It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Asking Congress About the North American Union

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I am very concerned about the future of America with the looming ideals of the North American Union. I have taken steps to do my part as a United States citizen, by exercising my rights to question those that represent "us" in Congress. I wrote the following letter to Senator Sam Brownback (2008 Presidential Candidate), Senator Pat Roberts, and House Representative Jerry Moran. I would like to share with you the correspondence that I have received thus far, and I look forward to any input that the ATS community may have to share with me.

Thanks,


Info

Here's my original letter to Congress:



Feb. 2, 2007

Congressmen Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and Jerry Moran,

I would like to request some answers from you on the following issue: the formation of the North American Union. The Council on Foreign Relations has been working on, and is continuing work on a "North American Community", as described in the CFR Task Force Report No. 53, May 2005. Quoting from this report, "The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it."

I have researched this issue a great deal. Funding to begin steps needed to achieve this goal is prescribed under S. 3622 (which would force US Citizens to have a portion of their tax dollars spent to "build up" Mexico), the North American Investment Fund Act. H. CON. RES. 40 has been introduced in the House of Representatives to "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

If this was not a concern, why has the funding for such a movement been introduced to use the American's tax dollars to "equalize" Mexico's standards of living to that of America's and Canada's, with the bill accepted and now being referred to the Council on Foreign Relations for further approval?

We do not have a financial responsibility to bring Mexico's Standards of living up to those of America's and Canada's, as was reported by Princeton University sociologist Douglas Massey, director of the Mexican Migration Project.

In the past 6 years, as I have grown painfully aware of in the past 8 months, there has been numerous Constitutional Rights and Freedoms that have been stripped from the American People, of which angers me a great deal, and of which I will address at a later time.

I feel whole heartedly, as would be attested by millions of American citizens, that a formation of the North American Union is completely unconstitutional and, in fact treasonous. Attempts by the Federal Government to strip the American people of their Constitutionally protected sovereignty, attempts to erase the borders of our nation, and attempts to nullify our Constitution are nothing short of "Acts of Treason".

I, and other American citizens, demand answers to these acts. We deserve answers from those that we elected to represent "us" in our Federal Government.

I thank you in advance to your written response,


XXXXX X. XXXXXXXXX


Here's a response that I've gotten thus far:



Feb 22, 2007
Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXX

Thank you for sharing your concerns on the relationship between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

In March 2005, the United States, Canada, and Mexico formed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Through the partnership, the three countries seek to secure North America from external threats. In addition, the partnership promotes economic growth, competitiveness, and quality of life. The SPP does not relinquish any sovereignty or diminish the United States' ability to protect our borders and enforce our laws. The learn more, please visit the partnership's website at www.spp.gov....

I understand your concerns. During the 109th Congress, Senator John Cornyn introduced S. 3622, the North American Investment Fund Act. This legislation authorized the president to negotiate with the governments of Canada and Mexico to establish a North American Investment Fund. This fund would have been used to increase the competitiveness of North America in the global economy and promote economic development in Mexico. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations did not act on S. 3622 before the close of the 109th Congress.

Recent media reports and websites have reported on an alleged North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway connecting the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Plans for a new ten-lane, limited access highway with passenger and freight rail lines running alongside the highway through the United States do not exist. The Kansas Department of Transportation, which oversees construction and maintenance of the highway system in Kansas, has no plans to build such a highway.

I appreciate the points you make. Recently, Rep. Virgil Goode, Jr. (R-VA) introduced H. Con. Res. 40. This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA Superhighway system of enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada. No companion measure has been introduced in the Senate.

Rest assured, should H. Con. Res. 40 be considered by the Senate, I will keep your comments in mind. Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. If you would like more information on issues before the Senate, please visit my website at roberts.senate.gov.... You may also sign up on my home page for a monthly electronic newsletter that will provide additional updates on my work for Kansas.

With every best wish,


Sincerely,


Pat Roberts




I found this very intriguing so I had to immediately reply to Senator Roberts with this:



Feb 23, 2007

Senator Roberts,

I wrote you previously asking for information about the formation of the "North American Union" and the NAFTA Superhighway. And you responded as follows:

quote: "Recent media reports and websites have reported on an alleged North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway connecting the United States, Mexico, and Canada." Emphasis on "alleged".

quote: "Plans for a new ten-lane, limited-access highway with passenger and freight rail lines running alongside the highway through the United States do not exist." Emphasis on "plans" and "do not exist".

