THERE IS NO SECOND PLACE

Iraq talking to is neighbors good or bad?

Source: Iraq the Model
Saturday, August 11, 2007

                              

 
                Talking to Iraq's Neighbors
        I think it's a good time to make a preliminary assessment of the results of reaching out and talking to Iraq's neighbors in reducing violence in the country.

So, was it a bad suggestion to talk to them?
Not completely bad, and not completely good either, pretty much like any suggestion when the situation in question is as complex as Iraq's.

The results with Iran have been so poor so far, in fact the Iranian involvement in violence has increased as statistics tell us—the American commanders here said that attacks on coalition forces by Shia militias linked to Iran represented 75 percent of total attacks in July.
Although it's still unclear whether this rise was a result of more attacks by militias or of fewer attacks by other insurgents the overall outcome is that for some reason dialogue either failed to encourage a change in Iran's policy toward Iraq or even worse giving opposite results.

On the other hand we have Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Although Arabia was recently criticized by ambassador Khallilzad for not doing enough there are reasons to think that the three countries have to some extent contributed to the change in attitude among Sunni Arab tribes in Anbar; an effect that is slowly spreading to other regions around Baghdad, i.e. the Baghdad belts.

It is true that seeds for the awakening movement in Anbar were planted prior to the Iraq Study Group recommendations-perhaps some of you remember sheik Jad'aan and his fighters from last year-but it would be rather naïve to think that the movement gained all the sudden momentum we saw from a local initiative by some good sheiks.

In my opinion the Arab countries I mentioned have redirected much of the support they had been giving al-Qaeda and its allied tribes to the awakening sheiks and their fighters. And why wouldn't Arab countries do this!?

First Arab countries fear that Iran would control much of Iraq and they have come to realize that the only way to prevent this from happening is by allowing Iraq to become a stable state with which they can build good relations. Second their relations with America are already much better than Iran's which is seen as a common threat to them and to Iraq's stability. Add this to recent pledges with military aid in the billions and-I assume-guarantees that democracy in Iraq is not going to be a threat to their interests and we have a good package of incentives and disincentives.
This must have convinced them that they will lose if they keep putting their money on the insurgency as a way to stop the Iranian expansion.
This doesn't mean Saudi Arabia is doing all they can. After all it's the ideology they teach in their schools and mosques that keeps breeding terrorism and until they do something about that Saudi Arabia will always be responsible for creating new generations of terrorists who could strike in Iraq and elsewhere.

Then there's Syria which I'm going to leave aside right now since apparently there has been no change in its attitude in either direction. And we still haven't heard enough about meetings between American and Syrian officials, that's if there were any. Speaking of that I think the public in Iraq and America deserve to know more about what happened during previous meetings with Iran and Arab countries—I don't know about the media in America but I know our media here is not telling us any reliable information in this respect.

The question is what can be done in order to make talking to Iran at least as fruitful as talking to the Arab countries?

I don’t have an answer for this one and it looks to me that making progress on both fronts through diplomatic means is very difficult. This is because on one hand we have a group of Arab regimes whose core concern is the preservation of their regimes and whenever possible to slow down political and social reforms in their countries for as long as possible or at least make reforms a less dramatic process. These are things that America can, more or less, reassure them about since the idea of spreading democracy in the region is an America project in the first place.

But on the other hand there is a revolutionary regime whose ambitions go beyond preserving the regime to dominating the Middle East to which the road passes through Baghdad and Basra.
Today Rafsanjani complained that America was not sending "good signals" and I wonder what sort of good signals could satisfy the Mullahs; removing sanctions, allowing them to act as they please in Iraq, or maybe letting them continue their nuclear project?

My conclusion is that a diplomatic solution with Iran in the foreseeable future is very unlikely, unless the Iranians change their regime from within.
Therefore the only way I see to neutralizing Iran's interference would be to keep building the Iraqi state until it's strong enough to deal with this interference and meanwhile military operations should continue to eliminate Iran's surrogates and secure the border. This will ultimately weaken the power of their political wing as well.

Maybe this doesn’t look like a very good plan but it's better than a direct military confrontation with Iran and let's not forget that the change in power-balance on the ground could change the outcome of future negotiations, on the long run.

The elected officals in Iraq just keep messing up

Here are words from ground zero.  I don't know what to do, but these guys seem to know what they are talking about.

PJM Baghdad

August 22, 2007  9:16 AM

PJM Baghdad Editor Omar Fadhil reports that over the last few weeks “the major political parties in Iraq have kept taking turns at damaging the political process and ultimately their own government.”

by Omar Fadhil

They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

This was said about the Palestinians, I believe, though it seems to apply just as well to our political class but with a difference. There are some opportunities our leaders never seem to miss: the ones that make things worse.

In the last few weeks, the major political parties in Iraq have kept taking turns at damaging the political process and ultimately their own government. First, the ministers of both the Accord Front and Allawi’s bloc withdrew from the cabinet almost simultaneously, just as the unjustified summer recess was starting.

Last week, the Kurds and Shias added their share of the damage by announcing their new coalition of four parties. The move is wrong in both timing and principle; on the one hand, the date for Gen. Petraeus’ progress report in September is getting near. On the other, it’s a step in the exact opposite direction to what is needed in terms of the surge — the lifeline America has extended to save the country and allow the government in Baghdad to win the confidence of its people.

In fact I don’t know what those people were thinking when they formed this coalition; instead of trying to mend the rift and glue back the fractured unity government they come and officially reduce the government to a Shia-Kurdish alliance and further sideline reluctant Sunnis and seculars.

And saying -as they did- that the door is still open for other blocs to join the new coalition is totally worthless in this case: by then, the Islamic Party of Vice President Hashimi (which the Kurds and Shia said they would welcome) felt shunned because they didn’t wait for them and rushed to announce their “front of the moderates”. And that without even inviting the arguably only true moderate secular group represented by the Iraqi list.

It’s even stranger to see someone like Talabani, who’s considered to be a sharp and thoughtful politician, wondering “why no one welcomed the new coalition.” What makes him and the other leaders of the four involved parties think that anyone would applaud this step? Are they really that naïve to think they did something good for Iraq, or even for their own parties? Apparently they thought renewing the vows of their old alliance would strengthen their grip on the executive and legislative authorities and allow them to impose their narrow partisan visions regarding Kirkuk and the southern provinces. But I believe they are shooting themselves in the foot. They made the ruling coalition less representative than ever, and made another change more likely and more appealing than it already was.

Every time we think they are beginning to wise up one of them comes and does something stupid. While regular Iraqis want nothing but a decent life, the fat rich suits care only about competing for more power. And even in this they disappoint. All of them.

So, what’s the solution?

