, the other truck. There is no crossover between the corridor and the proposed facility.)

Yet, that contention is inconsistent with a U.S.-Mexico Freight Flow Analysis presented on the KC SmartPort website. According to that study, conducted for KC SmartPort by MARC [Mid-America Regional Council], the dominant mode for hinterland trade export to Mexico was rail.



As the MARC report noted on page 5, "For the SmartPort hinterland, grain products were the largest export commodity group. Manufactured and intermediate goods were the top import commodities." And, again, "Turning to exports by mode, rail is forecast to grow faster than truck which reflects the predominance of bulky and lower value commodities in the export trade with Mexico."



Still, KC SmartPort argues the Mexican customs office is for outgoing trucks only and that only the Kansas City Southern railroad will be used to import goods that enter Mexico via the port of Lazaro Cardenas.



Hammes wrote in her June 29 e-mail to WND: "Mexican trucks will NOT be coming to KC or utilizing the facility."



Even more emphatically, she stated a paragraph later:



The containers that come in through the port of Lazaro Cardenas will enter the U.S. on a U.S. railroad (Kansas City Southern) NOT a Mexican Railroad or via Mexican trucks. The LC to KC corridor is a rail corridor ONLY. As I stated earlier, this is nothing new other than the fact that KCS acquired the Mexican railroad that served the port of Lazaro Cardenas last year.

But the KC SmartPort internal e-mails indicate otherwise. A Jan. 13 e-mail from David Eaton noted: "The authorities agreed that the [Mexican customs] facility will be BOTH TRUCK AND RAIL from the beginning."



Other internal e-mails reveal a determination by KC SmartPort and KC city officials to control their public relations message.



When an Associated Press report hit the wires Jan. 30 revealing a scandal in Mexico that could affect Kansas City's Mexican customs facility, it prompted a flurry of e-mails within KC SmartPort.



A Jan. 30 e-mail from KC SmartPort President Gutierrez to outside counsel Hoffman noted with apparent alarm: "The Associated Press story has reach 30 markets now. Many of the stories have appeared in the last day."


On Jan. 31, Gutierrez broadcast an e-mail to more than 50 respondents, including Kansas City Council members and a Kansas City Southern railroad spokesman, in which he dismissed the AP article, advising that the scandal was only Mexican "presidential election campaigning with one party stirring up things on the other parties and vice versa."




http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50963
 
Old July 10th, 2006 #14
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default U.S.-Mexico merger opposition intensifies

U.S.-Mexico merger opposition intensifies




Some see secret efforts to scrap dollar, end U.S. sovereignty, combine nations










Posted: July 9, 2006
11:59 p.m. Eastern






By Joseph Farah
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com






WASHINGTON – Are secret meetings being held between the corporate and political elites of the U.S., Mexico and Canada to push North America into a European Union-style merger?




Is President Bush's reluctance to control the border and enforce laws requiring deportation of foreigners who enter the country illegally part of a master plan to all but eliminate borders between the U.S., Canada and Mexico?




Does the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America include a common currency that would scrap the dollar in favor of what some are calling the "amero"?




It may be the biggest story of the 21st century, but few press outlets are telling it. In fact, until very recently, few in the U.S. were aware of the plans and even fewer denouncing what appears to be the implementation of an effort some have characterized as "NAFTA on steroids."



But opposition is mounting.





CNN's Lou Dobbs






Perhaps the most blistering criticism has come from Lou Dobbs of CNN – a frequent critic of Bush's immigration policies.







"A regional prosperity and security program?" he asked rhetorically in a recent cablecast. "This is absolute ignorance. And the fact that we are -- we reported this, we should point out, when it was signed. But, as we watch this thing progress, these working groups are continuing. They're intensifying. What in the world are these people thinking about? You know, I was asked the other day about whether or not I really thought the American people had the stomach to stand up and stop this nonsense, this direction from a group of elites, an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value. And I hope, I pray that I'm right when I said yes. But this is -- I mean, this is beyond belief."




What has Dobbs and a few other vocal critics bugged began in earnest March 31, 2005, when the elected leaders of the U.S., Mexico and Canada agreed to advance the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.