Well, Mr. Senator, I feel obligated to point out to you more information readily available to the American public to further contradict what you say. I visited the following website: www.nascocorridor.com...

Taking a statement from the aforementioned website...

quote: "An operational system derived from this pilot version of the proof-of-concept information architecture will reduce the cost and congestion and improve the efficiency, mobility and velocity of freight and security of the North American trade, thus enabling U.S., Canadian and Mexican agencies to accomplish their vital border security and trade facilitation missions - providing for the Security and Prosperity of North America."

NASCO is obviously working directly with the formed "Security and Prosperity Partnership" group(s) to further facilitate what many Americans fear.

I am very concerned that my, and many other Americans', fears are true and correct. We feel strongly that steps are being taken to facilitate what will become the North American Union, which is blatantly being built off of the foundation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.


I greatly anticipate your written correspondence,


Mr. XXXXX X. XXXXXXXXX




What does the ATS community think about the information provided?

I'll keep posting updates as I get them.



Thanks.




posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Infoholic - Thanks for posting that. I just finished reading a large section regarding the NAFTA highway. Your thread was helpfull information.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Interesting response letter you received. I am sure you'll post if you receive a response to your reply?

The only one in mainstream news covering this at all is Lou Dobbs. I told my mother about this NAU and she refused to believe me.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
If your looking for more info, worldnetdaily.com has many stories on this North American Union. I believe all involved should be charged with treason. Infoholic, thanks for your posting. It is good to have our representatives on record.

While I noticed that a majority of this board is against President Bush, here is a point to get him. While I personally voted for him, and pretty much agree with him, EXCEPT for his stand on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, this is definitely worth IMPEACHING him over. While I support the war on terrorism, I'm not going to get into that here.

If the president, any president, is willing to go behind congress (Check out worldnetdaily,com, this is Bush's idea, not Congress) to turn over soveriegnty of America to not 1 but 2 countries, then not only should he be IMPEACHED, but should be tried for TREASON.

This country has already been INVADED by 12 to 20 million Mexicans. The President and his administration are willing to look the other way on this. They should be hung out to dry. Illegal Immigration is costing billions, hell 10's of billions a year to the American tax payer. Hospitals in LA are closing, because they are losing to much money to Illegal Immigration.

Let me state this now...These are not UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS, TRANSIENTS, REFUGEES, or whatever some want to call them. THEY ARE ILLEGALLS!!! I have no problem with immagrants to this country. But come here LEFALLY or pay a SEVERE PRICE. HELL, the Mexican Govt encourages them to come here. Yet the President wants to partner with them???

No offense, but MEXICO is nothing more than a third world country, run by corrupt politicians. If Mexico can not provide a standard of living for their people, WHY SHOULD WE?? We have millions of homeless, we do nothing about. But we bend over backwards to the MEXICAN ILLEGALS!!

If my tax dollars are going to be spent on SOCIAL PROGRAMS...I'd much rather (Hell,I'd be willing to) spend them on American CITIZENS, than some ILLEGAL!

You want to call me racist, well SCREW YOU!!! I'm sorry that I'd rather be taxed to SUPPORT AMERICANS, than Mexican CASTOFFS!!!

If this NORTH AMERICAN UNION comes to pass, it is nothing more than opening the flood gates.

The border patrol is a joke. They are being hamstrung ever step of the way. Look what happened to the 2 agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. They did their jobs, but are being punished for it. After this, tell me why any border patrol agent would be willing to do THEIR JOB???

They were set up, There are some in Congress screaming bloody murder over it, but the administration is still looking the other way. This is not just a republican issue either. But "The office of Sen. Patrick Leahy confirmed to WND the Vermont Democrat has given Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., permission to investigate the prosecution and sentencing of Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos." So you still want to go after Bush?

Then atleast go with something that will stick!!! While I am a strong CONSERVATIVE at heart, even I would support IMPEACHMENT over the border and the treatment of these 2 border patrol agents.

Do nothing, and let the NORTH AMERICAN UNION come to pass, then kiss this country GOODBYE. Even the Democrats are looking into the treatment of these border agents! If that doesn't tell you something stinks, then I don't know what will.

While I am willing to say I agree with Bush 100% on terrorism,, the border situation and this NORTH AMERICAN UNION are nothing more than TREASON!!!!