Changing Maliki and his cabinet without holding new elections can cut the time needed to bring a change, but with the downside that the new Prime Minister will still have to pick his cabinet members from the same pool of candidates. Unless he’s an extraordinarily tough man his choices would be restricted with sectarian and ethnic quotas. While these quotas may prevent a “tyranny of the majority,” they also lead to one deadlock after another.

But even early elections might not bring a breakthrough. There’s no assurance that new elections will result in significant change in the political map, mostly because a) existing major parties aren’t likely to tolerate fair competition, and b) the current election system elects slates instead of direct election of individual candidates.

To be honest the situation is a dilemma—we can’t tolerate more incompetence and frustration, and at the same we are not sure what early elections are going to bring. But it’s a risk we Iraqis need to take if we want to end this awkward scene.

Close the borders and enforce the immigration laws.

Close the borders and enforce the immigration laws.

The lack of assimilation by immigrants to the United States - both legal and illegal - is culminating in an American identity crisis and poses a serious problem for the future of our country.

This movement toward anti-assimilation stands in stark contrast to the very concept of our nation. E pluribus unum, "out of many, one," is the motto of the United States. This motto, this dedication, was originally selected by the Great Seal Committee in 1776. It acknowledged that the thirteen separately governed British Colonies had banded together to form one inclusive nation, a country that stood independent from the British Crown, the United States.

This problem is best illustrated by two examples; the aggressive Reconquista movement in the Southwestern US and the developing and sometimes violent row with the growing Islamic community in the United States.

The militant Reconquista movement embraces the divisiveness of multiculturalism more fervently than Dr. Leo Buscaglia used to embrace his patients. Their motto, "Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada" - which translated means "For the Race, everything, for those outside the Race, nothing" - encapsulates the dangers multiculturalism poses to a nation's identity.

Violence on the U.S.-Mexico border has risen dramatically over the past three years in what U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has called "an unprecedented surge." ICE has established intelligence and investigative operations along the border to combat the increased brutality.
    In a recent report, ICE said the border gangs, which collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in illicit profits, are becoming increasingly ruthless -- against their victims, rivals and federal, state and local police.
    Much of that violence has targeted U.S. Border Patrol agents, who have seen a spike in incidents as the agency continues its efforts to bring larger areas of the border under operational control. Violence directed at agents has included physical and vehicle assaults, and shooting incidents.
    Gunfire has become commonplace along the border, authorities said, particularly in the alien- and drug-smuggling corridors of southern Arizona. They said about 90 percent of the migrants headed north out of Mexico have hired a coyote to guide them into the United States. State and local law-enforcement officials on the border have said they are outgunned and outmanned by drug- and alien-smugglers armed with automatic weapons, grenade launchers, bazookas, improvised explosive devices, and state-of-the-art communications and tracking systems.
    The rising border violence also has been attributed by authorities to efforts by the street gang Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, to win control of drug- and alien-smuggling routes into the United States. The Border Patrol's field-intelligence center said MS-13 has aligned with drug cartels in Mexico and Colombia, and seeks unfettered access to smuggling corridors.
    The intelligence center said the MS-13 presence has increased competition between rival gangs that must vie for areas where they can ply their trade. The result, it said, has been an increase in violence as rival gangs struggle for domination.
    MS-13 members also reportedly have accepted contracts to assassinate Border Patrol agents to intimidate and frighten agents away from the border.

• Border control for national security with sufficient intensity and accuracy to ensure that no terrorist and no drug dealer can cross the border."The first piece is that the major part of the fence is to be built between Calexico, California and Douglas, Arizona and that portion, that's 392 miles, that's the area through which most of the people come who have died of dehydration or sunstroke in the desert sun in the summer months.
• 
  
• Make passing a test on American history in English and giving up the right to vote in any other country key requirements of U.S. citizenship.
• Since becoming a citizen requires knowing English, have all election ballots in English.
• To insure that only legal citizens vote, require every voter to have a photo ID card.
• 
  
• Enforce the laws requiring employers to know that their employees are legal.
• 
  
• Create a systematic worker visa program with a biometric card run by the computer card companies to avoid fraud, a background check to eliminate any criminals and a signed contract to obey the law and pay taxes or else be removed from the U.S. within 48 hours for failure to comply
•  

  What can we do to make English the language of government and civic discourse?  Three action items top the list:

   
• End multilingualism in federal documents.  The requirement that federal documents be printed in different languages was created by executive order. Repeal this executive order.
• Make English the language of U.S. citizenship. Return to English language ballots, to a focus on English language literacy as a prerequisite of citizenship, and to an insistence that U.S. dual citizens vote only in the United States and give up voting in their birth nations. These were principles widely understood and accepted for most of American history, and they enabled us to absorb millions of immigrants and assimilate them and their children into an American civilization.
• Replace bilingual education with intensive English instruction. We should have a National Program for Intensive English Instruction that would provide highly intensive English and U.S. history and civics training for new immigrants so that they can have the practical skills to become successful U.S. citizens.                                                                                                                                      
• Ten Simple, Direct Steps to a Legal American Immigration System
•  
• Keep the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli commitment and control the border.  In The Reagan Diaries (HarperCollins, May 22, 2007), President Ronald Reagan wrote that he was going to sign the Simpson-Mazzoli bill because "it's high time we regained control of our borders and [this] bill will do this." For national security reasons, it is vital we regain control of our border. Congress should pass a narrowly written emergency border bill to finish the necessary fence in less than a year and to have complete border control within two years.
• Announce an immediate shift of Internal Revenue Service resources to audit companies that are deliberately hiring people illegally. We do not have to focus on deporting those who want to work. We need to focus on the Americans who are getting richer by deliberately breaking our laws, hiring people illegally and failing to pay taxes. These people are cheating their own country. We should focus on fining and making it economically impractical for Americans to deliberately encourage law breaking. Economic penalties for knowingly hiring someone who is illegal should rise dramatically with each employer (including subcontractors) conviction, making it simply too expensive to cheat. This will eliminate the magnet of illegal jobs, will begin to diminish the flow of new illegal workers and will lead some illegal workers to return home voluntarily.
• Outsource to American Express, Visa or MasterCard the job of building a real-time verification system so that honest companies can confirm the legal status of all workers and identify people with forged papers before they hire them as fast as your automatic teller machine identifies you and gives you money in a matter of seconds. We must distinguish between companies that deliberately hire illegal workers and companies that hire people who they believe are legal. It is the government's duty to help this second group of companies by providing a real-time verification system for identifying the legal status of all workers so that it is possible to screen out those with illegal documents. The government should outsource the creation of this system so that it is easy, fast and accurate.
• Focus deportation efforts on criminals. Those who claim that opponents of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain bill support mass deportations are simply wrong. We want a system in which honest work is available for law-abiding workers and in which the natural attrition of declining job availability will reduce illegal behavior. However, there is one group that should be deported immediately, and the law should be modified to make it easy to do so. Criminals have no future in America. In every major city and increasingly in small cities and even small towns, gangs have become a problem and people feel a rising sense of insecurity. There are at least 30,000 illegal gang members now in the United States. The system should focus on deporting criminals so that people who are here illegally understand that breaking the law will get them deported immediately.
• Cut off all federal aid to any city, county or state that refuses to investigate if a criminal is here illegally. These so-called "sanctuary cities" are in effect abetting the violation of American law and increasing the risk to honest, law-abiding Americans. They should be cut off from all federal aid if they refuse to help enforce federal law.
• Offer intensive education in English to anyone who wants to learn English, and make English the official language of government.  This will begin to reassert the commitment to assimilation and Americanization that has historically been part of legal immigration to America.
• Ensure that becoming an American citizen requires passing a test on American history in English and giving up the right to vote in any other country.
• Within the context of these proven changes, establish an economically driven temporary worker program like the Krieble Foundation proposals. Any temporary worker would have to pass a background check to ensure they are not a criminal, would have to give biometric information (retinal scan and thumbprint) for a special card that would be outsourced to American Express, MasterCard or Visa so it would be harder to defraud and counterfeit, and would have to sign a contract committing them to pay taxes and obey the law or be removed from the United States within two weeks without recourse to long court processes.
• Create a special open-ended worker visa for high value workers who bring specialized education, entrepreneurial talent or capital that will grow the American economy and make America a more prosperous country.
• Workers who came here illegally but have a good work relationship and community ties (including family), should have first opportunity to get the new temporary worker visas, but instead of paying penalties, they should be required to go home and get the visa at home. This way they are beginning their new career in America by obeying the law. It is amazing that those who advocate a large fine and the new Z visa, which would be administered in a hopelessly expedited manner, suggest that going home to get a new legal admission to the U.S. is somehow too complicated. If people can break the law by entering the county illegally, they should be able to obey the law and enter America legally.

