The Super Highway and Prosperity Partnership, Chertoff's for it

Chertoff SPP Implementation Memo Uncovered by Judicial Watch, via Bear Creek Ledger

Blue Collar Republican tells us about a memo received by Judicial Watch (records received through the FOIA). This memo from the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff describes responsibilities of the agencies within DHS in the execution of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) agenda. Remember SPP is not a treaty (thusly does not allow any Legislative action) and has been signed by no official of the United States yet Secretary Chertoff is enacting DHS agencies to follow and execute directives issued by this agreement.

According to the memorandum signed by Secretary Chertoff: “…The [Security and Prosperity Partnership] has, in addition to identifying a number of new action items, comprehensively rolled up most of our existing homeland security-related policy initiatives with Canada and Mexico, and ongoing action and reporting in the various U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico working groups led by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] should now be driven by a single agenda: the SPP.”

Go to Judicial Watch for the March 20,2007 release of “Judicial Watch Uncovers 2005 Chertoff Implementation Memo on Security and Prosperity Partnership”.

Most recent Bear Creek Ledger story on SPP - Surrendering our Sovereignty

Also read:

Problems? What Problems?, Common Sense America

How Liberal or Conservative are Presidential Hopefuls?, The Uncooperative Blogger

McCain Reconsidering Immigration Views, Liberally Conservative

An Open Letter To John McCain, (satire) from John Lillpop

Reform? Let's Try Mexico's Immigration Laws Here (satire) John Lillpop

Liberal Hypocricy on Illegal Aliens

How do you say Reconquesta in Arabic? , John Lillpop

Georgia Continues to Battle Gang Problem, GA Crime Watch

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email stiknstein-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.

Comments

[Richard Brodie]

We need to get our definitions straight:

trea·ty (n) - a formal agreement between two or more States in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.

Is the SPP an agreement between two or more States in reference to commerce? Yes. It is an agreement between three States regarding matters of international trade, among other things. And I don’t know how much more formal you can get than having dozens of trilateral groups that have been working, albeit clandestinely, for nearly two years now, fleshing out this grandiose agreement by establishing every parameter necessary to merge (or to use a favorite EU term, "harmonize") all aspects of (illusive) North American joint Security (peace) and Prosperity (commerce).

So the SPP most certainly is a treaty, even if there is not some “goddamn piece of paper” (to borrow a phrase from Mr. Bush) that says “Treaty” at the top and has some signatures at the bottom. One could say that it is a de facto treaty, if not a de jure one, about which the vast majority of the American people have been kept in total ignorance.

If the SPP says such ludicrous things as "The SPP is not an agreement" then not even the village idiot is going to give any credence to their pathetic "Myth" debunking spin. Again, back to the dictionary:

agreement(n) - 1. the act of agreeing or of coming to a mutual arrangement. 2. the state of being in accord.

Have the leaders of Mexico, Canada, and the United States "agreed" to go forward with implementation of the SPP? Yes. Is the SPP a "mutual arrangement" between the three countries? Yes. Are the leaders of the tree countries "in accord" about proceeding with the SPP? Yes. So is the SPP an agreement? Yes.

Gosh, bureucratese language corruption use to involve at least some slight amount of obfuscatory finessing. But now, through either arrogance or laziness, they think it's sufficient to simply state that what is by definition clearly an agreement, is a non-agreement!

What the SPP really is, is an Executive coup … totally without the requisite Congressional approval … let alone discussion with the American people.

Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution states:

“He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”

Until very recently, I doubt that two thirds of them had ever even heard of it, let alone been asked their opinion by the Oval Office! Not only has our Imperial Leader failed to obtain the Consent of the Senate, he has deemed their Advice not even worthy of seeking! The man is a total failure at honoring his oath of office to uphold the Constitution. He is the equivalent of the arrogant and careless little leaders, like Valens, who presided over the demise of the Roman Empire - the only difference being that while they welcomed in the Visigoths, he welcomes in the Hispanic hordes.

