Security & Prosperity Partnership

New Agenda

2009-05-14T14:37:00.000-07:00

In an article from February of 2009, former international trade and foreign affairs minister David Emerson appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. He feels that NAFTA has made Canada "U.S.-centric" and as a result, it is losing ground in the rest of the world. At the same time, the article also reports that Emerson has, "called on the government to aggressively seek stronger Canada-U.S. ties, up to and including a customs union. He said at minimum, Canada should advocate a North American security perimeter arrangement, a labour mobility agreement that modernizes NAFTA provisions, and greater integration on regulatory matters." Emerson is now calling on Canada to lead a new charge towards greater continental integration. He believes that the North American partnership is in need of repair and has proposed "project North America".

The former senior cabinet minister insists that Canada needs to work more closely with the U.S. in areas of trade, energy, the environment, and continental security. Emerson said, "I think the process of integration has to begin with the two leaders, perhaps three." He is also against revitalizing SPP working groups which have been for the most part, inactive since Obama became president.

In February of this year, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, was told that the controversial SPP was likely dead. CEO and president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, Thomas d'Aquino, testified and answered questions before the committee. He admitted that it was probably only a matter of time before the SPP was replaced. He emphasized the importance of Canada-U.S. bilateralism, but cautioned against cutting Mexico out of the equation. In an article from several months back, Jerome Corsi writes that, "while North American integration advocates may have backed off promoting the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America as their vehicle to create a North American Union, the globalist effort to integrate North America economically and politically continues under different names."

The SPP has been a huge public relations nightmare, thanks in part to many who have exposed its agenda. The lack of transparency, coupled with the fact that there was never a mandate from the people of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, can also be blamed for its undoing. The vision of a North American Union has not been abandoned and plans for deeper integration continue on many different fronts. The global elite can never be accused of letting a crisis go to waste. Some are using the swine flu pandemic scare as a means to push for further continental integration. We might only be a crisis or two away from a North American Union.

Dead?

2009-05-12T12:35:00.000-07:00

In the last year, there has been little mention of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) from the governments of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. A battle appears to be brewing as to the next course of action to take in regards to North American integration. Some would like to see more focus placed on Canada-U.S. bilateralism while others believe that trilateralism should always be the way to go. This could be a manufactured debate with the goal of trying to resurrect this agenda. You can be sure that the global elite pushing for deeper continental integration, will take a North American Union any which way they can.

Reasons to oppose the SPP

2009-05-07T14:34:00.000-07:00

It's Anti-Democratic:
It is a political manifestation of a corporate plan for economic and security integration that was NEVER VOTED ON IN ANY COUNTRY.

It's A Waste of Energy:
Canada and Mexico have agreed to give U.S. oil companies a tighter grip on both countries resources in return for vague assurances that the U.S. wont shut the border to our goods.

The SPP Makes Citizens Feel Less Secure, with example:
Joint U.S.-Canada "No Fly Lists", exclusive service for "trusted travelers" and racially based immigration policies that criminalize people from "high risk" countries. For example, Maher Arar remains on the U.S. no fly list despite being exonerated and after receiving a formal apology from the RCMP and the federal government.

Close the damn borders

2009-04-30T14:36:00.000-07:00

The whole point of the Security & Prosperity Partnership was to integrate the United States, Mexico and Canada. An open border policy. Obama recently traveled to Mexico to pledge his support for immigration reform and the unconstitutional implementation of the Security & Prosperity Partnership under the leadership of George W. Bush.

In my opinion all of that's fine, but didn't the Swine Flu outbreak start in Mexico? Therefore shouldn't travel be restricted between Mexico and the U.S.? Shouldn't the U.S. close off its southern borders? Why weren't more steps taken to ensure that this Swine Flu was controlled? At the end of the day I was never a fan of allowing illegal immigrants into this country, Mexican or otherwise. But it seems to me as if this administration didn't act accordingly. By the way, who's the head of Health and Human Services?