• #1) We must pursue enforcement first: The American people simply no longer have any confidence that the government is serious about enforcing our immigration laws -- so they believe, with much justification, that if we combine an amnesty bill with new laws aimed at enforcement, we'll get the amnesty but not the enforcement. So, the simple solution to that is to pursue enforcement first.

  Many backers of comprehensive immigration will tell you that an enforcement first bill won't have the votes to pass. Well, first off, the same apparently could be said of a comprehensive immigration bill, which has now failed twice to gather the votes it needs to make it through.

  Furthermore, how can it be that an enforcement first bill cannot pass when everyone from Ted Kennedy, to Harry Reid, to Lindsey Graham, to Michael Chertoff says that they support enforcing our immigration laws and securing the border? Let's put together a package, put it to a vote, and let the American people see who's interested in curtailing illegal immigration and preventing terrorists from walking across our borders -- and who's not.

  #2) We need to build the fence: We need to build all 854 miles of fencing along the border. Although that will not, in and of itself, secure the border, the fencing will act as a force multiplier that will make the jobs of border patrol agents much easier.

  #3) We need to fully staff our border patrol: Simply put, the border patrol, especially with no fence in place, does not have the manpower to adequately cover our southern and northern borders. Building the fence will help, but the number of border patrol agents needs to continue to increase.

  #4) We need to fully staff Citizenship and Immigration Services: The agency that is in charge of handling legal immigration, Citizenship and Immigration Services, is poorly run, staggeringly undermanned, and working with obsolete equipment. This leads to enormous amounts of red tape for legal immigrants, poor security screening of people coming to this country legally, and an enormous number of people who come here legally and overstay their visas. This situation desperately needs to be corrected not only to help stop illegal immigrants, but because it's horribly unfair to the people who are doing the right thing and coming to this country legally.

  #5)We need an exit visa program: 40% of the people who are in this country illegally have simply overstayed their visas. This will be an unsolvable problem, especially with Citizenship and Immigration Services being such a disaster area, until we put an effective exit visa system in place that will allow us to know when people have left the country.

  #6) We need to take away the "jobs magnet:" The majority of illegals who are coming here are doing so in order to get jobs. If you take away the jobs, you will dramatically cut down on the number of illegals coming to this country -- and most of the illegals who are here will self-deport.

  To do this, we need to improve the current employment eligibility verification system and we need to move beyond a test program to nationwide usage. Additionally, we need to dramatically increase the monetary and criminal penalties for deliberately hiring illegals. Most of the businessmen knowingly hiring illegals today are doing so because it's low risk and high reward. If you change that equation and turn knowingly hiring illegals into an activity that is likely to result in steep financial penalties and/or prison time, the "jobs magnet" will turn off.

  #7) No more anchor babies: Today, if a 9 month pregnant illegal alien sneaks across the border and has a baby 2 minutes later, the child is an American citizen, the mother is eligible to receive government benefits on his behalf, and the child is an "anchor" that the mother can use to make it tougher to remove her from the country. This needs to change.

  Some people think it would take a constitutional amendment to pull that off. That was once my opinion as well, but the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment of the United States actually says,

  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..."

  Many people, myself included, believe that illegal aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the nation they come from, not the United States, which means that we could pass a law that prevents the children of illegals from becoming an American citizen without a constitutional Amendment.

  #8) We need to put an end to sanctuary cities and drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens: If cities refuse to follow federal law in regard to illegals by becoming sanctuary cities or, if states severely undermine our ability to catch illegals (and simultaneously make it easy for them to commit voter fraud) by allowing them to have drivers’ licenses, the federal government should retaliate by cutting federal funds to that city and state until they change their minds.

  #9) Refuse to allow anyone caught in the United States illegally to ever become a citizen or return for any reason: This would give illegals who may want to become citizens, participate in a future guest worker program, or even visit relatives in the United States a strong incentive to make sure that they follow the law -- and it would also strongly discourage illegals who might be tempted to come here to get in on some future "amnesty" -- since all it would take would be getting caught one time to put an end to any hope of a legal future in the United States.

  #10) End catch and release: Despite what you may have heard to the contrary, when illegal aliens are caught by local police, oftentimes, the Feds refuse to take the illegal alien off their hands. That means that once the illegal is released, he blends right back into the crowd.

  Another asinine practice is capturing illegal aliens and simply releasing them with a summons to appear in court. Of course, almost no one ever shows up since the penalty for being here illegally is deportation. No illegal alien captured by our government should ever be allowed his freedom until after he is deported. If that means we need more manpower, more beds, or to hold them in local prisons until they can be sent home, so be it, but it is extremely foolish to catch an illegal alien and then just let him go.

Nominate and confirm judges that will follow the constitution.

Nominate and confirm judges that will follow the constitution.

The Supreme Court is one of the most important issues of our day.  The courts over the last 60 years have been participating in Judaical activism, making law not found in the Constitution.  The most recent example is the takings law, eating away at the fifth amendment.