To let a third world country have any say in the way this country is run, is nothing more than TREASON. And those who are pushing it, SHOULD BE HUNG!!!



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Here is a response in regards to the original letter, from Senator Sam Brownback. Remind you, he's running for the Oval Office 08'.


February 16, 2007

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXX,

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the Security and Prosperity partnership of North America (SPP). There is no better guide for making tough decisions than hearing from the people whom I serve.

As you may know, on March 23, 2005, President Bush hosted meetings in Texas with President Vicente Fox of Mexico and Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada, in which the leaders established the trilateral "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America." The stated purpose of the SPP is to coordinate security efforts to better protect U.S. citizens from terrorist threats and transnational crime and promote the safe and efficient movement of legitimate people and goods; expand economic opportunity for all our people by making businesses more competitive in the global marketplace, cutting red tape, and providing consumers with safe, less expensive, and innovative products; and enhance efforts to combat infectious diseases, develop responses to man-made or natural disasters to enhance our citizens' quality of life, protect our people and our environment, and improve consumer safety.

Some have raised concerns that the SPP may infringe upon legislative authority of Congress or upon the sovereignty of the United States. Having examined the details of the SPP, I believe this is not the case. The SPP is neither a formal agreement nor a treaty, but rather is an open dialogue between neighboring countries. Consequently, any consensus reached by the SPP has no binding force upon the policies or laws of the federal government. In fact, even if the SPP identifies a problem and suggests a solution, the related federal agencies (most likely the Department of Commerce and the Department of Homeland Security) can only implement regulations that strictly conform to federal statutes and judicial decisions.

If you desire more information on the SPP, I encourage you to visit its website at www.spp.gov. Should legislation pertaining to the SPP come before the Senate for consideration, I assure you that I will keep your thoughts in mind.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance and feel free to visit my website at brownback.senate.gov for information on the issues on which I am working.

Sincerely,

Sam Brownback
United States Senator



I will post my response letter in due time.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
GREAT POST INFOHOLIC! You're hot on the trail of my #1 issue and I thank you for that. If you can get through the first minute of foul-ups on this, I think you will enjoy (< doesn't seem to be the right word) the rest.

www.wseg.org...



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CSRules
If your looking for more info, worldnetdaily.com has many stories on this North American Union. I believe all involved should be charged with treason. Infoholic, thanks for your posting. It is good to have our representatives on record.

While I noticed that a majority of this board is against President Bush, here is a point to get him. While I personally voted for him, and pretty much agree with him, EXCEPT for his stand on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, this is definitely worth IMPEACHING him over. While I support the war on terrorism, I'm not going to get into that here.

If the president, any president, is willing to go behind congress (Check out worldnetdaily,com, this is Bush's idea, not Congress) to turn over soveriegnty of America to not 1 but 2 countries, then not only should he be IMPEACHED, but should be tried for TREASON.

This country has already been INVADED by 12 to 20 million Mexicans. The President and his administration are willing to look the other way on this. They should be hung out to dry. Illegal Immigration is costing billions, hell 10's of billions a year to the American tax payer. Hospitals in LA are closing, because they are losing to much money to Illegal Immigration.

Let me state this now...These are not UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS, TRANSIENTS, REFUGEES, or whatever some want to call them. THEY ARE ILLEGALLS!!! I have no problem with immagrants to this country. But come here LEFALLY or pay a SEVERE PRICE. HELL, the Mexican Govt encourages them to come here. Yet the President wants to partner with them???

No offense, but MEXICO is nothing more than a third world country, run by corrupt politicians. If Mexico can not provide a standard of living for their people, WHY SHOULD WE?? We have millions of homeless, we do nothing about. But we bend over backwards to the MEXICAN ILLEGALS!!

If my tax dollars are going to be spent on SOCIAL PROGRAMS...I'd much rather (Hell,I'd be willing to) spend them on American CITIZENS, than some ILLEGAL!

You want to call me racist, well SCREW YOU!!! I'm sorry that I'd rather be taxed to SUPPORT AMERICANS, than Mexican CASTOFFS!!!

If this NORTH AMERICAN UNION comes to pass, it is nothing more than opening the flood gates.

The border patrol is a joke. They are being hamstrung ever step of the way. Look what happened to the 2 agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. They did their jobs, but are being punished for it. After this, tell me why any border patrol agent would be willing to do THEIR JOB???