No one seems quite certain what that agenda is because of the vagueness of the official declarations. But among the things the leaders of the three countries agreed to work toward were borders that would allow for easier and faster moving of goods and people between the countries.




Coming as the announcement did in the midst of a raging national debate in the U.S. over borders seen as far to open already, more than a few jaws dropped.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.










Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. and the chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus as well as author of the new book, "In Mortal Danger," may be the only elected official to challenge openly the plans for the new superstate.





Responding to a WorldNetDaily report, Tancredo is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of the government office implementing the trilateral agreement that has no authorization from Congress.





Tancredo wants to know the membership of the Security and Prosperity Partnership groups along with their various trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements reached with counterparts in Mexico and Canada.




Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minutemen, welcomed Tancredo's efforts.




"It's time for the Bush administration to come clean," Gilchrist said. "If President Bush's agenda is to establish a new North American union government to supersede the sovereignty of the United States, then the president has an obligation to tell this to the American people directly. The American public has a right to know."





Geri Word, who heads the SPP office, told WND the work had not been disclosed because, "We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public."





WND can find no specific congressional legislation authorizing the SPP working groups nor any congressional committees taking charge of oversight.




Many SPP working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.



Phyllis Schlafly, the woman best known for nearly single-handedly leading the opposition that killed the Equal Rights Amendment, sees a sinister and sweeping agenda behind the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.




"Is the real push behind guest-worker proposals the Bush goal to expand NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which he signed at Waco, Texas, last year and reaffirmed at Cancun, Mexico, this year?" she asks. "Bush is a globalist at heart and wants to carry out his father's oft-repeated ambition of a 'new world order.'"





She accuses the president and others behind the effort of wanting to obliterate U.S. borders in an effort to increase the Mexican population transfer and lower wages for the benefit of U.S. corporate interests.





"Bush meant what he said, at Waco, Texas, in March 2005, when he announced his plan to convert the United States into a 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' by erasing our borders with Canada and Mexico," she said. "Bush's guest-worker proposal would turn the United States into a boardinghouse for the world's poor, enable employers to import an unlimited number of 'willing workers' at foreign wage levels, and wipe out what's left of the U.S. middle class. Bush lives in a house well protected by a fence and security guards and he associates with rich people who live in gated communities. Yet, for five years, he has refused to protect the property and children of ordinary Arizona citizens from trespassers and criminals."





That's unusually harsh criticism of a Republican president from one of Ronald Reagan's most loyal supporters.





At least one of the nation's daily newspapers has officially weighed in in opposition to the mysterious plans for closer cooperation in security, commerce and immigration between the three North American nations.




Recently, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review questioned the unchallenged momentum toward merger.





"Will Americans trade their dead presidents for Ameros?" the newspaper asked in an editorial last month.






The paper chided efforts at replacing the U.S. and Canadian dollars and Mexican peso with "the amero" – a knockoff of the euro – along with the building of "a looming NAFTA-like superstate." Citing the meeting between the three national leaders at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, in March 2005, the editorial warned: "Canadians, Mexicans and Americans who value the sovereignty of their respective countries should be concerned."





The Tribune Review editorial saw synergy between the plans of the national leaders and the ambitious agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations – seen by many as a kind of secretive, shadow government of the elite. The CFR issued a bold report in the spring of 2005, shortly after the joint announcements in Waco by Bush and his counterparts.




"The Council on Foreign Relations published a report in May -- "Building a North American Community" -- calling for, among other things, redefining the borders of the three nations, creating a super-regional governance board and the North American Paramilitary Group to ensure that Congress does not interfere with whatever the trilateral union feels like doing," said the paper. "Must the Bush administration happily sacrifice every shred of American sovereignty for the greater good of the New World Order?"





In fact, the CFR report is a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."





Some see it as the blueprint for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It calls for "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital and people flow freely."





The CFR's strategy calls specifically for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people." It calls for laying "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." It calls for efforts to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations." It calls for efforts to "harmonize entry screening."




In "Building a North American Community," the report states that Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal March 23, 2005, at that meeting in Waco, Texas.




Alan Burkhart, who describes himself as a free-lance political writer, cross-country trucker "and proud citizen of one of the reddest of the Red States – Mississippi," is another critic seething over these plans that seem to have a life of their own – with little or no real public debate.