Most of all of the great culture war issues of our day can be directly traced to bad decisions by the United States Supreme Court. Consider this: duly elected legislative branches of government are not ultimately responsible for abortion on demand, legalizing same sex marriage, protecting pornography as free speech, removing faith symbols from the public square, and undermining private property rights. Instead, these moral and social ills are the responsibility of unelected, unaccountable members of the federal judiciary who refuse to recognize their limited and restrained role as jurists and insist upon acting as social change agents.

Aggressively pursue the war on terrorism.

Rush Limbaugh was right in his Wall Street Journal Opinion article, "We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people. " 

I think he should add we are strong environmentalist.

As conservatives we must have candidates to run on these issues and here are answers to how and why they should be accomplished.

1.  Aggressively pursue the war on terrorism.

The agenda for such a movement should include the following activities and efforts.

• investigate radical mosques
• support anti-Islamofascist freedom fighters
• thwart attempts to impose Sharia law
• form an anti-Islamofascist publishing network
• create an anti-Islamofascist portal on the Internet
• establish an anti-Islamofascist speakers bureau
• wage an ideological assault on Islamofascism
• support efforts to evangelize Muslims in Europe and the Middle East
• create a global anti-Islamofascist coalition
• reframe the illegal immigration issue as one of national security
• end dependence on foreign oil that's funding the Islamofascists.
 
• We need a serious dialogue -- not knee-jerk hysteria -- about the 1st Amendment, what it protects and what it should not protect. Here are a few baseline principles to consider:

We should be allowed to close down websites that recruit suicide bombers and provide instructions to indiscriminately kill civilians by suicide or other means, or advocate killing people from the West or the destruction of Western civilization;

• We should propose a Geneva-like convention for fighting terrorism that makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous. A subset of this convention should define the international rules of engagement on what activities will not be protected by free speech claims; and
• We need an expeditious review of current domestic law to see what changes can be made within the protections of the 1st Amendment to ensure that free speech protection claims are not used to protect the advocacy of terrorism, violent conduct or the killing of innocents.The most effective form of counterterrorism fights not the terrorists but the ideas that motivate them.
• This strategy involves two main steps. First, defeat the Islamist movement just as the fascist and communist movements were defeated - on every level and in every way, making use of every institution, public and private. This task falls mainly on non-Muslims, Muslim communities being generally incapable or unwilling to purge their own.
  
  In contrast, only Muslims can undertake the second step, the formulation and spread of an Islam that is modern, moderate, democratic, liberal, good-neighborly, humane, and respectful of women. Here, non-Muslims can help by distancing themselves from Islamists and supporting moderate Muslims.

How'a the war going? South America

Pro-Chavez Lawmakers Give Nod to Radical Constitutional Changes
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
August 22, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - In a "unanimous" decision, Venezuela's National Assembly has given initial approval to constitutional changes being pushed by President Hugo Chavez that will, among other things, allow him to extend his tenure in office indefinitely.

The text of the proposed changes was then submitted to a parliamentary commission, which will present a report ahead of a second debate, the official ABN news agency reported.

The 167-seat National Assembly is held entirely by pro-Chavez parties; the main opposition parties boycotted 2005 elections, citing irregularities.

ABN quoted parliamentary president Cilia Flores as saying it should be possible to modify 33 of the constitution's 350 articles in three months. The changes would have to be approved in a national referendum.

The changes, put forward by Chavez last week, seek to transform Venezuela into a socialist state. They include eliminating the current two-term limit for the president, ending the autonomy of the country's central bank, extending the state's power to expropriate property, and limiting the workday to six hours.

The populist leader, who was elected in 1998 and re-elected in 2006, aims to unify Latin American countries and counter United States influence through his "Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas," currently supported by Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador.

Popular among many low-income Venezuelans because of social welfare spending programs, Chavez this year has moved to consolidate his grip on power by restricting independent media, nationalizing power and telecommunications companies, and ordering state-controlled oil company PdVSA to take majority control of crude oil projects, forcing out U.S. giants ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips.

Chavez spoke earlier this month about a need to break away from the "classic" executive, legislative and judicial system and "go towards popular power,' through an envisaged system of "communal councils."

He also has introduced the concept of "socialist cities," comprising communes which he says would be productive but not in the service of capitalism or consumerism. Construction work on the first such project began last month, north of Caracas.

Chavez has proposed the establishment of a new mega-political party that will amalgamate all parties that support his "socialist, Bolivarian" revolution. The new United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) aims to be, in Chavez's words, "the great political party of the 21st century."

Chavez has made it clear that the proposed ending of term limits will apply only to the president, not to other levels of government. Responding to requests by some parties for governors and mayors also to be able to stand for indefinite re-election, he rejected the idea, saying it could lead to the emergence of "regional caudillos" (military strongmen).

A massive campaign to win public support for the constitutional changes has now begun. Pro-Chavez media report that the text of the proposed changes is being distributed to every household by a network of "promoters," and that there are plans for "street parliaments" aimed at encouraging a "yes" vote in the referendum.

Venezuelans living abroad will be encouraged to participate, with activities to be carried out by diplomatic missions, parliamentary friendship groups and Venezuelan solidarity organizations.

Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is setting the foundation for a "North American Union.

I don't know if you say it ain't so, maybe it is.  If it's a secret you wouldn't tell us anyway.

Bush 'Amused' By 'North American Union' Fears
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
August 22, 2007

Montebello, Quebec (CNSNews.com) - Leaders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico on Tuesday downplayed fears that their trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is setting the foundation for a "North American Union" But they did not promise more openness to quell such fears.

"I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and what some are trying to say takes place," President Bush said at a news conference in Montebello, Quebec. He is in Canada with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon for the fourth SPP meeting since its creation in 2005

As Cybercast News Service has previously reported, opponents on both sides of the political aisle have been out in force in Montebello and the nearby Canadian capital of Ottawa, protesting the meetings and the lack of transparency from government officials in attendance.

Liberals worry the meetings are an opportunity for U.S. corporations to exert control over Mexican and Canadian resources. Conservatives charge the meetings are a step toward creation of a North American Union similar to the European Union, where American sovereignty would be forfeited to super-national bureaucracies.

But Bush said he, Harper, and Calderon "represent three great nations [and] each respect each other's sovereignty."

"It's quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about," Bush said. "You lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist.

"There are some people who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples," Bush said, accusing opponents of engaging in "political scare tactics."

"I just believe they're wrong," he said. "I believe it's in our interest to trade. I believe it's in our interest to dialogue. I believe it's in our interest to work out common problems for the good of our people."

Bush's counterparts also brushed off concerns being raised about the meetings. Harper, referring to reports that plans are underway to build a "NAFTA Superhighway" connecting Mexico and Canada, joked that opponents are speculating about "super highways to the continent, maybe interplanetary, I'm not sure."