The Superhighway

2009-04-29T21:21:00.000-07:00

Here is a video pertaining to the NAFTA Superhighway. This segment was shown on "Lou Dobbs". One of the last few media personalities with guts and integrity...

Class in session: NAU 101

2009-04-23T09:17:00.000-07:00

So it appears that Arizona State University is teaching the concept that The U.S., Mexico and Canada need to be integrated into, "A unified pro Big business superstate, where U.S. citizens of the future will be known as North Americanists".

The program which this falls under is known as the "Building North America" program. There is actually a teaching module online which is available online to help professors integrate these teachings into their own curriculum.
George Haynal, senior fellow at the Norman Patterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University gave the following commentary on the "Building North America" program:

"Given the nature of the threats against our security in the current environment, the first task is to reinvent 'borders.' We must exercise the responsibility for protecting our society against external threats where we can do so most effectively, not where infrastructures happens to be in place," he added. "Multilateral cooperation is going to be essential among governments."

"It is clear, to me at least, that we must . move beyond NAFTA and do so with a purposeful determination."

The link I provided above can give you a sufficient amount of information regarding George Haynal's motives for creating such a program.

House Resolution No. 38

2009-04-20T19:43:00.000-07:00

Earlier this year (January)a proposed bill was sent to congress that went by the name of House Resolution No. 38. The Bill died however in February this year. I found it interesting to say the least. The following is the text of House Resolution No. 38...

HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 38
Offered January 14, 2009
Prefiled January 8, 2009
Memorializing the Congress of the United States to withdraw the United States from the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and any other bilateral or multilateral activity that seeks to create a North American Union.
----------
Patron-- Marshall, R.G.
----------
Committee Referral Pending
----------

WHEREAS, President George W. Bush established the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America with the nations of Mexico and Canada on March 23, 2005; and

WHEREAS, a television reporter asked President Bush on March 23, 2005, whether in light of the European Union the SPP was a step towards continental integration and he responded, "...So that the vision that you asked about in your question as to what kind of union might there be, I see one based upon free trade, that would then entail commitment to markets and democracy, transparency, rules of law..."; and

WHEREAS, the gradual creation of such a North American Union, or a functionally equivalent organization serving the same purpose under a different name, from a merger of the United States, Mexico, and Canada would be a direct threat to the Constitution and national independence and sovereignty of the United States and imply an eventual end to national borders within North America; and

WHEREAS, a White House news release confirmed the continuing existence of the SPP and its "ongoing process of cooperation" on March 31, 2006; and

WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul has written that a key to the SPP plan is an extensive new NAFTA superhighway: "[U]nder this new 'partnership,' a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas"; and

WHEREAS, this trilateral partnership to develop a North American Union has never been presented to Congress as an agreement or treaty and has had virtually no congressional oversight; and

WHEREAS, state and local governments throughout the United States would be negatively impacted by the SPP/North American Union process, such as the "open borders" vision of the SPP, eminent domain takings of private property along the planned superhighways, and increased law-enforcement problems along those same superhighways; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, That the Congress of the United States be urged to withdraw the United States from the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and any other bilateral or multilateral activity that seeks to create a North American Union; the Virginia Congressional Delegation is also urged to use all of its efforts, energies, and diligence to withdraw from any further participation in the SPP of North America or other activity, however named, which seeks to advance, authorize, fund, or in any way promote the creation of any structure to accomplish any form of a North American Union as herein described; and, be it

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates transmit copies of this resolution to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate, and the members of the Virginia Congressional Delegation so that they may be apprised of the sense of the House of Delegates of Virginia in this matter.

Give Me Liberty

2009-04-15T21:14:00.000-07:00

I came across and watched this video about the Security and Prosperity Partnership. It's narrated by Tony Clarke, who is the Founder and Executive Director of Canada's Polaris Institute. For those of you who don't know what the Polaris Institute is, its a Canadian think tank based in Ottowa. Its stated goal is "to help empower citizen movements towards democratic social change"

A slow, slow death

2009-04-14T19:01:00.000-07:00

At times I wonder what Bush was really thinking the morning of March 23 2005 when the grassroots of the Security and Prosperity Partnership were created. Did he actually think that in four years time that the new president (Obama) would continue his quest to create a North American Union? It's 2009 and the U.S., Canada and Mexico are still separate entities. From what I had heard and read, the Security and Prosperity Partnership was supposed to transform these three nations into the mighty North American Union.

