Thread: Working to kill America

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_468638.html

By Dimitri Vassilaros
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, September 1, 2006

For the morbidly curious, please go online -- www.spp.gov -- to see the end of America.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, "a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing," was launched March 2005 -- in Texas.

The premise of the near-treason is that the SPP hopes to unite this republic, Mexico and Canada in a near-suicide pact; that the security and prosperity of the gang of three are mutually dependent and complementary; and that the SPP supposedly will reflect the "shared belief" in freedom, economic opportunity and strong democratic values and institutions.

And yet Mexico is part of this.

The hope is that any agreement will help "consolidate" the SPP action into a North American framework confronting "security and economic challenges, and promote the full potential of our people, addressing disparities and increasing opportunities for all."

At one of the SPP meetings this year, the representatives of the three countries included Sergio Garcia de Alba, Carlos Gutierrez and Maxime Bernier. For anyone unfamiliar with the person representing America, who happens to be the U.S. secretary of Commerce, here's a hint. Mr. Gutierrez was born in a Spanish-speaking country and lived there for seven years before his family emigrated from Cuba to America. He became the youngest CEO in the history of the Kellogg Co.

There is at least one reference to the U.S. Constitution, in the "Myths vs. Facts" section. The "myth" is that the SPP is illegal and violates the U.S. Constitution. The "fact," according to the SPP, is that the SPP scheme "in no way violates the Constitution."

It violates it in darn most every way. Where in that once-relevant document do the American citizens authorize Mexico and Canada to confront American security and economic challenges? Since when are those issues -- or any other ones affecting America -- the business of any country but ours?

"Addressing disparities"? Where is the authorization for that in the Constitution? Especially when the disparity includes foreign governments? Since Americans are at the top of the "disparities" food chain, what exactly is the problem?

If Mexico and Canada are concerned about the disparities between Americans and their citizens, whose problem is that?

That might explain what was in the "Prosperity" section, subtitled "Temporary Work Entry," of a 2005 SPP report.

"The three countries have forwarded a trilateral document setting out each country's domestic procedures to modify NAFTA's temporary entry appendix on professionals to the NAFTA Free Trade Commission for approval.

"This will clarify procedures in each country, thereby providing a mechanism for more North American professionals to be given temporary entry."

How many American "professionals" are clamoring for temporary entry to Mexico? To Canada? The defenseless borders policy of President George W. Bush is giving virtually unlimited access to Mexican professionals and every other Mexican with enough money to hire a "coyote" to guide him into the promised land, whether the entry be temporary or, for 99.9999 percent of the illegals, permanent.

Why would one need a crystal ball since America's fate is spelled out and sealed by the Security and Prosperity Partnership?

Dimitri Vassilaros can be reached at dvassilaros@tribweb.com or 412-380-5637.

Images and text copyright © 2006 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co.
Reproduction or reuse prohibited without written consent from PghTrib.com

near-treason

IMO it IS treason.

The American people have NOT voted to have our sovereignty go down the drain.

trea‧son  /ˈtrizən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tree-zuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.


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

[Origin: 1175–1225; ME tre(i)so(u)n < AF; OF traïson < L trāditiōn- (s. of trāditiō) a handing over, betrayal. See tradition]


—Synonyms 1. Treason, sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense. 2. See disloyalty.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.