Calderon, through a translator, acknowledged that "there are several myths about this meeting. Some are more jovial, funnier than others."

Calderon said the SPP meetings focused on "common sense things." Harper said they were "pragmatic, practical discussions."

"The rules for jelly bean contents are different in Canada and the United States," Harper said. "They have to maintain two separate inventories. Is the sovereignty of Canada going to fall apart if we standardize the jelly bean? You know, I don't think so."

Aside from jelly bean standardization, the leaders discussed trade regulations, border security and immigration, relations with South America and the Middle East, energy and environmental issues.

During the closing news conference Tuesday, moved to earlier in the day so Calderon could return to Mexico to deal with damage caused to the Yucatan Peninsula by Hurricane Dean, none of the leaders addressed questions about whether the summit's lack of transparency was to blame for the harsh criticism.

Calderon suggested it would be beneficial to "talk to the people," but none of the leaders suggested changing the format or rules for future meetings. The 2008 SPP summit will be held in Texas, and the 2009 meeting is scheduled to take place in Mexico.

Advocacy groups have filed requests for documents related to previous meetings under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The conservative Judicial Watch called for more transparency in SPP-affiliated meetings when it released documents in February it obtained through FOIA. The group said the papers showed a secretive effort to establish strong ties among the countries.

Judicial Watch also criticized handwritten notes from U.S. representatives to the September 2006 North American Forum that referred to "evolution by stealth."

The group has filed a lawsuit alleging that the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), a concurrent meeting of the elected leaders with 30 business leaders from the three nations, violates federal law requiring openness for committees that advise the president or federal agencies.

As the 2007 SPP summit wrapped up in Canada, the leaders looked forward to the 2008 meeting, which will be Bush's last.

According to the White House, it will focus on enhancing global competitiveness, safe food and products, sustainable energy and the environment, smart and secure borders, as well as emergency management and preparedness.

Political calculus from the Prince of Darkness

Mr. Novak was right on about the 2006 elections.  Here's what it looks like now.

Source: Robert Novak

House 2008

Open Seats: Last week, two Republicans announced their retirement, and one Democrat, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), rescinded his retirement announcement. This brings the current tally to seven open House seats for the 2008 election. Five of those are held by Republicans, and two held by Democrats. Most of the seats should stay in their current partisan hands -- and easily so. The one exception: the Columbus, Ohio, seat of Rep. Deborah Pryce (R). Democrats +1.

California-52: Rep. Duncan Hunter (R), unlike his fellow House colleagues running for President, has already declined to run for re-election in 2008. The retiring congressman hopes to replace himself with his son, Duncan D. Hunter (R).
   
The younger Hunter starts off with the advantages of the incumbent's endorsement, an experienced political team (including campaign manager Dave Gilliard, who recently helped Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) win a special election), and sitting congressmen raising money for him. On the negative side, Hunter, a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps reserve, is currently on a nine-month deployment in Afghanistan, during which time he is prohibited from campaigning. His campaign team and his wife are picking up the slack.
 
  Santee City Councilman Brian Jones (R) is also running. This district lies outside San Diego and is a real Republican stronghold, giving Bush 61% of its vote in 2004 and Hunter 65% in 2006. Likely Republican Retention.

Colorado-2: Rep. Mark Udall (D) is vacating his seat in this district that includes Boulder, the Northwest suburbs of Denver, and many ski areas. It's a left-leaning district that has always liked liberal Udall, re-electing him with 68 percent of the vote last time. Bush received only 41 percent in this district in 2004.
   
  The Democratic primary could be a three-way race, with State Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald (D) leading the pack. Fitz-Gerald is an elder stateswoman of Colorado Democrats, a powerful parliamentarian and old-fashioned Democrat. She has behind her the infrastructure of her party, which has recently gained the governorship along with both chambers of the legislature. She is the establishment candidate.
 
  Jared Polis (D) might be her toughest competition. He is a wealthy businessman, philanthropist and former member of the state board of education. Polis is willing to pour his sizable bank account into this race (he spent $1 million on a school board race) and will be able to outspend his rivals. State Conservation Trust Director Will Shafroth (D) is also a serious contender.
 
  No Republican candidates have filed to run yet. Former Eagle County Commissioner Tom Stone (R) may win the nomination uncontested, but this is a rather safe Democratic seat. Likely Democratic Retention.

Illinois-14: The retirement of Rep. Dennis Hastert, the longest-serving Republican speaker of the House in history, has drawn a handful of candidates to run in this district that extends from the Chicago exurbs almost to the Mississippi River. Complicating the matters, Illinois sources tell us Hastert will vacate his seat early, probably resigning in November, just after the filing deadline for candidates for the congressional contest -- thus spurring a special election.
   
  The field in a special election would likely be the same as the field in the regular November 2008 election.
 
  After three consecutive losses in statewide campaigns, Republican millionaire Jim Oberweis will make a fourth run for a GOP nomination. Oberweis finished second in the Senate primaries in 2002 and 2004, and was also the runner-up in the '06 primary for governor. He still has plenty of money to spend, and by now he has good name recognition and a ready-made political infrastructure.
 
  State Sen. Chris Lauzen (R) wasted no time in entering the race, and he has already reached out for endorsements and contributions. In the state senate, Lauzen currently represents about 60 percent of the 18th District. He is independent of the state's Republican establishment and will run as the outsider coming in to fix up an ailing party.
 
  The moderate in the GOP race is Geneva Mayor Kevin Burns (R), whose day job has been as a professional fundraiser -- a definite boon for him. Burns's best chance is if Lauzen and Oberweis split the conservative vote. With this is mind, Oberweis might try to paint Lauzen as a liberal. However, Oberweis's cash advantage might make him the clear frontrunner, in which case he would have no need to go negative.
 
  The three Democrats in the race are businessman Bill Foster, attorney Jotham Stein and 2006 Democratic nominee John Laesch. The Democrats' best hope is a statewide party surge. The Democratic presidential nominee will most likely carry Illinois easily, Barack Obama could possibly be on the White House ticket, Sen. Dick Durbin (D) will win re-election easily and the state GOP is suffering. This rising Democratic tide, combined with self-funding Democratic candidates in Foster and Stein, could make this Republican district (55% for Bush in 2004) competitive. Likely Republican Retention.

Illinois-18: Rep. Ray LaHood (R), after years of wanting to climb the ladder -- planning Senate or governor runs and seeking leadership roles in the House -- has decided to leave elected politics for now. His central Illinois district, anchored in Peoria and including some of Springfield, is Republican, but it can certainly be competitive.
   
