The merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico may be the biggest story of our lives
Thursday, February 27, 2007
By Cliff Kincaid
Editor
For Accuracy in Media
It is certainly more important and significant than the tragic death of sexpot Anna Nicole Smith. Without the benefit of a treaty or even a law, the U.S. Government is proceeding with implementation of a "
Security and Prosperity Partnership
," growing out of the North American Free Trade Agreement. After my attendance at a February 16 conference on the development of a North American legal system, I became convinced that a process has been well underway to merge not only the legal but economic, political, and social systems of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It is being guided by Robert Pastor, a former Clinton adviser and Carter official, who envisions a North American Parliament that could assume the form of a North American Union, much like the European Union that now dictates to the citizens of 27 European states.
MY REPORT CONFIRMS AND EXPANDS ON WHAT WES VERNON REPORTED IN OUR DECEMBER-B AIM Report. I have already agreed to participate in a conference on this issue in Dallas, Texas, from July 19-21, at the Crowne Plaza Hotel. For more information, go to www.freedom21.org. There was another meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partnership in Canada on February 23. Over the last week, since we posted my report on the North American legal system conference on our website, I have done numerous radio interviews on the subject and have been in contact with several congressional offices.
WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN TONY SNOW APPEARED ON THE LARS LARSON RADIO SHOW IN January and said the charge that the U.S. is being submerged in a North American Union and developing a common currency with Canada and Mexico is an "urban legend." He may not understand Pastor's real agenda. Please send him one of the enclosed postcards. Also consider sending Neil Cavuto a postcard about this. He has the number one business news show on cable and could make a huge difference in how this story develops nationally and internationally. To this point, Lou Dobbs of CNN is the only national media personality to have tackled this controversy.
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S COMMITMENT TO THE SPP HELPS EXPLAIN WHY IT DOES NOT want to enforce border security. Charles Hurt of the Washington Times reports that Senator Ted Kennedy is putting the final touches on a comprehensive immigration-reform bill, which will be backed by the White House, "that includes an easier citizenship path for illegal aliens and weaker enforcement provisions than were in the highly criticized legislation that the Senate approved last year." The Transportation Department has announced that U.S. highways will be open to Mexican trucks, despite the obvious dangers inherent in such a scheme. Teamsters President Jim Hoffa said, "They are playing a game of Russian roulette on America's highways." Meanwhile, the Bank of America is now marketing credit cards to illegal aliens.
WHAT MAKES THE SPP EVEN MORE MYSTERIOUS IS THE CLAIM THAT THE ANNOUNCEMENT creating the process issued by President Bush, then-Mexican President Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Martin was not signed. The SPP says, "The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed." Yet I found a statement issued by Martin, in which he declared that "President Bush, President Fox and I signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership
…" A transcript of a "press availability" from June 27, 2005, shows Carlos Abascal, the Mexican Secretary of the Interior, saying that "Our three leaders, President Fox, President Bush and prime Minister Paul Martin have signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America." Why would officials of Canada and Mexico say the document was signed when it was not? Are they simply in error? I found the text on the website of U.S. presidential documents but it did not indicate a signature had been attached to it. It is not listed under the category of executive orders. This is very curious.
A CANADIAN REPORT DESCRIBES THE SPP AS "AN INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR trilateral and bilateral cooperation in North America" that is "not a formal international treaty" or "an overarching binding legal agreement." Why is such a process not subjected to congressional scrutiny and approval? On the basis of this allegedly unsigned SPP document, federal officials have entered into other agreements with the governments of Mexico and Canada which have been signed. The SPP refers, for example, to a "signed" agreement with Mexico on consumer goods and a "signed" agreement with Canada on pipeline regulations. Who signed these documents?
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S COMMITMENT TO OPEN BORDERS IS A PROBLEM IN IRAQ AS well. Iraq's border crossings with Iran and Syria are open again, after having been closed for a few days. As we feared, the administration is making the same mistakes that LBJ made in Vietnam. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong was being supplied by Russia and China through North Vietnam. In Iraq, the enemy gets help from Iran and Syria. The Bush Administration knows this, and military commanders in Baghdad held a news conference producing evidence of Iranian interference in Iraq, even to the extent of providing explosive armaments that are killing American soldiers. Yet Bush goes out of his way to say the U.S. will not attack Iran.
THE OTHER PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE LONG WARNED ABOUT IS THE FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN the information war. Making many of the points that we have made, Cliff May of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies writes that our enemies, here and abroad, are winning the "war of ideas." He notes that our media "were not diligent in reporting on the affiliations, motives and strategies of the killers—whom they referred to as 'insurgents' or 'militants' or something equally non-judgmental" and that some even call the terrorists in Iraq the "resistance." At the same time, he notes, "The White House, the Pentagon and the State Department allowed this spin to go almost unchallenged—and eventually to become the dominant 'narrative.' What could they have done instead? They could have made the truthful case—forcefully and relentlessly—that ruthless fanatics were intentionally killing innocent Iraqis; that civilized people do not excuse such barbarism, no matter the cause or grievance; that principled people fight and defeat it." Whatever happens in Iraq, the war will continue. And al Qaeda AND Al-Jazeera will remain serious threats.
I WILL BE ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF SOVEREIGNTY WHEN I APPEAR ON A PANEL AT THE Conservative Political Action Conference from March 1-3 in Washington, D.C. We will also be distributing a new report on the left-wing push for the Fairness Doctrine. If you would like a copy of my remarks, as well as a copy of our new Fairness Doctrine report, please send me one of the enclosed postcards. We are moving forward on many fronts, confronting some of the most important issues facing our nation. Thank you for your steadfast support.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|
