Security and prosperity for who?
By Alisa Craddock
In July of last year, Phyllis Schlafly wrote a column detailing an agreement to create a North American Community very much like the European Union by the year 2010. President Bush had met with Mexican President Vincente Fox and [former] Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin on March 23, 2005 and adopted what is called the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP). Working groups have been assigned in each of the three countries to implement this plan. The plan is described in a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) document entitled Building a North American Community.
Some of the features of this plan are:
(This sounds an awful lot like the Senate's "Immigration Reform" Bill to me…)
This trilateral agreement was signed by the President without authorization from Congress, and, judging by the outrage to the current illegal immigration situation, completely against the will of the American people as well. In reports published on World Net Daily it is revealed that the membership and "work product" of the working groups has not been disclosed or published anywhere. Though bills were introduced in both houses of Congress, those bills were never voted on, never made it out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I suspect, then, that our elected representatives are well aware of the agenda, but either washed their hands of it (lest they incur the ire of their constituencies), or chose to keep it under wraps. Either way, they had to have known the American people would see this as a direct assault on our sovereignty, and be deeply alarmed by it.
It was also at that 2005 meeting, which took place in Waco, that President Bush identified the "Minutemen" those citizen volunteers who took on the duty of defending our borders (as our President had pledged to do among his campaign promises) as "vigilantes." Now that the National Guard have been sent there, look for the government to begin taking control of the border "protection" and forcing the Minutemen to stand down so that they cannot further interfere with the "plan".
Jerome Corsi (author of Unfit for Command), acting on the belief that President Bush signed an unauthorized agreement to erase the borders between our three countries, has filed a "Freedom of Information Act" request for full disclosure of the agreement. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo) is demanding a full disclosure as well, including the names of the people in the SPP working groups. Corsi's attorney states that if the President "is creating a new North American union government without the full and complete knowledge of the American people, we are facing a severe constitutional crisis." I would add, that without the peoples' consent, one might even entertain the "T" word. He took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States". Not the people of Mexico, not the financial interests of big business, not the New World Order, the constitution of the United States . The creation of a new borderless North American state with its own laws apart from the Constitution is a violation of that oath, since the two bodies of law are ultimately incompatible, and the intention clearly is to supplant American law with the new laws. The creation of a North American superstate is a step toward our assimilation into global government. We have only to look at the European Union and the bully tactics their governing body uses to compel member states to adopt a uniform ideology to know how this will affect us.
Before the liberals out there get all excited that they can now gleefully say "I told you Bush was a liar", this did not originate with Bush, and liberals have their fingers as deeply embedded in this pie as the Neo-Cons. Bush is only carrying out the long range plans established long before he took office, just as his predecessor did, and the one before him, and so on. It is time the American people wake up and realize that our leadership (with a few notable exceptions) are all on board with this global agenda, and we are losing our country. They (or rather the wealthy elite who are truly controlling things) are robbing us of our birthright.
The Department of Homeland Security's "Fact Sheet" on the Security and Prosperity Partnership has some curiously vague language that leaves more questions than answers. For example, it states that the elected leaders called for "Ministerial-led working groups to consult with stakeholders in each country…" Who and what are the stakeholders? Whose interests are being served? Judging by the lack of concern on the part of our leaders to our bleeding, porous borders, it's not the American peoples' interests.
Also, it states, "the U.S., Canada and Mexico have agreed to transform North American preparedness for response to large-scale incidentsby establishing protocols for incident management that impact border operations" and protocols will also address "maritime incidents, cross-border public health emergencies and cross border law enforcement response." I emphasize this last part because, though I was not aware of the SPP in August of last year when Katrina devastated New Orleans, I did remark in an unpublished essay that our response had felt like a rehearsal of sorts: Among other peculiar occurrences, Canadian Mounties from Vancouver were on the ground in St. Bernard Parish within two days, where it took over a week for U.S. National Guard troops to arrive. Why were the Mounties there before our own National Guard, and why did it take so long to deploy our own guys? Calling in the National Guard is the logical thing to do in a disaster like this. It's what they're there for. In addition, Mexican troops brought humanitarian aid in what was the first military operation on American soil for them since the Mexican-American war. So there you have it: Cross-border law enforcement and cross-border public health emergency response. And, in fact, the SPP Fact Sheet states: "Recent experience with hurricanes, ice storms, industrial accidents and the like demonstrate our interdependencies, as well as the need for coordination and mutual assistance in protecting and safekeeping our populations." Prior to reading those news reports, I had been wondering if this would be an excuse to bring in U.N. troops, but that would have sent up a red flag to the American public. We have not been sufficiently prepared for that yet. But just last week, there was talk of the U.N. forming an army, a rapid reactions force that could intervene in emergency situations around the globe. How long will it be before they, too, are called in while our own troops are overstretched in military operations in the Middle East and elsewhere?