And as to discussing such a profoundly significant initiative with the people, I challenge anyone to find a single reference to the SPP in any of his public speeches. Less than 3 months ago in his State of the Union address he said, ominously: “We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway”. Yeah, and the largest such endeavor, the one having the most profound potential for radically changing the fundamental nature of this country, is the SPP. But he refrains from mentioning it by name anywhere in his speech!

If it is such a great thing why is he trying to hide it? I’ll tell you why. He’s afraid most of us wouldn’t think it was such a hot idea, and so he wants to get it going with as much momentum as possible, so that when the people finally discover what he’s been up to he will have been able to sneak it in as a fait accompli.

In the State of the Union speech, the word “security” is mentioned ten times, twice with a capital S when talking about Social Security, and eight times when talking about Iraq. The word “prosperity” is mentioned once in a very general and platitudinous context. And the word “partners” is mentioned once in connection with North Korea. But never do these three words come together to finally lift the veil of secrecy from the darkened eyes of the citizenry and let the vast majority of them learn for the first time of the existence and nature of this truly “large endeavor” that is well “underway” - one whose dire consequences will reverberate into our Nation's future long after his Iraq fiasco is relegated to the same dustbin of history as Vietnam.

[StormWarning]

I will continue to maintain until the final seconds, that a North American Union will not happen, and certainly cannot happen so long as the governments cannot deal with a controlled border environment.

The solution to the illegal immigration problem across our border with Mexico is not the erasure of that border. If you go back somewhere I did an extensive analysis of the Task Force for the Future of North America (all of these other "revelations" can be tracked back to that one CFR Report). All of the rest is nothing but panic.

Its on my blog and its on the CFR website for all to read.

[Debbie]

Great comments everybody and I appreciate the additional information Stormwarning and Jersey Nut.

I think Europe is jealous of America, but they would never admit it.

This does have similarities to the EU. It is a very bad idea.

[Jersey]

Interesting - seems as if we are looking at a North American-style European Union.
Gee, that has worked so well across the pond, hasn't it? Let's see, stagnant economies, impotent defenses, and unassimilated immigrants trying to enforce their values upon a value-less continent....

Ironically, I always suspected the EU was formed in homage to the United States - the original designers thought they could re-create the glory of America on an even grander scale. Too bad they never understood what it takes to be an American - a color-blind self-reliance, with maximum freedoms, and unlimited opportunity. The founders of the EU tried to build a united Europe without this crucial foundation; just look at the result.

Much the same would happen should the US try to somehow "merge" somehow with Mexico and Canada - geographical convenience is no substitute for a shared moral grounding.

We'd be more successful partnering with, say, Australia....

[Angel]

Thanks for the great overview Debbie..I will check the links soon as I get back!

[StormWarning]

Despite all of the hand wringing, I still don't believe that the "North American Union," or whatever else people choose to call it will happen, especially not in the near term.

As for the Trans-Texas Corridor or the NAFTA Superhighway as it is sometimes called, see this:

Probing the Trans-Texas Corridor
http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/traffic/archives/2007/03/post_114.html
Now that a summary of a state auditor's report that warns about potential public risks and lack of information about the Trans-Texas Corridor has been splashed around the Internet, here are some details that may surprise you.

I figure the 73-page report, which came out in late February and mainly looks at the Trans-Texas Corridor segment that will parallel Interstate 35, weighed heavily in the Senate hearings (Texas) on tolling and privatization (see live video, room E1.004). I flipped through the report and pulled out nuggets that grabbed my attention, including stuff I never knew...

I've read through the 73 page report, http://www.sao.state.tx.us/reports/main/07-015.pdf, and found the findings disturbing.

One ovbservation of the author's is astounding...The Trans-Texas Corridor's starting toll fee of 12.5 cents per mile for cars is double and triple what's charged on other cross-state tollways that are more than several hundred miles, and is instead more comparable to urban toll roads in Houston and Dallas.

Compared to the NY State Thruway (4.5 cents per mile), the New Jersey Turnpike (5.2 cents per mile), the Garden State Parkway (2.2 cents per mile), the Penn Turnpike (7 cents per mile)this is ridiculous.

Question: which "good ole boy" is getting paid off here!

Answer: there is one truly major road building company "around these parts," http://www.zachry.com/