They were set up, There are some in Congress screaming bloody murder over it, but the administration is still looking the other way. This is not just a republican issue either. But "The office of Sen. Patrick Leahy confirmed to WND the Vermont Democrat has given Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., permission to investigate the prosecution and sentencing of Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos." So you still want to go after Bush?

Then atleast go with something that will stick!!! While I am a strong CONSERVATIVE at heart, even I would support IMPEACHMENT over the border and the treatment of these 2 border patrol agents.

Do nothing, and let the NORTH AMERICAN UNION come to pass, then kiss this country GOODBYE. Even the Democrats are looking into the treatment of these border agents! If that doesn't tell you something stinks, then I don't know what will.

While I am willing to say I agree with Bush 100% on terrorism,, the border situation and this NORTH AMERICAN UNION are nothing more than TREASON!!!!

To let a third world country have any say in the way this country is run, is nothing more than TREASON. And those who are pushing it, SHOULD BE HUNG!!!


Yep, the wealthy elites have allowed the U.S. to be invaded by millions of Mexicans. Yet, anytime a U.S. citizen complains about it, we're accused of being racist or a bigot. The opinions of U.S. citizens mean nothing to the elite and never will.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
As promised, here is my response to Senator Brownback. It is lengthy, so it will be on two posts.



Senator Brownback,

I wrote you previously asking for information about the formation of the "North American Union" and the NAFTA Superhighway. And you responded with the following:

quote: “Some have raised concerns that the SPP may infringe upon legislative authority of Congress or upon the sovereignty of the United States. Having examined the details of the SPP, I believe this is not the case. The SPP is neither a formal agreement nor a treaty, but rather is an open dialogue between neighboring countries. Consequently, any consensus reached by the SPP has no binding force upon the policies or laws of the federal government. In fact, even if the SPP identifies a problem and suggests a solution, the related federal agencies (most likely the Department of Commerce and the Department of Homeland Security) can only implement regulations that strictly conform to federal statutes and judicial decisions.”

It is obvious that a signed agreement could not have been signed by the parties involved, especially President Bush, because that would have in fact been directly unconstitutional. The United States Constitution says, under Article 1 Section 10: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

Taking the definition of “State” from Law.com Dictionary:

state
n. 1) the federal or state government and any of its departments, agencies or components (such as a city, county or board). 2) any of the 50 states comprising the United States. 3) a nation's government.

As you can easily see, Mr. Senator, the Constitution provides protection for the American people and their own sovereign union to be free from its government from entering into a treaty or an agreement that would ultimately bring about the demise of our great nation.

Also, the consensus reached by the SPP does in fact have a binding force upon the policies and/or laws of the federal government. This fact is obvious by looking at the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) Accomplishments. Just to name a few, as taken directly from the SPP website (linked here):

• To enhance growth and competitiveness in a key sector, the North American Steel Trade Committee developed a new strategy aimed at reducing market distortions, facilitating trade and promoting overall competitiveness through innovation and market development.
• To adapt to changes in sourcing and production methods, the three countries have analyzed ways to liberalize requirements for obtaining NAFTA duty-free treatment. Changes to the rules of origin have been implemented successfully and technical teams are working on additional changes.
• To speed up response times when managing infectious disease outbreaks, save lives, and reduce health care costs, the United States and Canada signed an agreement to enable simultaneous exchange of information between virtual national laboratory networks (PulseNet).
• To make consumer goods safer, save lives, and prevent injuries, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement for advance notifications when consumer goods violate one country's safety standards or pose a danger to consumers. Canada and the United States signed a similar agreement in June.
• The United States and Canada signed an agreement, which is a milestone in pipeline regulatory cooperation, to allow increased compliance data sharing, staff exchanges and joint training. The sharing of best practices will lead to a more uniform regulatory approach for cross border pipelines.
• The United States and Canada reached a full Open-Skies aviation agreement, removing all economic restrictions on air service to, from, and beyond one another's territory by the airlines of both countries. The agreement will encourage new markets development, lower prices and greater competition.
• The United States and Mexico expanded air service in specific markets by increasing the number of designated passenger airlines per city-pair, and opening cooperative marketing arrangements (code-sharing) to airlines of either country and carriers of third countries. The SPP works directly, or nearly directly, with the Council of Foreign Relations.

