FOIA request filed to expose plans for 'North American union'


PDA






Desertdog
June 20, 2006, 10:56 PM
Bush 'super-state' documents sought
FOIA request filed to expose plans for 'North American union'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50719

Author Jerome Corsi filed a Freedom of Information Act request yesterday asking for full disclosure of the activities of an office implementing a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that apparently could lead to a North American union, despite having no authorization from Congress.

As WorldNetDaily reported, the White House has established working groups, under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the Department of Commerce, to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005.


Corsi specifically has requested the partnership's membership lists, constitutive documents, meeting minutes, meeting agendas and meeting schedules as well as all findings, reports, presentations or memoranda.

He also wants all comments to representatives of the "Prosperity Working Groups" or other working groups, committees or task forces associated with the partnership along with internal and external interagency or intra-agency memoranda of understanding, letters of intent, agreements, initiatives and budgeting documents.

Corsi believes President Bush effectively agreed to erase U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada when he signed the SPP.

Geri Word, the administrator in charge of SPP, confirmed in a telephone conversation with Corsi that SPP.gov has not published the membership lists of the working groups or the many trilateral agreements the website documents indicate are being implemented.

"This is all being done by the executive branch below the radar," Corsi told WND. "If President Bush had told the American people in the 2004 presidential campaign that his goal was to create a North American union, he would not have carried a single red state."

The president, Corsi maintains, has charged the bureaucracy to form a North American union "through executive fiat ... without ever disclosing his plans directly to the American people or to Congress."

Attorney Robert A. McGuire, who filed the request on Corsi's behalf and is preparing further requests, says 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."

The purpose of the FOIA, he said, is to get the "full facts exposed in the light of day, available for the American people and for Congress to examine and decide."

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of the SPP office.

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

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.

If you enjoyed reading about "FOIA request filed to expose plans for 'North American union'" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
k_semler
June 21, 2006, 12:25 AM
No need for a FOIA request. All the information you seek is out there in the light of day. It's just that nobody pays attention to it, and they dismiss it as a "lunatic conspiracy theory". A FOIA request releasing this exact information won't change the public outlook much, (if at all).

Building A North American Community (http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf)

Task Force Urges Measures to Strengthen North American Competitiveness, Expand Trade, Ensure Border Security (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8104/index.html)

The Case For the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Monetary Union (http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1999/amero/amero.pdf)

Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/nssg/PhaseIIIFR.pdf)

A National Security Strategy For A New Century (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/other_pubs/nssr99.pdf)


Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010 (http://www.cfr.org/publication/7914/)

DOD Information Operations Roadmap (http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resources/io/io-roadmap.pdf)


Field Manual (FM) 3-13: Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resources/doctrine/fm-3-13.pdf)

HHS Pandemic Influenza Plan (http://www.hhs.gov/pandemicflu/plan/pdf/HHSPandemicInfluenzaPlan.pdf)

Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (http://www.spp.gov/)

EDIT: North American Union, (Wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union)

mordechaianiliewicz
June 21, 2006, 07:09 AM
I've done a touch of research on this and discovered that if the current Republican Party as whole knew about where this could go, the President would have been impeached, and the cabinet dismissed.

The problem is, there will be an incremental approach. You already have the transnational highway for shipping cheap Asian goods through Mexico to the US. When we are even more economically dependent upon Mexico, not just for cheap labour, but now a port with cheap goods, then everyone will welcome this, in fact say it is a necessity.

Look at the E.U. It didn't happen overnight. It took trade barriers being broken, and extremely close relations between neighboring countries. That is how we would get a N.A.U.

How do we stop this?

We already know. Keep up trade barriers, block off Mexico, and keep Canada only as a fair weather friend. Of course, none of the corporate leaders want that. They want free trade across borders regardless of the consequences, so we won't see a resolution until fed up people significantly change state and fed government.

By then, it could be too late.

LAK
June 21, 2006, 08:07 AM
mordechaianiliewiczLook at the E.U. It didn't happen overnight. It took trade barriers being broken, and extremely close relations between neighboring countries. That is how we would get a N.A.U.
Yep, the tried and tested incremental approach.

The Italian EU Commissioner Romano Prodi was quoted in a BBC article a couple of years ago scolding other EU provincial leaders. I lost the article on a crashed hard drive (and can not find it on the BBC site anymore), but he stated in effect; "Why are you all being so timid [about political union]? We all know that this was the intention from the very beginning of the [European] Common Market".