"As time passes, American corporations will find it unnecessary to move their facilities out of the country," writes Burkhart. "Our already stagnant wages will be just as low as those of Mexico. The cultures of three great nations will be diluted. Our currency will be replaced with the 'Amero.' And, we’ll be one giant step closer to the U.N.’s perverse dream of a one-world government."




The Amero is not a new concept. It was first proposed by the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, in a monogram titled "The Case for the Amero" in 1999.





Last month, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America made one of its most visible and public moves since it was first announced last year. In Washington, 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. It was a major development that showed the March 2005 meeting was no fluke – and that the plans announced by the three national leaders then were continuing to take shape. The NACC was first announced by Bush, Harper and Fox.





Made up of 10 high-level business leaders from each country, the NACC will meet annually with senior North American government officials "to provide recommendations and help set priorities for promoting regional competitiveness in the global economy."





Officially, the council has the mandate to advise the governments on improving trade in key sectors such as automobiles, transportation, manufacturing and services. The three countries do more than $800 billion in trilateral trade.




Gutierrez said the Bush administration is determined to develop a "border pass" on schedule despite worries about its implementation. The new land pass is to be in effect for Canadians, Americans and Mexicans by Jan. 1, 2008.





The U.S. executives involved in the NACC include: United Parcel Service Inc. Chairman Michael Eskew; Frederick Smith, chairman of FedEx Corp.; Lou Schorsh, chief executive of Mittal Steel USA; Joseph Gilmour, president of New York Life Insurance Co.; William Clay Ford, chairman of Ford Motor Co.; Rick Wagoner, chairman of General Motors Corp.; Raymond Gilmartin, CEO of Merck & Co. Inc.; David O'Reilly, chief executive of Chevron Corp.; Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of General Electric Co.; Lee Scott, president of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.; Robert Stevens, chairman of Lockheed Martin Corp.; Michael Haverty, chairman of Kansas City Southern; Douglas Conant, president of Campbell's Soup Co. and James Kilt, vice-chairman of Gillette Inc.





The concerns about the direction such powerful men could lead Americans without their knowledge is only heightened when interlocking networks are discovered. For instance, one of the components envisioned for this future "North American Union" is a superhighway running from Mexico, through the U.S. and into Canada. It is being promoted by the North American SuperCorridor Coalition, or NASCO, a non-profit group "dedicated to developing the world’s first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America."





The president of NASCO is George Blackwood, who earlier launched the North American International Trade Corridor Partnership. In fact, NAITCP later morphed into NASCO. A NAIPC summit meeting in 2004, attended by senior Mexican government officials, heard from Robert Pastor, an American University professor who wrote "Toward a North American Community," a book promoting the development of a North American union as a regional government and the adoption of the amero as a common monetary currency to replace the dollar and the peso.





Pastor also was vice chairman of the May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force entitled "Building a North American Community" that presents itself as a blueprint for using bureaucratic action within the executive branches of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada to transform the current trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America into a North American union regional government.





http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50981
 
Old July 11th, 2006 #15
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Bush Administration Fast-Tracks Formation of North American Union

Bush Administration Fast-Tracks Formation of North American Union



by
Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jul 11, 2006




With virtually no mention in the mainstream media, Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez convened on June 15, the first meeting of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), an apparently extra-constitutional advisory group organized by the Department of Commerce (DOC) under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).




A March 31 press release on the White House website, under the title “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: Progress,” announced the formation of the NACC. The press release noted that the NACC would meet annually “with security and prosperity Ministers and will engage with senior government officials on an ongoing basis.” The “SPP Ministers” were not identified. Moreover, the term “Ministers” was an unusual reference to the U.S. government, especially when the founding fathers had taken such pains to rid the U.S. of all terminology that could be reminiscent of monarchical systems such as the British royalty against whom the Revolutionary War was aimed. Evidently, the reference was to Gutierrez, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, the three cabinet officers to whom the extensive SPP working groups organized in DOC are now reporting, as well as their cabinet level counterparts in Mexico and Canada.




The White House press release references no U.S. law or treaty under which the NACC was organized. Yet the press release notes that:



We are convinced that regulatory cooperation advances the productivity and competitiveness of our nations and helps to protect our health, safety and environment. For instance, cooperation on food safety will protect the public while at the same time facilitate the flow of goods. We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation in this and other key sectors and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007.