Steps and agreements made within the SPP are not made into law, but are in fact steps being implemented to further facilitate how the North American Union would operate.

Furthermore, Mr. Senator, I feel obligated to point out to you more information readily available to the American public to further contradict what you say. I visited the following website: www.nascocorridor.com

Taking a statement from the aforementioned website...

quote: "An operational system derived from this pilot version of the proof-of-concept information architecture will reduce the cost and congestion and improve the efficiency, mobility and velocity of freight and security of the North American trade, thus enabling U.S., Canadian and Mexican agencies to accomplish their vital border security and trade facilitation missions - providing for the Security and Prosperity of North America."

NASCO is obviously working directly with the formed "Security and Prosperity Partnership" group(s) to further facilitate what many Americans fear.

I am very concerned that my, and many other Americans', fears are true and correct. We feel strongly that steps are being taken to facilitate what will become the North American Union, which is blatantly being built off of the foundation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.


[edit on 3/8/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Response, part 2.



Changes to the rules of origin have been implemented successfully and technical teams are working on additional changes.
• To speed up response times when managing infectious disease outbreaks, save lives, and reduce health care costs, the United States and Canada signed an agreement to enable simultaneous exchange of information between virtual national laboratory networks (PulseNet).
• To make consumer goods safer, save lives, and prevent injuries, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement for advance notifications when consumer goods violate one country's safety standards or pose a danger to consumers. Canada and the United States signed a similar agreement in June.
• The United States and Canada signed an agreement, which is a milestone in pipeline regulatory cooperation, to allow increased compliance data sharing, staff exchanges and joint training. The sharing of best practices will lead to a more uniform regulatory approach for cross border pipelines.
• The United States and Canada reached a full Open-Skies aviation agreement, removing all economic restrictions on air service to, from, and beyond one another's territory by the airlines of both countries. The agreement will encourage new markets development, lower prices and greater competition.
• The United States and Mexico expanded air service in specific markets by increasing the number of designated passenger airlines per city-pair, and opening cooperative marketing arrangements (code-sharing) to airlines of either country and carriers of third countries. The SPP works directly, or nearly directly, with the Council of Foreign Relations.

Steps and agreements made within the SPP are not made into law, but are in fact steps being implemented to further facilitate how the North American Union would operate.

Furthermore, Mr. Senator, I feel obligated to point out to you more information readily available to the American public to further contradict what you say. I visited the following website: www.nascocorridor.com...

Taking a statement from the aforementioned website...

quote: "An operational system derived from this pilot version of the proof-of-concept information architecture will reduce the cost and congestion and improve the efficiency, mobility and velocity of freight and security of the North American trade, thus enabling U.S., Canadian and Mexican agencies to accomplish their vital border security and trade facilitation missions - providing for the Security and Prosperity of North America."

NASCO is obviously working directly with the formed "Security and Prosperity Partnership" group(s) to further facilitate what many Americans fear.

I am very concerned that my, and many other Americans', fears are true and correct. We feel strongly that steps are being taken to facilitate what will become the North American Union, which is blatantly being built off of the foundation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
On another note, here is a list of Anti-NAU resolutions introduced in House:

NAU resolutions currently in Congress and state legislatures:
• United States Congress:
- Congressional Switchboard – (202) 224-3121
- House Concurrent Resolution 40 – introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Virgil Goode of Virginia
• Arizona:
- Senate Switchboard - (602) 926-3559
- Senate Concurrent Memorial 1002 – introduced by Senator Johnson
• Georgia:
- Senate Switchboard: (404) 656-5015
- Senate Resolution 124 – introduced by Senators Schaefer, Rogers, Douglas, Hill, and Chapman
• Illinois:
- Office of Rep. Black: (217) 782-4811
- House Joint Resolution 29 – introduced by Representative Black
• Missouri:
- House Switchboard – (573) 751-3659
- Senate Concurrent Resolution 15 – sponsored by Senator Barnitz
- House Concurrent Resolution 33 – sponsored by Representative Guest
• Montana:
- House Switchboard – (406) 444-4800
- House Joint Resolution 25 – introduced by Representative Rice of Montana
• Oregon:
- Legislative Switchboard – (503) 986-1000
- Senate Joint Memorial 5 – sponsored by Senators George, Starr, and Whitsett and Representatives Boquist, Krieger, Nelson and Thatcher
• South Carolina:
- House Switchboard – (803) 734-2010
- House Concurrent Resolution 3185 – introduced by Representative Davenport
• South Dakota:
- Office of Senator Kloucek: 605-773-3821
- Senate Concurrent Resolution 7 – introduced by Senators Kloucek, Apa, Lintz, and Maher and Representatives Nelson, DeVries, Gassman, Jerke, Kirkeby, Noem, and Betty Olson
• Utah:
- Legislative Switchboards – (801) 538-1035 (Senate), (801) 538-1029 (House)
- House Joint Resolution 7 – introduced by Representative Sandstrom and Senator Fife (Passed in the House by a vote of 47-24 and was killed in the Senate for the remainder of the Congressional year)
• Virginia:
- Senate Switchboard – (804) 698-7410
- Senate Joint Resolution 442 – introduced by Senators Lucas and Hawkins
• Washington:
- Legislative Switchboard – (800) 562-6000
- Senate Joint Memorial 8004 – introduced by Senators Stevens, Swecker and Benton
- House Joint Memorial 4018 – introduced by Representatives Roach, Dunn, McCune and Hurst
There is ample proof that the “idea” behind the formation of the North American Union rests well within the grasp of those directly affiliated with the SPP and various other boards, of which all hold the attention of many concerned American citizens. As well, I would like to see similar Anti-NAU legislation be brought forth in Congress for the people of the State of Kansas.


I greatly anticipate your written correspondence,


Mr. XXXXX XXXXXXXXX


Again, I'll keep posting responses as I get them.

Thanks,

Info


[edit on 3/8/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Here is a response from Senator Pat Roberts.



Feb. 26, 2007

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXX,

Thank you for sharing your concerns on the relationship between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

I appreciate the points you make. In March 2005, the United States, Canada, and Mexico formed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North American (SPP). Through the partnership, the three countries seek to secure North America from external threats. In addition, the partnership promotes economic growth, competitiveness, and quality of life. Rest assured, the SPP does not relinquish any sovereignty or diminish the United States' ability to protect our borders and enforce our laws.

Recent media reports and websites have reported on an alleged NAFTA Superhighway connecting the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Plans for a new ten-lane, limited-access highway with passenger and freight rail lines running alongside the highway through the United States do not exist. The Kansas Department of Transportation, which oversees construction and maintenance of the highway system in Kansas, has no plans to build such a highway.

The North American Super Corridor Coalition (NASCO), Inc. is a private, nonprofit organization that seeks to maximize the benefits of trade along existing routes that currently link the United States to Mexico and Canada, namely I-35, 29, and 94. Decisions for highway expansion lie with state and federal Departments of Transportation. NASCO has no control on these decisions.

Again thank you for taking the time to contact me. If you would like more information on issues before the Senate, please visit my website at roberts.senate.gov.... You may also sign up on my home page for a monthly electronic newsletter that will provide additional updates on my work for Kansas.

With every best wish,

Sincerely,

Pat Roberts



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
typical congress back peddling. Keep denying it until its already here, then claim they tried to warn us about it and stop it.

Impeach them all. Stop being both democratic and republican. Start being a goddam american!



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Info,

You are obviously a better writer than me by far. I would very much like to see what Congressman Ron Paul has to say on the subject. He is also running for President and is a self admitted constitutionalist. Maybe you could send him a letter some time as well?



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Honestly, I would love to write a letter to Congressman Paul, however, as indicated by his website, he probably wouldn't write back due to not being one of his constituents.

But... don't think that I won't try.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Honestly, I would love to write a letter to Congressman Paul, however, as indicated by his website, he probably wouldn't write back due to not being one of his constituents.


Well, now that he is running for President, you would think he would answer questions from a wider base.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Well, now that he is running for President, you would think he would answer questions from a wider base.


You make a very good point, LostSailor. I'll take you up on the idea. Here's what I wrote to Congressman Ron Paul.


Congressman Paul,

I am writing to you today in regards to a few of many questions I have on the issue of the possible formation of the North American Union, and formation of and the current activities of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

I have written my own Congresspersons, asked them the same, and would like to have your input, as a means of assisting myself and many other American citizens on making a choice for our future President. Here's some of the information I've passed on, and I would like your take on the same:

The Council on Foreign Relations has been working on, and is continuing work on a "North American Community", as described in the CFR Task Force Report No. 53, May 2005. Quoting from this report, "The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it."