I have found other blatant declarations referring to this overt admission though. Here are a few lines from one speech he gave in Paris in 2001;
... These same Europeans, however, are little concerned by the way in which the Union operates. This indicates that it is time to build Europe along different lines.

The founding fathers intentionally avoided any particularly sensitive political questions. Rapprochement was left to the industrialists and the businessmen, in line with the historical traditions of Europe, where traders were often the pioneers.

The genius of the founding fathers lay in translating extremely high political ambitions, which were present from the beginning, into a series of more specific, almost technical decisions. This indirect approach made further action possible. Rapprochement took place gradually. From confrontation we moved to a willingness to cooperate in the economic sphere and then on to integration....
And there you have it folks - from one who should know. The m.o. explicity stated, straight from one of the Plantation manager's trap.

Political integration. Every American who thinks the current status quo in this country, "republican" or "democrat" has had any different intentions from the beginning ought to read this. And then challenge their "friends" in their respective parties with it.

"European Common Market", to "European Economic Community" .. to European Union.

All out in the open now; no "conspiracy". The conspiracy took place decades ago. If this train is not derailed very soon it will be too late to stop it.

Full text of speech at:

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/01/244&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

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

http://usslibertyt.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

longeyes
June 21, 2006, 11:56 AM
I've done a touch of research on this and discovered that if the current Republican Party as whole knew about where this could go, the President would have been impeached, and the cabinet dismissed.


Sure of that, or that they don't already know about it? I'm not counting on that.

Increasingly, the saving of America is up to the American people, not their representatives. The people in power are concerned about solidifying their power and financial security. This is true even of the middle-income bureaucratic class.

DesertEagle613
June 22, 2006, 03:33 AM
Alternative:

If the United States simply dropped trade barriers with the entire world, then there would be no a priori assumption that MexiCanada has "closer" economic relations with us and "deserves" integration.

Besides, more trade with the rest of the world, less trade with Mexico.

/runs for the hills ahead of the inevitable flaming

longeyes
June 22, 2006, 10:57 AM
Why should trade relations depend on geography? Are your best friends the people who happen to live next door? Maybe but not usually. The U.S. needs to cultivate nations with shared values. That doesn't mean you don't trade with people with whom there is economic need or advantage, just that you don't deceive yourself that trade is more than business.

cuchulainn
June 22, 2006, 11:30 AM
FoIA exemptions -- especially covering inernal agency decision making memoranda -- likely protect large portions of the targeted documents from release.

Waitone
June 22, 2006, 08:25 PM
How fed.gov responds to this particular FOIA request will tell us quite a bit about the mindset of those sponsoring the work. The lid was kept on the project for good and valid reasons. While some information was available the devil was not available.

One possible response will be for fed.gov to fake a "come clean" attitude and demonstrate there is no problem because it is all harmless. I could make the case everything I've read is explainable by appealing to bureaucratic coordination. In other words, nothin' new here, move along.

Another response will be to stonewall any information. Stoopid approach for obvious reasons.

A third approach would be to provide all kinds of information and bury researchers in paper but conveniently omitting crucial information.

The data dump Corsi has requested in essential in determining who is sponsoring the initiative and who will benefit. A membership list is essential to determine if the program is a presidential priority. Meeting agenda, meeting participants, and meeting notes will detail plans, goals and objectives. I draw your attention to the recent Dubai Ports fiasco. As the deal came under fire the adminstration dismissed the deal's importance by implying the review board was a bunch of bureaucrats and that it could easily happen because it was a third tier committee and the president couldn't possibly know the intimate operations of an obscure committee deep in the bowels of a huge organization. Well, that was the story. Reality was committee members were cabinet members and the assessment of deals was done by the highest levels of goverment and Bush knew good and well what was going on.

Same thing here. Names of participants will give a clear picture of the initiative's priority in the Bush administration.

longeyes
June 22, 2006, 09:09 PM
Speaking of "Dubai," last I heard they still run 22 U.S. ports. Did anything really change?

LAK
June 23, 2006, 09:24 AM
cuchulainnFoIA exemptions -- especially covering inernal agency decision making memoranda -- likely protect large portions of the targeted documents from release.
The real meat is no doubt in the minutes and communications, documents etc of the NGOs. Which of course are not subject to FOIA actions.

These are the forums where the groundwork takes place. The surface gov officials do not have to openly discuss or record much that might upset too many people.

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

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

If you enjoyed reading about "FOIA request filed to expose plans for 'North American union'" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!