According to a notice on Trade.gov, a website maintained by the International Trade Administration of the DOC, the NACC membership consists of 10 “high-level business leaders” from Mexico, Canada, and the United States. An April 2006 report in the Mexican media quoted Angel Villalobos, undersecretary of International Trade Negotiations for Mexico’s Secretariat of Economy, as saying that nothing like NACC had ever before been created in NAFTA. Mr. Villalobos described NACC as “an umbrella organization within the SPP,” claiming further that SPP was created in 2005 to operate parallel to NAFTA.




A DOC press release on the day of the first NACC meeting seems to confirm that the “SPP Ministers” are the various cabinet level secretaries in the three countries to whom the SPP working groups report. The press release also references the March 23, 2005, Waco, Tex., meeting as the origin of SPP:



On March 23, 2005, leaders of North America launched the SPP. This initiative is meant to reduce trade barriers and facilitate economic growth, while improving the security and competitiveness of the continent. The leaders of North America confirmed their commitment to SPP when they met on March 31, 2006 in Cancun, Mexico.


The press release quotes Gutierrez as affirming the importance of NACC within SPP:



“Today is a continuation of President Bush’s strong commitment to our North American partners to focus on North America’s security and prosperity. The private sector is the driving force behind innovation and growth, and the private sector’s involvement in the SPP is key to enhancing North America’s competitive position in global markets.”

The Council of the Americas provided the more detail regarding the June 15, 2006 meeting of the NACC than was found on U.S. government websites. A NACC membership list found on the Council of the Americas’ website lists the U.S. members as coming form the following corporations (listed in alphabetic order): Campbell Soup Company, Chevron, Ford, FedEx, General Electric, General Motors, Kansas City Southern Industries, Lockheed Martin Corporation; Merck; Mittal Steel USA; New York Life; United Parcel Service; Wal-Mart; and Whirlpool.




A separate document on the Council of the Americas website presents a summarized transcript which claims that U.S. representatives in the June 15 meeting explained the composition of the U.S. delegation as follows:



“The U.S. section of the NACC has organized itself through a Secretariat -- composed of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Council of the Americas -- to maximize its efficiency and better communicate with its members.” Secretary Gutierrez was also paraphrased as stating, “The purpose of this meeting was to institutionalize the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and the NACC, so that the work will continue through changes in administrations.”

The Council of the Americas is a private organization with offices in New York and Washington, D.C. According to the organization’s own description, the group’s members “include some of the largest blue chip corporations domiciled in the United States, who, collectively, represent the vast bulk of U.S. investment in and trade with the rest of the Americas.” The Mexican -- U.S. Business Committee (MEXUS), organized as a standing committee of the Council of the Americas, is “the oldest bi-national private sector business organization with a focus on economic, commercial, and political relations in North America.” A MEXUS document on the Council of the Americas’ website self-credits MEXUS with having played “a critical role in the conceptual work that led to NAFTA,” plus active lobbying in that “its [MEXUS’s] members wore out significant shoe leather on Capital Hill, ultimately leading to successful passage.”




The Council of Canadians, a Canadian advocacy group that opposes NAFTA and SPP, charged that nine of the 10 appointees of the Canadian NACC delegation was drawn from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Maude Barlow, the National Chairperson for the Council of Canadians objected, stating, “This latest development clearly puts business leaders in the driver’s seat and gives them the green light to press forward for a North American model for business security and prosperity.” Ms. Barlow additionally questioned, “How truly accountable is the Harper government to the Canadian people when it gives preferential treatment to the big-business community in the design of its policies?”




Even a quick glance at the “North American Security and Prosperity” page of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives makes clear how ardently the organization champions SPP. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives was listed alongside the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI, Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internationales) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) itself as being the sponsors for a March 2005 CFR-published task force report titled “Creating a North American Community -- Chairman’s Statement,” pubpublished before the March 23, 2005 trilateral proclamation of SPP in Waco, Texas. The three groups are also attributed with sponsoring the May 2005 CFR publication, “Building a North American Community.”




