have you ever heard of treaty fast tracking?

Status
Not open for further replies.
1

1AKpatriot

Inactive
pres. Bush will ask for treaty fast track authorization in 2007 , which will allow him to pass treaties with very little congressional oversight. If it is the un small arms or the north american union, fast tracking will have an effect.
 
Fast tracking gives Congress oversight on the bills to ensure that the parameters for fast tracking are followed. Congress can withdraw fast track authority if those parameters are not met.
 
Thanks 1AKpatriot. About the only thing I see to do at this point is email our Congressmen,and Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. The WTO has been taking a lot of heat, but it doesn't seem to have much effect. I'm not surprised to see the "NAFTA will be great for everybody" crowd, Dole and Gingrich, will push this.

badbob
 
This is the headline of the post from 1AKPatriot...

Fast Tracking Trade Agreements Reduces Governing Sovereignty
Click to expand...

The headline of the source for 1AKPatriots concern states "will reduce governing Sovereignty", and he seems concerned that not all Constitutionally legal requirments for "making" a treaty will be followed. Much like the so-called non-binding treaty which was unconstitutionally signed, and entered into without the Constitutionally required "advice and consent" of the MAJORITY of the United States Senate known as the "North American Partnership" which assigns "partnership trade numbers" to individual U.S. businesses, thus at least appearing to infringe upon sovereignty.

He has quoted his source, he has expressed a concern. At least to those of us whose jobs went away with that "Giant Sucking Sound" back when Perot warned us about it.

Will this thread be labeled a "half baked conspiracy theory" also? I hope not, as this is truly a part of the "North American Partnership" plan in order to fulfill some of the goals laid out by the Council on Foreign Relations members on various announcements from their group, to create a "North American Union" complete with the "Amero" currancy system.

I look forward to much more input, and sincerely hope this thread does not become incorrectly labeled as a "half baked conspiracy" discussion, since these plans are all coming from quotes of government officials and agencies telling us exactly what they are going to do. All we need do, is read them.

When they say they are building a "trilateral network of law enforcement" for "cross border" operations, and tell us they are intending to allow Mexican trucks to enter into Texas with no inspection other than the "trusted traveller microchip" pass installed in the trucks, and not allow inspection until it reaches Kansas City Mo., after travelling all through Texas on the "Trans Texas Corridor" portion of the "Super Corridor" planned to go from Nuevo Laredo to Canada, effectively condemning in Texas alone, over one million acres of private land for the benefit of an unconstitutional partnership between TXDOT (Texas Dept. of Transportation) and a Spainish Owned Company (http://transtexascorridor.blogspot.com/) we should at least have some type of input, rather than allow them to "Fast Track" more of this unconstitutional debacle.

I just hope this discussion continues, and people read more about it before labeling it "a half baked conspiracy theory".
 
Gary-
I seem to be missing something. If, as you claim, our handlers led by George Bush, are already engaged in regularly signing Treaties without Senate approval, why would they open a Pandora's Box by looking for legislation to allow what they already do?

Rich
 
Quote from Rich:
Gary-
I seem to be missing something. If, as you claim, our handlers led by George Bush, are already engaged in regularly signing Treaties without Senate approval, why would they open a Pandora's Box by looking for legislation to allow what they already do?

Rich
Click to expand...

First Rich, you say "regularly" signing treaties, as if only doing it "regularly" is dangerous. The fact is, "making" of treaties without Senate majority approval, is an OBVIOUS violation of the Constitution. There are literally as I write this, several thousand Texans alone, who are mad as a hornet over the
"making" of the "North American Partnership" "Agreement", which is a treaty made without a single Senate vote, much less a majority one.

And I believe they are wanting to get it (and upcoming ones) approved after the fact, by having the so-called "fast track" method legitimize it further in the minds of Sheeple, who seem to believe that if something is done previously by an Administration, then it sets "precedent" since I read over and over ad nauseum, people telling me "Well they do it all the time" so it is Constitutionally allowed.

Many people are (including Congressman Ron Paul, who apparantly is a beliver in this "half baked conspiracy theory" along with Congressman Tom Trancredo of Colorado, and several others in Congress have finally opened their eyes and ears, and have issued FOIA requests to this new government entity for access to more documentation about their plans, when it was brought to their attention that there are indeed plans involved with this "North American Partnership" which among other things, assign businesses classification numbers from the Partnership itself, and establishing cross border policing and military entrance into the United States. There are already business owners in Texas receiving their assigned "numbers".

Congressman Ron Paul, and Congressman Tom Trancredo do not think (as many of us in America feel also) that the Department of Commerce, nor the Department of Transportation can be directed at the sole authority of a president to negotiate issues of BORDER and IMMIGRATION policy with other nations without having the Senate approve it.

I don't either. At least I think it is something the Senate should vote on, and saying so does not constitute a "half baked conspiracy theory".

