Techniguy - 05-30-2006

When the Council on Foreign Relations (or should we call it "The Trilateral Commission"?) proposed it's SPP plan last year, I didn't take it too seriously, knowing that they have been trying to do this for the past 30 years. With the recent changes we've been seeing in President Bush since his reelection, we now have to take a second look at what has been going on behind our backs, that will seriously impact the lives of all Americans in years to come. If you don't already know about this, you're in for a shock.

President George Bush, President Vicente Fox of Mexico, and Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada unveiled a blueprint for a safer and more prosperous North America when they announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) on March 23, 2005 in Waco, TX. They agreed on ambitious security and prosperity agendas to keep our borders closed to terrorism and open to trade. The SPP is based on the premise that security and our economic prosperity are mutually reinforcing, and recognizes that our three great nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions. (Keep reading...)

The SPP provides the framework to ensure that North America is the safest and best place to live and do business. The Partnership is a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries through greater cooperation and information-sharing.

That's not exactly true. The above words are from the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) document describing what the three presidents agreed to in Waco last year. In short, this was the first step in consolidation the United States of America into a North American Union with Canada and Mexico, essentially destroying American sovereignty, removing borders, and sharing our defense, intelligence, commerce, and human resources with Mexico. We already do that to some extent with Canada but not to the extent this SPP plan intends. What SPP continually overlooks is that Canada is a modern 1st world country, but Mexico is a corrupt, underdeveloped, 3rd world country with little to offer and plenty to gain.

The SPP premise that "our three great nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions" is just plain wrong. It attempts to put Mexico in the same class as the USA and Canada but in fact, Mexico offers little economic opportunity or democracy for it's people. It's only major industry is oil production and that is owned by the government. The bottom line under the SPP plan is, the US shares all it has with Mexico, and gets little more than the illegal aliens we have now, in return.

"At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action."

This "globalization" of America is scheduled to be complete by 2010. Is President Bush's open border and illegal amnesty agenda connected to the CFR plan? It certainly would seem so.

"North America is also energy interdependent, though not energy independent. In 2004, Canada and Mexico were the two largest exporters of oil to the United States. Canada supplies the United States with roughly 90 percent of its imported natural gas and all of its imported electricity."

How much electricity do you suppose the US imports from Canada? Very little in fact. More power goes the other way into Canada from Niagara Falls power plants than comes here from Canada. Canada provides 90% of our imported natural gas, but how much of our natural gas supply is actually imported? Very little. Meanwhile, Mexico exports their poverty to the US and their oil at OPEC prices using US technology to extract and refine it while we support them with foreign aid and NAFTA trade.

"In addition, all three countries face common security dangers, from terrorism to drug trafficking to international organized crime. Addressing these dangers is a major challenge in this dynamic region: the borders between Canada, the United States, and Mexico will be crossed over 400 million times in 2005."

And who is responsible for that? Mexico. With a sealed border between the USA and Mexico, all of that would stop. Can we really expect Mexico to change their ways and give up the money they make through their crime and corruption, just by signing this agreement? Or can we expect them to pay lip service to the agreement not unlike what Saudi Arabia does with terrorism? SPP would have us sending resources, intelligence, commerce, security, and more money to Mexico, and in return, receiving more crime, corruption, drugs, and immigrants. This is not a fair trade for the US.

"As liberal democracies, the governments also share common principles: protecting individual rights, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring equality of opportunity for their citizens."

Who ever said the USA is a "liberal democracy"? That is what the socialists of the CFR want it to be, but in fact the "US is a "Democratic Republic", not a "liberal democracy" like Canada and Mexico. Yet, the ultimate goal of SPP is to have all three countries governed by one central government which is not the government of the United States. This would be the equivalent of the European Union for North America with open internal borders and a common socialist constitution for all.

"In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a deadline for reporting progress back to their governments." "The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized. "

Did you ever hear about these groups? Did President Bush ever mention that this was going on in a speech? The answer is "no". This is all being done under the radar of Congress and the American people, and without the consent and permission of anyone but President Bush. Should we be concerned about this? You bet we should.

"We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that ‘‘our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.’’ Its 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."

No comment needed here... There goes US borders and sovereignty right out the window. Are you getting all of this? And to add insult to injury, there is this:

"The three governments should approach continental issues together with a tri-national perspective rather than the traditional ‘‘dual-bilateral’’ approach that has long characterized their relationships. Progress may proceed at two speeds in some spheres of policy. Canada and the United States, for example, already share a long history of military cooperation and bi-national defense institutions, and they should continue to deepen their bilateral alliance while opening the door to more extensive cooperation with Mexico."

And what does Mexico offer in return for this "shared" military and defense cooperation? Why should we share our military defense and intelligence with Mexico? Mexico is not a target of international terrorism. In fact, if you look at Mexico's voting record in the UN, you will find that they vote consistently more with the terrorist supporting countries than they do with the United States. Why not just share our defense intelligence with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez and let them have a say in our government as well?

"North America is different from other regions of the world and must find its own cooperative route forward. A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes of confederation or union, such as those in Europe. We must maintain respect for each other’s national sovereignty. "

Notice how they threw that last line in there to mask the real intentions of the plan? They say we should rely less on bureaucracy, yet more bureaucracy is exactly what they are suggesting. And what "shared problems" are the US and Mexico on the same side of? Global warming? Mexico's problem is to ship their poverty to the US. Our problem is to keep it out and try to stop the transformation of the US into a "brown" multicultural state.

"A North American strategy must provide real gains for all partners and must not be approached as a zero-sum exercise. Poverty and deprivation are breeding grounds for political instability and undermine both national and regional security. The progress of the poorest among us will be one measure of success."

This sounds like something right out of Marxism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" Mexico has failed, and continues to fail, to provide economic opportunities for it's people. Therefore, it is the agenda of the CFR to hold the United States responsible for providing these opportunities for Mexicans, instead of holding Mexico accountable for it's failures.

"WHAT WE SHOULD DO BY 2010: Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America."

Well now, there's a novel way to end the illegal alien problem, just get rid of the border and make all trans-border traffic legal.

"Our economic focus should be on the creation of a common economic space that expands economic opportunities for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely."

Joining in a common national union with Mexico will hardly expand economic opportunities for Americans. But the last line above really says it all: "a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely."

And that's the bottom line.      Site Meter

ã Copyright 2006 by All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction of this article is permitted providing this copyright and author is included.

Techniguy’s Newsletters
To see other Newsletter articles, JOIN the mailing list, or be REMOVED from the list go to
PLEASE NOTE: Email addresses used for this newsletter are not authorized for use in group mailing lists from your address book under any circumstances. Thank you for your cooperation. You are welcome to post Techniguy's Newsletters to groups ,blogs, and forward them to others on your mailing list.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.