I have watch Bush closely over the past 14-15 years, and am of the opinion that he would sell us out in a minute to foster a tighter relationship with Mexico. It makes you wonder what his adgenda actually is.
Immigration Deception Reveals SPP Threat to America
Family Security Matter : July 19 , 2007 -- by John Lewandoski
"It is hoped that the reader is stirred enough to contact Washington legislators to demand accountable, limited government in America, and complete uncovering, inspection, and removal of the SPP."
When the common sense approach to a public issue is conspicuously avoided by Washington power brokers, it's a good time to suspect ulterior motives. Such is the case with our Mexican border and why it "can't" be secured. Bottom line: border control is not designed to remedy the security problem. Rather, the border is designed to be eliminated.
Unnoticed by much of mainstream America, there is an unholy cabal that's slithering past them. Among the geo-economic power elite in Washington, with our President at the core, is an effort that if not averted will, by 2010 or thereabouts, lead America into a hardened amalgam of tri-national partnership, and eventually into international organization. The result of this could, and more likely will, be the abolishment of our Constitution and national sovereignty; i.e., America in name, but a "nation-less" country. It appears that Mr. Bush doesn't want a common border between Mexico and the U.S., and thus is doing his best to win and maintain favor with the Mexican government and its people, who have everything to gain by border dissolution.
A recent and firm clue that the President is willing to go to extreme ends to maintain this Mexican favor is the Ramos/Compean border agent case that has slapped two U.S. Border Agents with federal penitentiary terms of over a decade each, all as a result of a flagrant miscarriage of justice perpetrated against them by the Bush Administration. Just ask any of the 70 congressmen who signed legislation in January 2007, introduced by Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), calling for a reversal of the outrageous convictions, and that the two agents be freed from jail immediately. As of July 2007, no public action whatsoever has been taken by the President to comply. Worse, facilitating the convictions were the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, the total machinations of which produced the sham case and trial resulting in the sentences. [For much more detail, do a "Ramos Compean" Google-search or see -- article "Invasion USA Ignacio Ramos reported in 'emaciated' condition."
What is it that makes this President defy common-sense conduct...
* by not wanting border security tightly (and easily) implemented, especially in a post- 9/11 environment?
* by pandering to corrupt, ill-run Mexican administrations when he should be protecting America from such things?
* by going to inexplicable lengths to use his power to facilitate incrimination of U.S. Government Border Agents in favor of Mexican appeasement?
Answer: largely, it's the Security Prosperity Partnership (SPP). You may have heard the term SPP, but my guess is that unless you frequent credible alternative news sources, this may be your first exposure.
Back on March 23, 2005, in Waco, Texas, President Bush, then-President Vicente Fox of Mexico and Paul Martin, then-Prime Minister of Canada, met at a summit meeting to enter into an agreement between the three countries that is designed, trilaterally, to bring "security, partnership, and prosperity" to these three North American land masses. Critics, however, believe that the agreement will do nothing more than join these lands commonly together, erase northern and southern U.S. borders and form a North American continental perimeter instead. They further believe that the idea is to proceed rapidly forward as the next step in the process of NAFTA and CAFTA, both of which propel these three countries toward the North American Union (NAU) and some say ultimately to integration with the overarching New World Order or One World Government.
This isn't an Orwellian novel. It appears the idea here, via the SPP, is to make this transition gradually, incrementally and generally unnoticed, for were it to be revealed as it should be, I'd suspect there'd be civil uprisings nationwide. When it does come under scrutiny, the SPP firmly denies its aims are ultimately toward the NAU, but the framework and underlining implications of the SPP scream otherwise.