Many don't think that a single division of a State agency (TXDOT) should be allowed to violate both the U.S. Constitution (negotiating with a foreign government certain emigration issues, such as the "trusted traveller pass" and removing the U.S. Customs inspection station from Laredo for truckers, to be situated in Kansas City Missouri, and the Texas State Constitution by allowing a foreign entity to collect a toll on the Trans Texas Corridor, whihc violates our State Constitution.

Many don't think the newly appointed "Border Commerce Coordinator" (who is to always be the Texas Secretary of State) a position Bush implanted when Governor of Texas to begin this plot in 1995, (I will dig out the Texas House Bill if you insist) but anyway, the United States Congress is charged with making law for Border entry, not the Texas Secretary of State.

So the method he began this with was legally flawed, and the method he established this "North American Partnership Agreement" which is somehow not a treaty, although it is "made" between three states, complete with signed documents by the Ambassadors of the three countries, along with the Agency Counterparts, (regardless of the "Myth vs. Fact" page statement on the government web site which says "no documents were signed, so this is not a treaty") and you can find those signed documents right under the link on their OWN site. It says "Documents" and the Memorandum of understandings are complete with the flag of each nation affixed thereto.

Now the Constitution does not say that in order for an agreement to be a treaty, or for a treaty to be "made", a document with the headline "TREATY" must be signed by the President himself. His cabinet members and appointees as Ambassadors to each country signed them. They are spending my money on it, so I consider that as being pretty dad gum BINDING. (So many who don't want to read the documents refer to the statement that it is a "non-binding agreement" so it's not a treaty.

That is a red herring, since any treaty is non-binding if you violate it and simply break the accords you sign. But that does not change the fact that the President, in August of 2005, committed certain acts in order to have his cabinet members "make" a treaty by agreeing to a super corridor highway, flat through the entire united States of America, with a plan to not inspect a single Mexican truck until such time as the dad gum thing hits Kansas City Missouri, and it will there be inspected at the "Smart Port" which is owned by Mexico, therefore the inspectors will be Mexican Customs Agents.

Mexican Customs does not have a huge reputation for integrity. In fact, they are involved in a shooting war with some of the biggest drug dealers in the world, as to who will control the flow of drugs across the River.

And in summary, anyone who thinks the United States Congress should not be consulted PREVIOUS to agreeing to this unconstitutionally enacted treaty, rather than informed AFTER the fact, has not lately read Article II, Section II of the Constitution, nor Article I, Section VII either.

So to answer your question as I climb down from my Crystal White Carton, I believe they are asking approval on the back end via FastTrack Authority, in order to quell the growing amount of phone calls of people waking up to our Nation losing it's sovereignty via this unconstitutional method of establising a North American Union, by naming it a "partnership".
 
Wow. That's certainly a lot of information to digest.

But, getting back to the subject, tell me:
Where is the link to statements in which Ron Paul or Tom Trancredo assert that N.A.P. constitutes a "Treaty". I'm no fan of the N.A.P., but I can't seem to find any credible evidence that Tom or Ron object to is as an unratified "Treaty".

Source, Please.

Did you know that Tom, hisself, attempted to "violate the Constitution" by creating a "Treaty" without Senate approval? He did and Here's the "Proof"! Yup. Right there in Black and White.

And I still don't understand. You earlier posited that Bush was signing "Treaties" under the radar and that no one seemed to be noticing. Why would he possibly shoot hisself in the foot, after the fact, with prima facia evidence that his administration now believes they need special legislation for such acts? I mean, from his standpoint, if the usurpation machine wasn't broken, why fix it?

The only answer you've given me so far is "so the 'sheeple' will be OK with it". Well, by definition, the "sheeple" are OK with anything the gubmint does. Why would he initiate a very public, legislative battle just to sell "them" something they've already bought?

Something here just doesn't add up.
Rich
 
Wow. That's certainly a lot of information to digest.

But, getting back to the subject, tell me:
Where is the link to statements in which Ron Paul or Tom Trancredo assert that N.A.P. constitutes a "Treaty". I'm no fan of the N.A.P., but I can't seem to find any credible evidence that Tom or Ron object to is as an unratified "Treaty".

Source, Please.

Did you know that Tom, hisself, attempted to "violate the Constitution" by creating a "Treaty" without Senate approval? He did and Here's the "Proof"! Yup. Right there in Black and White.
Rich
Click to expand...

Wel Rich, yes it is a lot of information. And I will google the words for you, and post several links. Or you can listen to many of his radio statements on it. It is fairly easy to find if you use this new Google thingie.

Also, your link to Trancredo's submission of legislation into the Senate, does not seem to me to constitute enacting a treaty. It sure appears that he introduced a proposed bill to the Senate.

Did he sign it on his own and declare it an Agreement, and meet with foreign leaders, and begin spending U.S. Dollars from the Treasury in order to start planning on it? I can't find that in the article. Source Please?
 