The creation of the NACC is following the course prescribed by Robert A. Pastor, the American University professor who is was co-chair of the CFR task force that produced the two CFR publications described in the above paragraph. At a press conference presenting the CFR report, “Building a North American Community,” Robert Pastor said:



The North American summit that occurred in Texas on March 23rd is a very important statement. But if it’s to be more than a photo opportunity, we felt that a second institution was essential, and that would be a North American advisory council made up of eminent individuals, appointed for terms that are longer than those of the governments, and staggered over time. This council would propose ideas for dealing with North American challenges, whether they be regulatory or transportation or infrastructure or education, and put forth options to the three leaders to consider ways to adopt a North American approach.


Robert Pastor described this council as playing an active policy role in the formation of his hoped-for North American Community.



And hopefully, the three leaders would turn to this North American council and say, “Look we’re getting wonderful advice on what we should do about North America as a whole. Why don’t you prepare a plan for us on education, on agriculture, on the environment, and we would consider that even as we consider the advice of our government.”


Dr. Pastor’s comments seem to prefigure the June 15, 2006 first meeting of the NACC, even down to describing the membership of his “advisory council” as consisting of ten members from each of the trilateral states. If Dr. Pastor’s roadmap continues to be predictive, we recommend a serious look at his book, "Toward a North American Community," in which he argues for the creation of a European Union-style fully institutionalized North American Union, constituting a super-regional government complete with a court, a parliament, a chief executive, and a new currency described as the “Amero.”




The Council of the Americas website lists five top priorities identified for the U.S. Section of the American Business: Energy Integration; Supply Chain Management/Trade Facilitation/ Customs Reform; Regulatory/ Standards issues -- Harmonization and Sharing of Best Practices; Counterfeiting and Piracy -- “Fake Free North America”; and Private Sector Involvement in Border Security and Infrastructure Projects.




A White House website shows photographs of President Bush, Mexico President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper at their March 31 joint news conference in Cancun, Mexico, shaking hands in front of a backdrop proclaiming “Cancun 2006. Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.” Increasingly, the three leaders are referring to the SPP as if the Waco, Texas press release announcement of March 23, 2005 constitutes an official new treaty-like trilateral status, advancing the trilateral partnership forward into a more institutional phase that can be termed at a minimum “NAFTA-Plus.”




At the Cancun press conference, Prime Minister Harper confirmed that the decision had been reached to advance SPP by forming NACC:



During my meetings with Presidents Bush and Fox, we reviewed the progress of our Security and Prosperity Partnership, which provides a framework to advance the common interests in the areas of security, prosperity, and quality of life.




We committed to further engage the private sector. We’ve agreed to set up a North American Competitiveness Council, made up of business leaders from all three countries, to advise us on ways to improve the competitiveness of our economies. They will meet with our ministers, identify priorities, and make sure we follow up and implement them.


In his comments at the Cancun press conference, President Bush also affirmed the presence of unnamed business leaders who had attended the trilateral summit meeting. President Bush commented, “I want to thank the CEOs and the business leaders from the three countries who are here.”




The DOC's SPP website announcing the formation of NACC provides no information as to the membership requirements, the selection process, or the terms of the members appointed to the NACC. Nor is there any discussion of who pays for the travel expenses and the time of the participants. We find no charter published for the NACC, or any other specific delineation of roles and responsibilities, or reporting authority (except for a mention of the “SPP Ministers”). Equally lacking is a description of the enabling legislation or treaty under which the NACC operates.




According to an attendance list produced by the Council of the Americas, the June 15, 2006 meeting of the NACC was attended by Geri Word, deputy director of Office of NAFTA and Inter-American Affairs in the U.S. Department of Commerce; Dan Fisk, senior director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the National Security Council; Al Martinez-Fonts, director of the Office of the Private Sector in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Elizabeth “Betsy” Whitaker, deputy assistant secretary of Western Hemisphere Affairs at the U.S. Department of State; and Christopher Moore, deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.




http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15954
 
Old July 13th, 2006 #16
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Immigration issue masks 'North American Union'

Immigration issue masks 'North American Union'


Published: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 6:00 am



By Steven Yates




The immigration situation doubtless has many Americans baffled. On May 15, President Bush delivered the briefest speech of his career (17 minutes), making pronouncements such as, "We're a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. ... The United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security."