  Early on, the most exciting figure in the race is probably 26-year-old State Rep. Aaron Schock (R). Schock won his first election while a college student, when he defeated the school board president on a write-in campaign. In 2005, Schock knocked off an incumbent state representative, and now he has announced he is running for the open seat. Prominent Peoria businessman Jim McConoughey (R) could certainly be a serious contender here. Former Peoria City Councilman John Morris (R) has also thrown his hat in the ring. Darin LaHood (R), the congressman's son, has been rumored as a potential candidate, but because he hasn't entered yet, it seems unlikely he will.
 
  No Democrats have officially announced, but 2006 attorney general candidate Stu Umholtz (D) and former State Rep. Bill Edley (D) are rumored to be considering a run.
 
Bush won this district by 5.5 points in 2004, and LaHood typically won easily. With a good Democratic year in Illinois likely, the right Democratic nominee here could become the favorite. Leaning Republican Retention.

Maine-1: Former State Senator Chellie Pingree (D) is the front-runner in the race to succeed Rep. Tom Allen (D), who is giving up his House seat to challenge Sen. Susan Collins (R).
                     
Pingree, who challenged Collins in 2002, had already raised nearly $250,000 before she reeled in the endorsement this month of the deep-pocketed pro-choice EMILY's List. She trumps the other candidates in name recognition, as well.
                     
                      But the Democratic field is crowded. Former State Senators Mike Brennan (D) and Mark Lawrence (D) are running, as are State Sen. Ethan Strimling (D), former Portland Mayor Jill Duson (D) and Iraq War veteran Adam Cote (D). The Republican field is still shaking out, but it includes conservative businessman Dean Scontras (R) and former State Rep. Darlene Curley (R).
                     
This Downeaster district is the more Democratic of Maine's two congressional seats, but depending on the nominee, it could be in play. Likely Democratic Retention.

                   

Mississsippi-3: Rep. Chip Pickering (R) has set off a Republican scramble for this safe Republican seat. No candidates have officially entered the race, but the list of potential contenders is pretty long, especially since Lt. Gov. Amy Tuck (R) has decided not to run.
                     
                      The four leading candidates likely to run right now are Rankin County Republican Chairman Gregg Harper, State Treasurer Tate Reeves (R), former Mississippi State basketball player Whit Hughes (R) and Agriculture Department official John Rounsaville (R).
                     
Harper is the most well-connected of the candidates, with strong name ID in Rankin County, the heart of the district. Reeves will easily win re-election as treasurer this fall, and that race will give him a head start in building name identification. Hughes has a fundraising background and deep roots within MSU, which could be a power-broker in this contest. The other potential MSU candidate is Rounsaville, a former Pickering staffer, whose job as state director of the Rural Development Agency has been to hand out federal money within the state.
                     
                      Rounsaville's predecessor, Nick Walters (R), who once ran for secretary of State, has decided not to run, according to a source close to Walters. The same is probably true for State Sen. Charlie Ross (R), who just lost a bitter primary for lieutenant governor. Likely Republican Retention.

                   

Ohio-15: Early in the cycle, this is the Democrats' best chance at a pickup. Rep. Deborah Pryce (R) will retire next year after her eighth term in Congress. Having been thwarted in her hopes for committee chairmanships -- and then being demoted to the minority -- Pryce's decision to retire is not a surprise.
                     
This is a barely Republican district, and it is drifting towards the Democrats. The district includes some of Columbus, all of its Western suburbs, as well as Madison and Union Counties. The suburbs, like suburbs on the East Coast, are wealthy white neighborhoods that are becoming more Democratic. The state Democratic Party is getting stronger, while the state GOP is struggling in the aftermath of Bob Taft's (R) governorship and in the shadow of the Bush presidency.
                     
                      Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy (D), who nearly knocked off Pryce in 2006, will likely be the Democratic nominee. She is the only candidate currently announced. Her 2006 run was strong, and it gave her good name ID. Fellow Commissioner Paula Brooks (D) may also throw her hat in the ring.
                     
                      The likely Republican nominee at the moment is former State Atty. Gen. James Petro (R), who lost the gubernatorial primary to Kenneth Blackwell (R) in 2006. Petro is a moderate, who is close to the party leaders and is well respected. He was won statewide races for state auditor and treasurer, carrying Madison Franklin, and Union Counties handily.
                     
                      There is talk of a run by State Sen. Steve Stivers (R), but an Ohio source tells us he does not plan to run.
                     
A Petro-Kilroy race would be tight. Bush won this district by about 1.1 points in 2004. As the most competitive open seat this early in the game, this race could attract a lot of money, and Democrats recently have been better at raising cash for targeted House seats. Ohio, too, will be a swing state in the presidential election.
                     
There are countless variables that could swing this race, but as of now, Democrats are in a better position. Leaning Democratic Takeover.

OPEN HOUSE SEATS 2008
Currently Held by Republicans: 5
California-52	Duncan Hunter	Running for President	Likely Retention
Illinois-14*	Dennis Hastert	Retiring	Likely Retention
Illinois-18	Ray LaHood	Retiring	Leaning Retention
Mississippi-3	Chip Pickering	Retiring	Likely Retention
Ohio-15	Deborah Pryce	Retiring	Leaning Takeover
Currently Held by Democrats: 2
Colorado-2	Mark Udall	Running for Senate	Likely Retention
Maine-1	Tom Allen	Running for Senate	Likely Retention

                   

Special Election

                   

California-37: State Assemblywoman Laura Richardson (D) easily won the runoff yesterday in the special election to fill the seat vacated by the death of Richardson's former boss, Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D). Richardson had finished first in the 17-way multi-party June 26 primary. Under California law, the runoff featured the top vote-getters from each party. Yesterday, amid low turnout, Richardson pulled in about 67% of the vote compared to 25% for Iraq war veteran John Kanaley (R).
                     
With this vacancy filled, Democrats now hold a 232-to-202 majority, with one vacancy: the safe Democratic seat of resigned Rep. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.).                   

“Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP)

North American Union

          

From SourceWatch

The "plan to create" a North American Union in 2010 as a regional government—comprising a collective government for the United States, Canada, and Mexico—is "directly stated only" in the May 2005 task force report Building a North American Community published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

Partnership for Prosperity

"In September of 2001, during President Bush's first state visit, President Bush and President Fox launched the Partnership for Prosperity, a private-public alliance to harness the power of the private sector to foster an environment in which no Mexican feels compelled to leave his home for lack of jobs or opportunity."—Office of NAFTA and Inter-American Affairs [1]

[edit]

SPP Working Groups

"Canada has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department," Corsi reported May 30, 2006. "Mexico has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created an extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de Améica del Norte (ASPAN). On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as 'a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America.'"

[edit]

NAFTA Super-Highways

"What is objectionable is the plan to form a European Union-style North American Super-Highway system whose primary goal is to establish trilateral links for the open passage of freight transportation and the virtually unrestrained 'migration' of people among the three countries. Building NAFTA Super-Highways that effectively erase the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada is a concern, especially if the NAFTA Super-Highways contribute to accomplishing in a de facto manner the integration of the United States into a North American Union, thereby threatening the currently established sovereignty of the United States," Corsi wrote June 30, 2006.