Rich:

Here is a good start. It is from Congressman Paul's House of Representatives site, and if you read it all, it might help give you an idea of why this is so very dangerous to our sovereignty. I'll get you some more, and also some from Trancredo. By the way, did you find any sources on where Trancredo tried to establish an unconstitutional treaty? All I see so far is introducing a Bill in Congress which did not pass.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm



A North American United Nations?
August 28, 2006
Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.
According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.
What is a "dialogue"? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union.
According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.
Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.
Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website:
"We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007"
Though the US administration insists that the SPP does not undermine US sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty?
The website also states SPP's goal to "mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the US taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?
Also alarming are SPP pledges to "work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products." That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans' health freedom.
Even more troubling are reports that under this new "partnership," a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the US taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the US more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm.
This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.
 
Gary-
I thank you for proving my point. From your own link, Paul never asserts that the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP) is a Treaty, let alone an illegal Treaty. He does allow that, "the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement". But he never argues that that is a lie.

Now, you can be vocally against NAFTA, CAFTA, SPP or the STAR WARS initiative, for all I care. And I might join you in your concern. But when you repeatedly use hyperbolic arguments; arguments such as your "illegal Treaty" drone, you quickly loose you allies; and your audience.

Suggest you argue along a different line.

BTW, contrary to your assertion that Tancredo submitted a bill to the Senate, the fact is that his bill was introduced to The House, which (as you so stridently point out) is NOT the body which ratifies treaties. Therefore, by your own definition and accusation, he, too, is guilty of attempting what Bush has done.

I really do wish you'd get your facts straight before arguing a position.
Rich
 
Again, you fail to provide a SOURCE wherein Ron Paul or Tancredo agree with you that this constitutes and illegal Treaty.

In fact, this is the SECOND source you've posted which would indicate that Paul's position is quite duifferent from that:
"The SPP was NOT created by a treaty between the nations involved" [emphasis mine]

Rich
 
arguments such as your "illegal Treaty" drone, you quickly loose you allies; and your audience.
Click to expand...

Well Rich, it is an illegal treaty. The definition of treaty, is an agreement.
They made an agreement, but did it illegally. That isn't a drone, it is a fact.

And it isn't a "half baked conspiracy theory", it is their very own words.

What you are saying is, this is only an unconstitutional treaty, if Ron Paul says so.

So I will get that for you. And if you care to join me in trying to raise concern fine. If you consider this unconstitutional treaty to be totally fine for America, then that is fine also.

I just think it's a bad deal for us all.

However, I'll get you Ron Paul on record saying this is an unconstitutiaonl treaty attempt. No problem.
 
Again, you fail to provide a SOURCE wherein Ron Paul or Tancredo agree with you that this constitutes and illegal Treaty.

In fact, this is the SECOND source you've posted which would indicate that Paul's position is quite duifferent from that:
"The SPP was NOT created by a treaty between the nations involved" [emphasis mine]

Rich
Click to expand...

Rich, what they are saying is, it was done WITHOUT a legitimate treaty. They are pointing out that the legal methods to enact this "agreement" were not sought.

So again, I will get Ron Paul for you saying this is an unconstitutional treaty. My main statment is that I AM THE ONE SAYING it constitutes an unconstitutional treaty, because of the facts that he points out. They went AROUND the legal method.

He does so with statements such as: "The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," or SPP."
 
According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.
What is a "dialogue"? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union.
According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade
Click to expand...
.

IMO, and it's just my opinion, that "dialogue" is just a weasel word for agreement or treaty. Nobody is going to say, publicly, that "we are going to screw you" but, that is often the intent. Obfuscation, I think, is the word. When you get past the perfume, there's a hog underneath.

Gary, see what Rep. Marci Kaptur has to say about this. She's the(or at least was when NAFTA was signed) expert on NAFTA and other trade agreements.

badbob
 
Hey Rich, speaking of getting facts straight, and checking facts prvious to arguing a position, you initially posted the following:

Did you know that Tom, hisself, attempted to "violate the Constitution" by creating a "Treaty" without Senate approval? He did and Here's the "Proof"! Yup. Right there in Black and White.
Click to expand...

I admit I should have typed submitted a bill in the house instead of the Senate, but I was a little astounded that you felt submitting legislation, equated negotiating with foreign governments. So in the spirit of producing your source, even though I did type the word Senate instead of House, Congressman Trancredo appears, according to your source, to have introduced legislation, and not met with the Presidents of a foreign nation and "made" a treaty.

So which source will you post showing he attempted to create a treaty? All I see there is he was trying to introduce a bill pursuant to his job. The Senate recently attempted to legislate tax issues, and were corrected on that. A staffer pointed out that all tax issues have to be originated in the House.

I don't consider that trying to establish a treaty. Can you tell me how making an error and it being halted, equates to meeting with a foreign head of state, to purposefully negotiate border, commerce, immigration, and security issues, and directing your agency heads to sign documents in "Agreement" is the same thing?

Anyway, I am waiting on your proof that Trancredo attempted to establish a treaty. I don't see it yet. And I tried Googling it, and cannot find it.

Source please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top