Nonetheless, the SPP has a dedicated following and support, as revealed in Marcela Sanchez's recent Washington Post column, all of which indicates SPP is doing a fine job of convincing some of its "public-spirited" intents. In short, the SPP is so well crafted it appears to promote altruistic "progressive" outcomes no one in his right mind would refute - that is, if one believes the hype. Columnist Sanchez points out, after all, SPP goals such as "...leaders (President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon) are expected to announce an integrated strategy to combat pandemics..." ; and "...trilateral regulatory cooperation framework, meant to enhance competitiveness, while maintaining high standards of health and safety". She also states the SPP makes "...no mention of erasing borders and establishing a separate legal system, (or) adopting a single currency..." Well, of course it doesn't, even though those tenets are clearly inferred. Has Ms. Sanchez reviewed the European Union's (EU) structure lately? The parallel between it and what's brewing here in Washington is strikingly similar.
Why is the Washington Post promoting SPP support while other qualified journalists counter the Post's position diametrically, stating that through cunning and design, the SPP is actually an evolving press conference which has already produced signed documents that constitute an agreement (although the SPP indicates no "agreement", per se, was ever signed. The SPP is carefully not a law or treaty, because those actions must involve Congressional approval and ratification. So, it appears that our president knowingly side-stepped constitutional protocol by operating a deception to avoid exposure to the other arms of government and, of course, to the American people...at least at this stage of the game.
A good "home" for this new agreement between the three countries then was found in the U.S. Dept. of Commerce. From there, the White House manages many working groups, and according to distinguished historian/writer, Dr. Jerome Corsi, the groups are within the Department of Commerce (DOC); exactly what the relationship is to the DOC, however, is unknown to the general public. The DOC highly refutes direct DOC oversight, stating SPP is a "...White House-led initiative...". But it is interesting that the "big three" directly responsible for SPP development under the President are Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, Condolzeza Rice, Secretary of State, and Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security.
Something of a counter-constitutional stench is wafting out of Washington if we start connecting dots the mainline media are ignoring by ignorance, bias, or neglect. Even the SPP's own website provides their organizational framework of the SPP. Included are the Departments of Energy, Transportation, Health & Human Services and more-- all cabinet level reporting groups that report to aforementioned Gutierrez, Rice, and Chertoff. And paralleling the US team, assisting in this overall developmental effort, are the parallel governmental bureaucracies of Mexico and Canada.
So what we have metastasizing in Washington, unbeknownst to the general public, are policy making groups, appointed officials, committees, advisory boards and essentially trilateral, parliamentary councils all hard at work in restructuring (destroying, actually) our U.S. constitutional way of American life to create a new world order, pure and simple. Too bold a statement? Although the SPP denies any infringement on our Constitution, the ultimate and inevitable outcome of any combined, tri-lateral/national construct, by definition, can mean nothing less than a re-written tri-national document.
These working groups compose a "shadow government", or a parallel of our Founding Father's constitutional bureaucracy that includes bureaucracies of the other two North American countries in the process. The eventual result of this new, comparable, trilateral bureaucracy is the fear, and some say certainty, that our U.S. laws and regulations will be rewritten to harmonize with those of Mexico and Canada -- and all this, now, being accomplished in the Executive arm of U.S. Government, all without congressional oversight or review!
Our continually eroding Constitution, in Article 1, Section 1, declares that all legislative powers shall be vested in the Congress of the U.S. But Congress has abdicated its responsibility by allowing the Executive branch, by means of the SPP, to steal law-making authority to which it's not entitled. Just recently, as the Senate's immigration bill bit the dust, inserted in that bill -- by parties unknown -- was an after-the-fact endorsement of the SPP scheme.
The credible journalist/editor, Cliff Kincaid, of
www.aim.org states, "... The White House was most likely behind this stealth attempt to get Congress to approve SPP, which forms the basis of the North American Union (NAU)." (aim.org report, July 9, 2007). This ram-through legislation is precisely what seasoned constitutional journalists all along have predicted would precipitate SPP congressional approval. Although the SPP maneuver was included in the now dead immigration bill, don't remotely assume it, too, is dead; it's only in a coma, certain to be revived for another stealth presentation snow-job by the same "parties unknown" who placed it there this time around.
Thus is the general overview of the SPP currently buzzing in our Department of Commerce. It is hoped that the reader is stirred enough to contact Washington legislators to demand accountable, limited government in America, and complete uncovering, inspection, and removal of the SPP.
Your national sovereignty is at stake.