Instead of this superpower coming into existence, what do we currently have? The U.S. is dying. In the U.S. Unemployment is slightly higher than 7.6%. And the dollar is becoming about as useful as a roll of toilet paper. Mexico is stuck in the middle ages. Drug lords are running rampant throughout the streets of Mexico raping and pillaging the land and its people. And Canada, well I don't have much to say about them

So wheres the save from the SPP? If I remember correctly the SPP was supposed to be the cure all for all the political, financial and security issues in North America. I wonder how Obama will handle the SPP situation for the rest of his term?

Security & Prosperity Partnership Original Video

2009-04-02T15:37:00.001-07:00

Check out this video I compiled. It relates to the Security & Prosperity Partnership.

What if...

2009-04-01T21:49:00.000-07:00

A promising sign of meaningful change in U.S. foreign policy toward the hemisphere would be the official demise of the SPP of North America, whose apparent failure none of the three governments so far have dared to acknowledge. This creature of Bush's imperial presidency was agreed to and announced with great fanfare by the U.S., Canadian and Mexican presidents in 2005. Since then, it has been an obscure process in which the executive powers of the governments, along with the CEOs of 30 of the largest corporations in the three countries; many of them military contractors, have extended the security perimeter of the United States to "ensure that North America is the safest and best place to live and do business."

Why did it fail? Among the reasons were because it became evident that the SPP wasn't going to perform, as advertised, to provide more security and prosperity to "North American" people. What better proof of this than the failed war on drugs in Mexico that took about 6,200 lives in 2008 alone? The SPP has failed also thanks to the oppositionof a wide array of civil society groups in the three countries of Canada the U.S. and Mexico, that denounced its secret dealings.

And since the Mexican economy is more dependent on the United States than is any other Latin American economy, it's going to be the hardest hit by the economic crisis. In addition, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) remains in place, privileging major corporate interests and making it harder for small and medium business to participate in the export sector. Therefore, enormous challenges for civil society organizations remain.

Mexico is destabilizing, FAST!

2009-03-25T21:02:00.000-07:00

Mexico has been having its fair share of problems the past couple of months. By looking at any form of news, whether its internet, newspaper, radio or television you will find out that Mexico is having major problems with its 'drug king pins'.

The Mexican cartels have turned their attention to not only trafficing drugs, but humans as well. These cartels have taken over the operations, mostly run by lone "coyotes" which involve bringing a select number of illegals into the U.S.. The cartels have taken this somewhat easy process and have tailored it in a way which benefits their business, by using these illegals to move drugs across the border. In fact they even place women into prostitution in exchange for passage into the United States.

The Attorney Generals office has even gone as far as offering a $2 million dollar reward for any information that leads to the capture of their listed top drug lords. I even heard this morning on the news that these drug lords are saying that they will kill a certain number of people every 48 hours if the Mexican police force does not stay out of their business.

Anyway, your probably wondering how any of this relates to the Security and Prosperity Partnership. You have to realize that security is one of the main highlights of the SPP. Mexico is a national security risk for the U.S.. To put it into perspective this just may justify the use of U.S. military aid and intervention to help the Mexican government contain its "cartel" problems. Doing this will create a safer area for transitional corporations such as Chevron and Exxon-Mobil. The process would pave the way for the SPP.

Mexico's oil and natural resources will finally be privatized for takeover by various global corporations. In turn a massive transfer of wealth and power to a North American Union type government will be possible.

Re-Branding

2009-03-24T19:42:00.000-07:00

Many of the talks that took place between Mexico, Canada, and the US occurred under former President George W. Bush. In fact he was the forerunner of the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The first meeting took place at Baylor University at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005; while the last mention of the SPP came during Bush's state of the union address in 2008.