I have researched this issue a great deal. Funding to begin steps needed to achieve this goal is prescribed under S. 3622 (which would force US Citizens to have a portion of their tax dollars spent to "build up" Mexico), the North American Investment Fund Act. H. CON. RES. 40 has been introduced in the House of Representatives to "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

If this was not a concern, why has the funding for such a movement been introduced to use the American's tax dollars to "equalize" Mexico's standards of living to that of America's and Canada's, with the bill accepted and now being referred to the Council on Foreign Relations for further approval?

We do not have a financial responsibility to bring Mexico's Standards of living up to those of America's and Canada's, as was reported by Princeton University sociologist Douglas Massey, director of the Mexican Migration Project.

I visited the following website: www.nascocorridor.com...

Taking a statement from the aforementioned website...

quote: "An operational system derived from this pilot version of the proof-of-concept information architecture will reduce the cost and congestion and improve the efficiency, mobility and velocity of freight and security of the North American trade, thus enabling U.S., Canadian and Mexican agencies to accomplish their vital border security and trade facilitation missions - providing for the Security and Prosperity of North America."

NASCO is obviously working directly with the formed "Security and Prosperity Partnership" group(s) to further facilitate what many Americans fear.

Now, many would contest this by saying (as is stated on the SPP website myth vs. fact page) there's never been a signed agreement, therefore it couldn't be.

It is obvious that a signed agreement could not have been signed by the parties involved, especially President Bush, because that would have in fact been directly unconstitutional. The United States Constitution says, under Article 1 Section 10: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

Taking the definition of “State” from Law.com Dictionary:

state
n. 1) the federal or state government and any of its departments, agencies or components (such as a city, county or board). 2) any of the 50 states comprising the United States. 3) a nation's government.

As you can easily see the Constitution provides protection for the American people and their own sovereign union to be free from its government from entering into a treaty or an agreement that would ultimately bring about the demise of our great nation.

Also, the consensus reached by the SPP is feared to have a binding force upon the policies and/or laws of the federal government. This fact is obvious by looking at the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) Accomplishments. Just to name a few, as taken directly from the SPP website:

• To enhance growth and competitiveness in a key sector, the North American Steel Trade Committee developed a new strategy aimed at reducing market distortions, facilitating trade and promoting overall competitiveness through innovation and market development.
• To adapt to changes in sourcing and production methods, the three countries have analyzed ways to liberalize requirements for obtaining NAFTA duty-free treatment. Changes to the rules of origin have been implemented successfully and technical teams are working on additional changes.
• To speed up response times when managing infectious disease outbreaks, save lives, and reduce health care costs, the United States and Canada signed an agreement to enable simultaneous exchange of information between virtual national laboratory networks (PulseNet).
• To make consumer goods safer, save lives, and prevent injuries, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement for advance notifications when consumer goods violate one country's safety standards or pose a danger to consumers. Canada and the United States signed a similar agreement in June.

• The United States and Canada signed an agreement, which is a milestone in pipeline regulatory cooperation, to allow increased compliance data sharing, staff exchanges and joint training. The sharing of best practices will lead to a more uniform regulatory approach for cross border pipelines.
• The United States and Canada reached a full Open-Skies aviation agreement, removing all economic restrictions on air service to, from, and beyond one another's territory by the airlines of both countries. The agreement will encourage new markets development, lower prices and greater competition.
• The United States and Mexico expanded air service in specific markets by increasing the number of designated passenger airlines per city-pair, and opening cooperative marketing arrangements (code-sharing) to airlines of either country and carriers of third countries.

Changes to the rules of origin have been implemented successfully and technical teams are working on additional changes.
• To speed up response times when managing infectious disease outbreaks, save lives, and reduce health care costs, the United States and Canada signed an agreement to enable simultaneous exchange of information between virtual national laboratory networks (PulseNet).
• To make consumer goods safer, save lives, and prevent injuries, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement for advance notifications when consumer goods violate one country's safety standards or pose a danger to consumers. Canada and the United States signed a similar agreement in June.
• The United States and Canada signed an agreement, which is a milestone in pipeline regulatory cooperation, to allow increased compliance data sharing, staff exchanges and joint training. The sharing of best practices will lead to a more uniform regulatory approach for cross border pipelines.
• The United States and Canada reached a full Open-Skies aviation agreement, removing all economic restrictions on air service to, from, and beyond one another's territory by the airlines of both countries. The agreement will encourage new markets development, lower prices and greater competition.


to be continued.....