So why isn't he doing more? Why did the Senate pass a bill that not only amounts to amnesty for more than 11 million illegals, but according to some estimates would also lead to an influx of more than 100 million more immigrants in the next decade? Why, as reporter Sara Carter of the San Bernardino News asked, "in a time of heightened concern about national security, have so many illegal immigrants been able to make their way across the border? And why has border security ... been such a bit player in the government's national-security plans?" Why, finally, are there cases where police with illegal aliens in custody have been ordered by federal immigration officials to let them go?


We now have answers, thanks to several articles penned by Human Events columnist Jerome R. Corsi (best known for his criticism of John Kerry in "Unfit to Command"). According to Corsi, Bush's actions belie his words. He wants open borders. He is committed philosophically to an ideal: a globalized, borderless world. This ideal has the support of multinational corporate CEOs who hope to reap windfalls from a near-unlimited supply of cheap labor.


On March 23, 2005, Bush met with Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin at Waco, Texas, and signed an agreement called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The SPP created working groups with specific projects, ordered to report back in 90 days. Major media were silent; you had to go to the official Web site (www.spp.gov) or the White House site.




Two months later, the Council on Foreign Relations released a task force report titled "Building a North American Community," supplementing the SPP. The idea has been called NAFTA-Plus; it has also been called "deep integration." When the SPP working groups checked in, they had organized trilateral networks of public-private partnerships, the cumulative effect of which, over time, will be to transform our borders into mere lines on maps. This has been furthered with almost no congressional oversight; however, a specific item of legislation titled the North American Cooperative Security Act (HR 2672 and S.853, in committee) would pull Mexican and Canadian agencies into partnership with Homeland Security and create a North American security perimeter.


The first visible media personality to notice any of this was CNN commentator Lou Dobbs, who wondered on the air if our elites had gone mad. If we cannot secure our present border, can anyone in his right mind believe North American globocrats could guard a perimeter thousands of miles longer?


Corsi explains: The goal of the elites is to create, with almost unnoticeable gradualness, a North American Union modeled on the European Union. It wouldn't happen by legislation but through a process of evolving partnerships and increasingly free migration, until the day we wake up and find the old United States gone! If this sounds paranoid, consider what Vicente Fox told a Madrid audience in 2002: "our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada ... an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union ..." NAFTA tribunals have already reviewed U.S. court decisions.


Doubtless there are economic development zealots who think regional integration is a great idea. We must respond that we are more than an economy; we are a nation with a constitutional heritage of limited government -- with private property rights for all, not just the super-rich. This heritage -- in bad enough shape after ghastly Supreme Court decisions like Kelo -- will disappear in less than a generation if the United States is eased into a regional superstate.


Unconvinced? Look at Europe. Look especially at France. Under the European Union, France has become a jobless no-man's land of unassimilated immigrants (mostly Muslim) -- a tinderbox that has already erupted in violence. The plain truth is, the borderless economic utopia of the elites just won't work. It will widen the gulf between rich and poor, and further undermine a middle class still reeling from NAFTA. It will trigger justified resentment if native-born Americans see ex-illegals reaping benefits (e.g. Social Security) for work done while still illegal (this is in the Senate immigration bill).

Continue with regional integration, and within 20 years America will look like France does now.



http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060712/OPINION/607120381/1016
 
Old July 13th, 2006 #17
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Cornyn wants U.S. taxpayers to fund Mexican development

Cornyn wants U.S. taxpayers
to fund Mexican development


'North American Investment Fund' billed as answer to illegal alien influx




Posted: July 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Joseph Farah
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com



Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas



WASHINGTON – Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has quietly introduced a bill to create a "North American Investment Fund" that would tap U.S. and Canadian taxpayers for the development of public works projects in Mexico.


Despite assurances this week from White House press secretary Tony Snow that President Bush opposes the idea of a European Union superstate for North America, the effort, by one of the president's loyal supporters in the Senate, is sure to spark new questions about negotiations between the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico on issues ranging from security to the economy.


"Currently, a significant development gap exists between Mexico and the United States and Canada," Cornyn said. "I believe it is in our best interests to find creative ways to bridge this development gap."