[edit]

Permanent Tribunal

"The CFR plan clearly calls for the establishment of a 'permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution' as part of the new regional North American Union (NAU) governmental structure that is proposed to go into place in 2010," Corsi wrote June 19, 2006. This tribunal would "trump" the U.S. Supreme Court.

[edit]

Biometric Border Pass

"Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed through toll booths," Robert A. Pastor told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, June 9, 2005.

[edit]

North American Emergency Management

North American Emergency Management (NAEM) is one of the priority initiatives set forth in the March 31, 2006, White House news release and the fact sheet posted on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America website.

The function of NAEM would be similar to that of FEMA's operations during Hurricane Katrina. In his September 20, 2005, article "Glimpse Into The Future Of Global Collectivism - FEMA: Katrina," Chris Gupta wrote:

"The primary job of the military, FEMA, and Homeland Security is not to protect the American people in times of emergency but to protect the government in times of emergency and keep it functioning. Their primary assignment is, not to rescue people, but to control them. Their directive is to relocate families and businesses, confiscate property, commandeer goods, direct labor and services, and establish martial law. The reason FEMA and Homeland security failed to carry out an effective rescue operation [for Hurricane Katrina] is that this was not their primary mission, and the reason they blocked others from doing so is that any operations not controlled by the central authority are contrary to their directives. Their objective was to bring the entire area under the control of the federal government - and this they succeeded in doing very well. They did not fail in New Orleans. They were a huge success. Once this simple fact is understood, everything that happened in the wake of Katrina becomes understandable and logical.

"If there are new terrorist attacks against the United States or Great Britain (or any other country), what we witnessed in New Orleans may have been a glimpse into the future of global collectivism."

[edit]

Bilateral and Trilateral Partnerships and Agreements

[edit]

U.S. Legislation & Executive Orders

• Executive Order: "Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Commission for Labor Cooperation, Border Environment Cooperation Commission, and North American Development Bank," White House, March 16, 1994. Signed by President Bill Clinton
• Aviation and Transportation Safety Act of 2001 (S.1447) became Public Law 107-71 on November 19, 2001.
• Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (H.R.3525): "To enhance the border security of the United States, and for other purposes," introduced December 19, 2001, in the U.S. House of Representatives by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI) and became Public Law No: 107-173, April 18, 2002.
• North American Cooperative Security Act  (S. 853) introduced April 20, 2005, (109th Congress) in the U.S. Senate by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana): "A bill to direct the Secretary of State to establish a program to bolster the mutual security and safety of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and for other purposes." The bill was read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
• North American Cooperative Security Act (H.R. 2672) introduced May 26, 2005, (109th Congress) in the U.S. House of Representatives by Representative Katherine Harris (R-Florida): "To direct the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a program to enhance the mutual security and safety of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and for other purposes." The bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment on June 6, 2005.
• Executive Order: "Protecting the Property Rights of the American People," White House, June 23, 2006. Signed by President George W. Bush
• S. 3633 Protection against United Nations Taxation Act of 2006 introduced July 11, 2006, (109th Congress) in the U.S. Senate by Senator James Inhofe, et al. The legislation would "require the withholding of United States contributions to the United Nations until the President certifies that the United Nations is not engaged in global taxation schemes." The bill was read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

[edit]

Testimony, Publications and Reports

[edit]

News Releases

[edit]

2001

• "Joint Statement by President George Bush and President Vicente Fox Towards a Partnership for Prosperity. The Guanajuato Proposal," Office of the White House Press Secretary, February 16, 2001.
• Joint Communique: "U.S.-Mexico Migration Talks And Plan of Action for Cooperation on Border Safety," Office of the Spokesman, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C., June 22, 2001.
• Fact Sheet: "Partnership for Prosperity," Office of the White House Press Secretary, September 6, 2001.
• "Action Plan for Creating a Secure and Smart Border. U.S. and Canada. An Efficient, Secure and Smart Border," Office of Homeland Security, December 12, 2001.

[edit]

2002

• "Specifics of Secure and Smart Border Action Plan," Office of Homeland Security, January 7, 2002. See U.S.-Canada Smart Borders Accord.
• "Securing America's Borders Fact Sheet: Border Security," Office of the White House Press Secretary, January 25, 2002.
• George W. Bush, "President Promotes Secure and Open Borders in El Paso," Remarks in El Paso, Texas, March 21, 2002.
• Fact Sheet: "Smart Border: 22 Point Agreement—U.S. - Mexico Border Partnership Action Plan," Office of the White House Press Secretary, March 21, 2002.
• Fact Sheet: "Specific Measures that Comprise Joint Action Plan with Mexico," Office of the White House Press Secretary, March 21, 2002.
• George W. Bush and Vincente Foxe, "The Monterrey Commitments," Joint Statement, Monterrey, Mexico, March 22, 2002.
• "Partnership for Prosperity." Report to President Vicente Fox and President George W. Bush, Monterrey, Mexico, March 22, 2002.
• Fact Sheet: "U.S.-Mexico Partnership for Prosperity," Office of the White House Press Secretary, March 22, 2002.

[edit]

2003

• "Domenici Introduces Major Infrastructure, Security Bill to To Improve U.S. Southwest & Northern Ports of Entry. Security & Trade Needs Demand New Attention at Border Crossings," Office of Senator Pete V. Domenici, March 5, 2003.
• Press Release: "U.S.-Mexico Border Partnership Joint Statement on Progress Achieved," U.S. Department of Homeland Security, April 23, 2003.
• "The United States and the Summit of the Americas," U.S. Department of State, April 28, 2003.
• "Partnership for Prosperity Report to President George W. Bush and President Vicente Fox." Released by the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Washington, D.C., November 12, 2003.

[edit]

2004

• "The Bush Administration's Western Hemisphere Policy." Ambassador Roger F. Noriega, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Remarks to the Council of the Americas, New York, New York, January 6, 2004.
• Fact Sheet: "The U.S. and the Summit of the Americas: An Update on U.S. Actions to Implement the Hemisphere's Agenda." Released by the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Washington, D.C., January 6, 2004.
• Fact Sheet: "Special Summit of the Americas: Declaration of Nuevo Leon," Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Washington, D.C., January 14, 2004.
• "Ambassador's Speech: 'North American Integration: Migration, Trade and Security.' Is there a need for new institutions in North America?" Embassy of Mexico in Canada, April 2, 2004.
• "U.S.-Mexico Partnership for Prosperity Launches New Initiatives," U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, June 28, 2004.
• "Remarks by Ambassador Garza at the Seminar 'Reflecting on North American Integration: NAFTA, FTAA, and the Doha Round'," Embassy of the United States, Mexico, September 27, 2004.
• News Release: "Common Security, Common Prosperity a New Partnership in North America," White House, November 30, 2004. re U.S.-Canada Smart Borders Accord
• News Release: "Joint U.S.-Canada Agreement for Land Pre-Clearance Pilots," Office of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Press Secretary, December 17, 2004.