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
continued from above.....



• The United States and Mexico expanded air service in specific markets by increasing the number of designated passenger airlines per city-pair, and opening cooperative marketing arrangements (code-sharing) to airlines of either country and carriers of third countries. The SPP works directly, or nearly directly, with the Council of Foreign Relations.

Steps and agreements made within the SPP are not made into law, but are in fact steps being implemented to further facilitate how the North American Union would operate.

The SPP works directly, or nearly directly, with the Council of Foreign Relations.

Steps and agreements made within the SPP are not made into law, but are in fact steps being implemented to further facilitate how the North American Union would operate.

In the past 6 years, as I have grown painfully aware of in the past 8 months, there has been numerous Constitutional Rights and Freedoms that have been stripped from the American People, of which angers me a great deal, and of which I will address at a later time.

I feel whole heartedly, as would be attested by millions of American citizens, that a formation of the North American Union is completely unconstitutional and, in fact treasonous. Attempts by the Federal Government to strip the American people of their Constitutionally protected sovereignty, attempts to erase the borders of our nation, and attempts to nullify our Constitution are nothing short of "Acts of Treason".

I, and other American citizens, demand answers to these acts. We deserve answers from those that we elected to represent "us" in our Federal Government.



Congressman Paul,

What say you on the above mentioned concerns shared by me, and by millions of Americans nationwide?



Greatly anticipating your correspondence,


XXXXX XXXXXXXXX



Just as soon as I get a response from Congressman Paul, I will gladly post it as soon as possible.


[edit on 3/27/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
In response to this letter to Senator Sam Brownback, I've gotten this reply from him.



Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me again to follow up on your earlier comments regarding the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. I appreciate your taking the time to express your views to me. Please be assured that I will give this matter careful consideration, keeping your particular comments in mind.

I am honored and privileged to serve you in the United States Senate. As I continue my work in Washington on behalf of all Kansans, please continue to keep me informed on issues that are affecting you. I encourage you to visit my website at brownback.senate.gov to track developments on this matter and to learn more about other issues on which I am working. You are the reason that I am here, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

Sincerely,

Sam Brownback
United States Senator


Anyone have a take on this letter? I kind of take this as a "Thanks for bugging me, but please leave me alone" letter. Or am I reading this wrong?



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Anyone have a take on this letter? I kind of take this as a "Thanks for bugging me, but please leave me alone" letter. Or am I reading this wrong?

Actually I'd read it this way:

"Thanks for bugging me again. Please stop, you're making the staffers who actually answer these letters for me work too hard. In the future please take up the time of another Congressman's staff. Thank you and please screw off"



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Thanks RH.

I've written another letter to all three of my Congressional representatives in regards to the video on CNBC admitting the use of the Amero and the formation of the NAC(U).



Congressman Moran, Senator Brownback, and Senator Roberts,

I have written you in the past in regards to the SPP and the Formation of the North American Union. I have expressed many fears that numerous American citizens hold.

Recently on CNBC news, the use of the "Amero" and the formation of the North American Community (Union) was admitted. This was a blatant act of admitting what is in store for the American people in mainstream media coverage.

quote from video: "The Amero is the proposed currency for the North American Community which is being, uh, developed between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico to make a borderless community much like the EU, and the dollar... Canadian dollar, U.S. dollar, and the Mexican peso replaced by the Amero."

link to the video as shown on www.youtube.com: www.youtube.com...


How aware is Congress with the current ongoings of President Bush in the steps being taken to dissolve the United States of America and to unravel the United States Constitution (the very fabric of our freedoms, liberties, and rights)?

What is being done by you to stop the loss of our nation?


Very Concerned,

Mr. XXXXX X XXXXXXXXX


As always, I'll keep you updated on my responses.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I have some information about that...Linking into We The People Foundation gives some general background on the proposed NAU. If you'd rather that a whole bunch of people respond at once (compared to a bunch of individuals that a politician could easily ignore), they even have a handy-dandy petitioning process going on for it. By Constitutional Law, they can't ignore a proper petition, after all.
Unfortunately, they do have a number of other, more subtle ways of trying to ignore proper petitions, but that can of worms is already being opened too...


[edit on 28-4-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join