The eruption finally of this blatant move to undermine U.S. sovereignty should prompt us to examine other trends that may have their origins in this clandestine formation of a new government that is consistent with the planned global government, and is supplanting our Consitution. We've felt it for a long time: The renegade judges, clearly defying constitutional law in their rulings, making rulings that defy common sense and undermine the very things that give our nation cohesion--our foundation in faith, the sanctity of the family and national loyalty. The statutes and rulings that somehow nullify your right to free speech, especially religious speech, to privacy (unless it has to do with sexual activity, then your privacy is sacrosanct), to property, to life itself. The ongoing efforts to disarm the people, to register weapons so that eventually they can confiscate them. How can this be happening? Who has the power to stop it?
Last week, Henry Lamb reported in his column on ESR that Kofi Annan's Deputy Director, Mark Malloch Brown, had called on the United States to crack down on U. N. bashers in this country. We have a provision in our Constitution for the protection of free speech that was expressly written to protect people from being arrested or persecuted for political speech. John Bolton reportedly called on Annan to repudiate Brown's remarks, which Annan refused to do. Now, my hunch is that we will put up a good front of appearing to defend American free speech, but our leaders have signed treaties with the U. N. and we have Bill Clinton's signed executive order (#13107) to bring our country and its citizens into compliance with those treaties, we have working groups to ensure said compliance, and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that the rights and freedoms guaranteed in that declaration "may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations". I would bet that we will soon begin to see some signs of a "crackdown" on anti-UN speech here, despite Bolton's call for Annan to distance himself from Brown's remarks. The "diversity" agenda (designed to muzzle free speech and create ‘global citizens' who have no national ties) marches on, as formulated by the working groups assigned to enact that phase of the transposition. Look for anti-U.N. speech to somehow be incorporated into the ultra-P.C. speech codes already in educational and corporate policies in this country.
The United States of America is an endangered species, folks, and it doesn't matter which party is in power—the two parties are just pitting us against each other with passion-inflaming antagonism, while they work on a separate set of goals, much of it under the radar, all leading to the same place. There is a shadow government with its own set of laws and goals that has supplanted our republican form of government while we have been squabbling. It is being implemented through executive orders and judicial fiat and state and federal policies that working groups and federal bureaucracies, ignoring the constitutions of states and the U. S. Constitution, are enacting through financial manipulation.
I am not an economist. I don't know what the impact of removing 12,000,000 people from our economy would be. I do know what the impact of the SPP will eventually be, as with many of the other treaties and agreements our leaders have signed. It could be that allowing 12 million people to settle in before attempting to respond is a carefully calculated move to ensure that the agenda goes forward. By permitting that many to invade our country unchecked, there now exists the veiled threat of violence perpetrated by millions of angry, militant Aztlaners, all serving the purpose of advancing the globalist goals of those "stakeholders". Concerns about Mexico's upcoming election may have something to do with the lack of resolve on the part of our President and Congressional leadership in responding to this unprecedented crisis, as well. It is generally believed that a strong response from the US could result in a socialist candidate being elected to replace Fox, resulting in a more aggressive and less cooperative stance by Mexico against the U.S. Personally, I suspect that is inevitable anyway, if not this year, then at some future point. But let's not pretend this inaction is in the best interest of the American people. With the average income in this country hovering around $35,000 per year (including benefits), and the average CEO's salary at $12 million, with an ever vanishing middle class, it is becoming clear who is benefiting from this. The handwriting is on the wall.
Alisa Craddock is a political columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. In addition to Enter Stage Right, her columns have been published on Alain's Newsletter and Out2 News. She may be contacted at email@example.com.
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!