Today, trilateral talks seem to have halted as a result of the Bush-Obama transition. However with security, defense, trade and competitiveness growing amongst the world it's time to re-tool the very make up of the SPP. Canada's Frasier institute has suggested a re-branding approach to make the SPP/NAU more "friendly" to the public by changing it to the 'North American Standards And Regulatory Area (NASRA). This re-branding would then be used to disguise its true purpose by integrating global warming, food safety issues, disease and climate issues to keep the public's eyes off the true agenda of the "North American Union".

Shall We Shed Some Light II

2009-03-12T15:08:00.000-07:00

I was checking google to see if I could find some information about Tom Tancredo, and I actually found a film clip of him discussing the Security & Prosperity Partnership. The footage is from some talk show run by the Conservative Caucus:

Shall We Shed Some Light?

2009-03-11T17:04:00.000-07:00

It seems as if iv'e found some information of value. I originally thought that the idea of creating a North American Union (disguised as the Security & Prosperity Partnership) was somewhat looked at as taboo amongst politicians. I mean, after all how much do you really hear about the SPP through news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC etc.? Personally I had never heard about these negotiations between Mexico, Canada and the good ol' U,S, of A.

Pictured on the left is U.S. House representative Tom Tancredro of Colorado. He is one of four members of congress who has signed onto a resolution which expresses outrage over any talks between the US, Mexico and Canada promoting any type of North American Union between these nations.
The following is a quote from Tom Tancredo in an article I read over on worldnetdaily...

"I know the administration
has given assurances that the SPP is not a veiled effort to create a 'North American Union,' nor an effort designed to dilute American sovereignty by entering into a European Union-like arrangement with Canada and Mexico,"

"Unfortunately, however, [the SPP's] 'recommendations' seem to be at odds with those assurances."

It's very unfortunate that the media doesn't cover these stories over the air. Even though Tom Tancredo is a Republican, I must say he makes a very valid point in making his accusations. Hopefully his 'resolution' breaks through some of the more mainstream media outlets so that more Americans can know whats going on. I will be damned if I wake up one morning to find that were integrated with Canada and Mexico. Because seriously who likes Canada?

G. Dubs Take

2009-03-05T16:39:00.000-08:00

In this short clip George W. Bush attempts to debunk the fact that the Security & Prosperity Partnership is not a new North American Union. You decide.

Super What?

2009-02-26T13:38:00.000-08:00

President Obama has been urged by supporters to further improve relations between the United States partners, Mexico and Canada. A strategy that has been proposed involves around rejuvenating and expanding the current Trilateral Leaders Summit (which was the basis of the Security and Prosperity Partnership). The strategy calls for the development of an effective North American trade and transportation plan. This transportation plan would include an "integrated multimodal transportation system".

A multimodal transportation system integrates different geographical scales from the global to the local. This allows for urban regions to have accessibility to an international market. As pictured above you can get an idea of the magnitude of this highway. It stretches from Mexico to Canada, hitting many major ports within all three nations.

With regards to regulation the policy paper entitled "North America Next" calls for balancing freight transportation standards, implementation of a special trucker visa which includes complete NAFTA truck access inside all three countries.

What is this Security & Prosperity Partnership?

2009-02-26T12:44:00.001-08:00

This blog is designed to give readers insights on the soon to be implemented Security & Prosperity Partnership (SPP). For those that don't know what this is, it involves region-level dialogue between the United States, Mexico and Canada with the stated purpose of providing greater cooperation on security and economic issues. The Partnership was founded in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005 by the Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin, The President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, and the former President of the United States, George W. Bush.

One may ask, "well, why does this matter to me?" One reason why this partnership is important is because it has helped launch the North American Competitiveness Council (NAAC). This group is composed of representatives from thirty giant North American companies, including General Electric, Ford Motors, General Motors and Wal-Mart. This group believes that "private sector involvement" is a key step in North America's competitive position in global markets.

The (SPP) seeks to integrate the three nations into a single political, economic, and security bloc. By doing this, is it possible that a North American Union is quickly approaching?