Cornyn introduced the bill just before the July 4 holiday – admitting in his introductory comments that Congress is not likely to adopt his plan quickly. In fact, Cornyn previously attempted to create the new international fund in legislation he introduced in 1994. It soon thereafter died in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where the latest version is headed.


Senate Bill 3622, co-sponsored by Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., specifically authorizes the president to "negotiate the creation of a North American Investment Fund between the governments of Canada, of Mexico, and of the U.S. to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy."


The fund, if it is ever created, won't just cost U.S. and Candian taxpayers more, it will also cost Mexican taxpayers a lot more.


Cornyn's bill requires the government of Mexico to raise tax revenue to 18 percent of the gross national product. The current tax rate is approximately 9 percent.


"The purpose of this fund is to reinforce efforts already underway in Mexico to ensure their (sic) own economic development," Cornyn said. "The funding would make grants available for projects to construct roads in Mexico, to facilitate trade, to develop and expand their education programs, to build infrastructure for the deployment of communications services and to improve job training and workforce development for high-growth industries."


As WND reported recently, opposition is mounting to similar programs, including President Bush's North American Security and Prosperity Partnership.


Plans by government agencies and private foundations alike promoting deeper cooperation between the three countries – including even a plan for a common currency called the "amero" – are getting more scrutiny in the media, by activists and by public officials.


Lou Dobbs of CNN – a frequent critic of Bush's immigration policies – has been most outspoken.

CNN's Lou Dobbs



"A regional prosperity and security program?" he asked rhetorically in a recent cablecast. "This is absolute ignorance. And the fact that we are – we reported this, we should point out, when it was signed. But, as we watch this thing progress, these working groups are continuing. They're intensifying. What in the world are these people thinking about? You know, I was asked the other day about whether or not I really thought the American people had the stomach to stand up and stop this nonsense, this direction from a group of elites, an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value. And I hope, I pray that I'm right when I said yes. But this is – I mean, this is beyond belief."


Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.



Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., the chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus as well as author of the new book, "In Mortal Danger," may be the only elected official to challenge openly the plans for the new superstate.


Responding to a WorldNetDaily report, Tancredo is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of the government office implementing the trilateral agreement that has no authorization from Congress.


Tancredo wants to know the membership of the Security and Prosperity Partnership groups along with their various trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements reached with counterparts in Mexico and Canada.


Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minutemen, welcomed Tancredo's efforts.


"It's time for the Bush administration to come clean," Gilchrist said. "If President Bush's agenda is to establish a new North American union government to supersede the sovereignty of the United States, then the president has an obligation to tell this to the American people directly. The American public has a right to know."


Geri Word, who heads the SPP office, told WND the work had not been disclosed because, "We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public."


WND can find no specific congressional legislation authorizing the SPP working groups nor any congressional committees taking charge of oversight.


Many SPP working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.


But presidential spokesman Snow ruled out any consideration of a North American superstate a la the European Union.


WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving asked if the president would categorically deny any interest in building a European Union-style superstate in North America.

"Of course, no," said Snow. "We're not interested. There is not going to be an EU in the U.S."



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51036
 
Old July 13th, 2006 #18
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Neocon Tony Snow says 'No EU in U.S.'

'No EU in U.S.'
Tony Snow responds to warnings about North American superstate


Posted: July 12, 2006
2:00 p.m. Eastern



By Les Kinsolving
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com



Presidential press secretary Tony Snow yesterday emphatically stated that there would be no "EU in the U.S." when asked about administration efforts to more closely integrate state relations between Canada, Mexico and the U.S.


As WorldNetDaily reported, some critics of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America have said the program, though supposedly beneficial to the U.S., will lead to a North American superstate similar to the European Union, open borders, loss of sovereignty and even a common currency.



WND asked Snow about the criticism, stating, "As WorldNetDaily's lead story pointed out yesterday, critics are expressing concerns about the president's cooperative efforts with Mexico and Canada regarding the Security and Prosperity Partnership. And my question: Will the president categorically deny any interest in building a European Union-style superstate in North America?"


Responded Snow: "Of course, no. We're not interested. There is not going to be an EU in the U.S."


WND also asked the spokesman about the controversy surrounding the Mount Soledad cross memorial in San Diego. The Supreme Court recently issued a stay in the case, saving the monument from destruction for the time being.