[edit]

2005

• Eric Green, News Release: "Bush Hosting March 23 Talks with Leaders of Mexico, Canada. Trilateral meeting to promote security, prosperity in region," U.S. Department of State, March 7, 2005.
• Press Release: "Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010," Council on Foreign Relations, March 14, 2005.
• Rep. Henry J. Hyde, "The Emergence of the North American Community," House Committee on International Relations, March 18, 2005.
• News Release: "U.S. Officials Review Agenda for North American Trilateral Meeting. Bush, Martin, Fox will explore ways to enhance security, prosperity," U.S. Department of State, March 22, 2005.
• News Release: "North American Leaders Discuss Regional Partnership. Bush, Fox and Martin cite cooperation on security, prosperity," U.S. Department of State, March 23, 2005.
• News Release: "North American Prosperity Depends on Security. United States, Canada, Mexico outline new security/prosperity pact," U.S. Department of State, March 23, 2005.
• News Release: "North American Partnership Offers Agenda for Security. U.S., Mexico, Canada seek enhanced trade while fighting terrorism," U.S. Department of State, March 23, 2005.
• News Release: "North American Partnership Offers Agenda for Prosperity. U.S., Mexico, Canada focus on trade, education, health, environment," U.S. Department of State, March 23, 2005.
• News Release: "North American Leaders Unveil Security and Prosperity Partnership. Bush, Fox, Martin outline trilateral efforts during March 23 meeting," U.S. Department of State, March 23, 2005.
• News Release: "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Prosperity Agenda," White House, March 23, 2005.
• News Release: "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Security Agenda," White House, March 23, 2005.
• Fact Sheet: "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," White House, March 23, 2005.
• "Notes for an address by His Excellency Gaëtan Lavertu, Canadian Ambassador to Mexico at El Colegio de México. Integration in North America: Dialogue, Political Cooperation and Institutions," Mexico City, April 11, 2005. Posted by Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada; updated May 12, 2005.
• "Task Force Urges Measures to Strengthen North American Competitiveness, Expand Trade, Ensure Border Security," Council on Foreign Relations, May 17, 2005.

[edit]

2006

• News Release: "North American Leaders Unveil Security and Prosperity Partnership. Bush, Fox, Martin outline trilateral efforts during March 23 meeting," U.S. Department of State, March 23, 2006.
• Press Release: "Mexico-United States Prosperity Partnership Update," Presidencia de la Republica, Mexico City (Mexidata.info), March 25, 2006.
• News Release: "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: Progress," White House, March 31, 2006.
• News Release: "Leaders Note Progress on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," Canada's New Government, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Cancun, Mexico, March 31, 2006.

[edit]

Published Works

• Robert A. Pastor, "Toward a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New," Institute for International Economics, August 2001 (Paperback), ISBN 0881323284.

• "A Regional Development Policy for North America: Lessons from the Old World for the New." "Draft Paper to be presented to a Conference on 'NAFTA in the new Millennium', co-sponsored by the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, and the University of California, San Diego, May 25-25, 2001.
• "Beyond Free Trade in North America: Narrowing the Development Gap." Paper adapted from the book and presented at a Conference at the Center for Mexican Studies, St. Antony's College, Oxford University, February 2003.
• "Redesigning NAFTA for the 21st Century" (Chapter 1).

• Peter Hakim and Robert E. Litan, eds, "The Future of North American Integration. Beyond NAFTA," Brookings Institution Press, 2002, Cloth Text ISBN 0815733984; Paper Text ISBN 0815733992.
• Peter Andreas and Thomas J. Biersteker, eds., "The Rebordering of North America: Integration and Exclusion in a New Security Context," Routledge Press, 2003, ISBN 0415944678. Review.
• Tom Tancredo, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security ," WND Press, 2006.

[edit]

External Links

[edit]

General Information

• North American Union in the Wikipedia.
• "Canada-U.S. Integration: A Chronology. A Citizen’s Guide to Fighting Deep Integration," The Council of Canadians.
• North American Union Fact Sheet, The American Policy Center.
• "Documents reveal 'shadow government'. Freedom of Information request puts 1,000 new pages online," WorldNetDaily, October 24, 2006. View documents here.

[edit]

Websites

[edit]

Articles & Commentary

[edit]

Series of Articles

• Steven Yates, "Taking the Red Pill. The Real Matrix", NewsWithViews, December 7, 2004:  Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7; "The North American Union 'Matrix'," NewsWithViews, June 5, 2006:  Part 8 and Part 9.

[edit]

1990-1999

• Letter to the Editor: "North American Union," New York Times, March 30, 1990.
• "North American Community Won't Replace National Identities," Stanford University News Service, April 1, 1993.
• Jeffrey Tucker, "From Nafta to 'Superstate'," The Free Market / Ludwig von Mises Institute, October 1996.

[edit]

2000-2004

“Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP) plans to advance a North American Union

Where is talk radio on this subject.  Sound the alarms.

North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA

by Jerome R. Corsi

Posted: 05/30/2006

In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP).  The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.

   

SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country.  Representing the

United States

are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing

Mexico

are Secretario de Economía Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernación Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing

Canada

are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.

   

Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:

   

In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity.  We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions.  The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of

North America

and the security of our people.

This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review.  Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight.

   

Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed.

   

And again, the June 2005 SPP report stresses:

   

The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make

North  America

more prosperous and more secure.

   

Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent.  Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as “our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles …” or “we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding …,” or “we have signed a declaration of intent …” etc.  Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval.  No new

U.S.

laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress.  Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various

U.S.

government agencies. 

   

What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat.  Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.

   

Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda.  In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union.  Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the

U.S.

government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body.  At best, our border with

Mexico

will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.

   

Canada

has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department.

Mexico

has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created and extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de Améica del Norte (ASPAN).  On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as “a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of

North America

.”

   

The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of

Mexico

,

Canada

, and the

United States

is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled “Building a North American Community.”

   

The Task Force’s central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. (page xvii)

   

The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within:

   

Its (the North American Community’s) boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe.  Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous

North America

. (page 3)

   

What will happen to the sovereignty of the

United States

?  The model is the European Community.  While the

United States

would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the “Amero,” the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union.  The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions:

   

While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.

   

The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in

Texas

.  The Security and Prosperity Partnership for

North America

they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security.  To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues.  Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers.  These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24)

   

Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people.  What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat.  If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union.  Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned.  Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.