"Why is the president, as a devoutly religious man, failing to take any action?" asked WND.


"Right now what you have is a court opinion that is still being reviewed," responded Snow. "Let's find out what the courts have to say."

If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.


http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51029
 
Old July 13th, 2006 #19
DJ_Zarathustra
Member
 
DJ_Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 330
Default Flashback to 1979...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ron...mmigration.htm

Quote:
Reagan himself was a dreamer, capable of imagining a world without trade barriers. In announcing his presidential candidacy in Nov. 1979, he had proposed a “North American accord” in which commerce & people would move freely across the borders of Canada & Mexico. This idea, largely overlooked or dismissed as a campaign gimmick in the US, rankled nationalist sensibilities in the neighboring nations. But Reagan was serious in his proposal.
 
Old July 16th, 2006 #20
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Watching government eliminate our borders



Watching government eliminate our borders

Posted: July 15, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

It began in 1993 with an expansion of the "La Paz Agreement" between the United States and Mexico. Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12904 in 1994, which created the Border Environment Cooperation Commission to oversee development in "Border Region XXI," a region 62-miles wide on either side of the U.S./Mexico border.

This little-known agreement, a side deal in the much-touted North America Free Trade Agreement, was a precursor to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, born in March 2005. The agreement was reinforced in March 2006 when the governments of Mexico, the United States and Canada met again to focus on their agenda to erase national borders.


With even less public attention, plans for an transportation super-corridor were unfolding. This quarter-mile-wide, highway-rail corridor will stretch from Lazaro Cardenas in southern Mexico to the Canadian border – and beyond. Kansas City is seen as the primary inland port that will house both Mexican and U.S. customs officials.

Public hearings are being held now in Texas, where thousands of landowners will be uprooted by right-of-way acquisitions. It seems to matter very little what the people who are directly affected think or want. The project rumbles forward, as if the agencies involved had never been exposed to the idea that "... government is empowered by the consent of the governed."

Where is Congress? If there was a bill enacted into law that authorized the Executive Branch to enter into this agreement or to plan this massive transportation corridor, it certainly didn't make the news. What little is known about these projects has been dug up by WorldNetDaily and other alternative media.

Government apparently assumes that these projects will be good for America. Whether or not the people want these projects is not a factor to be considered.

There can be no doubt that commodities will move faster through this super-corridor than current transportation modalities will allow. This includes such things as illegal drugs, illegal aliens, terrorists and whatever else anyone wants to get into the United States. Promises that the corridor will be "secure" ring hollow in the light of past efforts to secure the U.S. border.

At the root of the problem is an evolving concept of what America is or was or should be. For nearly a century, America led the world in freedom and prosperity, not because government decided what is best for America, but because a free people decided what government could and could not do.

Somewhere along the way, the people got too busy earning a living or watching ball games or shopping or vacationing or getting rich off government projects, so that the idea of limiting government initiatives fell out of favor. The idea of a citizen legislature became obsolete. Government became the domain of the professionals. Professional bureaucrats and professional legislators now run the government, and they are aided by professional NGOs – non-government organizations – that take tax dollars to serve as "partners" with government to give the appearance of public involvement.

Most of America seems perfectly content to let government do whatever it wants. Aside from complaining, there is little evidence that the majority of Americans care enough about what the nation is becoming to do the work necessary to return government to the people.

Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have let our borders fade away by refusing to enforce immigration laws and by actively promoting the erasure of our borders through trade agreements that give away American prosperity. These agreements have one goal: to homogenize the economies of the three nations.

Consider this: Per capita income in the U.S. is $41,800; in Canada, $34,000; in Mexico, $10,000.

Were these three economies "homogenized," as is the goal of the trade agreements and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the per capita income of all three nations would be $28,000.

It's not hard to see who wins, and who loses.

The first responsibility of the U.S. government is to the people of the United States. These tri-lateral agreements are not for the benefit of Americans, but for the benefit of others. We used to have a name for governments that took wealth from those who had it for redistribution to those who didn't. Once, it was called communism, socialism or worse. Now it is called NAFTA, CAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Once these agreements erase our borders, America will be nothing more than a member of the North American Union, with only a fading memory of glories past.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51063
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:01 AM.
Page generated in 0.32783 seconds.