• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What do you know about SPP?

Faster horses

Well-known member
Security and Prosperity Partnership.

I heard G. Gordon Liddy talking about this on XM radio on Thursday
morning. It is really scary. You can to to www.spp.gov and read
some about it. I haven't read it all yet, myself. I think there are better websites to find out about this, but spp.gov is the only one I could remember.

According to what was talked about on the show (and they had Tom Trancheno (Spelled wrong, I'm sure) Senator from Colorado as a guest.

This is about an agreement between Mexicos Fox, G.W. Bush and Paul Martin, the former Prime Minister of Canada. This agreement was signed in March of 2005. The result of it will be that we will become the NORTH AMERICAN UNION, much like the EUROPEAN UNION. No borders, one big happy family with Mexico and Canada. The dollar will be the Amero and used throughout. The Consitiution as we know it, will no longer be the law of the land. Then of course, there will be no second Amendment to worry about. In Mexico now, the people are not to bear arms.

Well, it kept me quite awake while driving, that was for sure. I couldn't take notes and I didn't get in on the beginning of the discussion. If anyone can figure out how to find the dialouge from that show, I'd sure like to have it. G. Gordon Liddy has a website, I just need to see what I can find.

A caller asked about other websites having this information and was given some, but again, I wasn't able to write it down.

Apparently, not many are aware of this agreement both in Congress or in our country. It was not called a treaty because a treaty has to pass the Senate.

We really need to delve into this further and see what we can find.
If anyone runs across something, please post it here.

I was terrified listening to what they were talking about. This needs to
be gotten out to the people. They won't stand for what is proposed and
that is why it has been kept under wraps.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
From the link (my emphasis):

"This White House-driven initiative is premised on our security and our economic prosperity being mutually reinforcing. The SPP recognizes that our three great nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions."

So I'll ask again: when are you going to get tired of being jerked around by this Administation?
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
You guys are all getting worked up over nothing.
This union is sort of talked about<by guys like Liddy> every so many years. But its not really even on the horizon politically in Canada.
I have to confess that I didnt check out the link. But really I see no need to because I know this union if your talking about a European union for North America is not going to happen anytime soon <my lifetime>
The thing that strikes me funny is that I get the impression that you Americans think this would be such a good deal for Canada and that we are somehow just waiting to join. Haha Nothing could be farther from the truth. I would personally be against it and im more pro American than most up here. Really it has nothing to do with likeing or dislikeing America.
Its just that it would be a bad deal for Alberta and the rest of the Country as well.
Besides that union deal they have over in Europe isnt working out so great.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
FH- Heres a thread we had going that has some website articles listed...And this has been in the works for well over 20 years- but lately its really picking up speed...I doubt if I will see it come to be, but if we don't do something to stop it our kids will have to live it.....

The EU isn't working as most had predicted- almost bankrupt some countries...This won't either....Like my exNorwegian (now American) brother in law says- the best thing Norway did was to turn down the EU- they are now prospering while the EU countries are in trouble....


http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10075&highlight=
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Well Roper AB, I don't know why any of us would want this kind of change. And BTW, they put 2010 as the date it would be implemented.

Jerome Corsi is the person that was on the show. I found this website,
humaneventsonline.com/article. I didn't take time to read it, but am
going back to do so. It involves immigration and currency, among many
other things.

We should not turn our back on this.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Maybe some of you that don't go to the Bull Session that often didn't see this thread-- I know this one is in the works for the near future-- land filings, FTZ's, and DEQ impact statements are already filed...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10716
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Maybe this should be moved where it gets more traffic, OT.

Here is what I found so far:

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted May 22, 2006



When Taxes Start Sneaking Across the Border...

The Stealth Amnesty of Mike Pence

Guest Workers Aren't Cheap; They're Expensive

Schwarzenegger's National Guard Plan for Border Is Measured and Intelligent

How to Raise $100 Million for Immigration Enforcement




The idea to form the North American Union as a super-NAFTA knitting together Canada, the United States and Mexico into a super-regional political and economic entity was a key agreement resulting from the March 2005 meeting held at Baylor University in Waco, Tex., between President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin.

A joint statement published by the three presidents following their Baylor University summit announced the formation of an initial entity called, “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The joint statement termed the SPP a “trilateral partnership” that was aimed at producing a North American security plan as well as providing free market movement of people, capital, and trade across the borders between the three NAFTA partners:

We will establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our borders.

A working agenda was established:

We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has produced a SPP website, which documents how the U.S. has implemented the SPP directive into an extensive working agenda.

Following the March 2005 meeting in Waco, Tex., the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published in May 2005 a task force report titled “Building a North American Community.” We have already documented that this CFR task force report calls for a plan to create by 2010 a redefinition of boundaries such that the primary immigration control will be around the three countries of the North American Union, not between the three countries. We have argued that a likely reason President Bush has not secured our border with Mexico is that the administration is pushing for the establishment of the North American Union.

The North American Union is envisioned to create a super-regional political authority that could override the sovereignty of the United States on immigration policy and trade issues. In his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Pastor, the Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, stated clearly the view that the North American Union would need a super-regional governance board to make sure the United States does not dominate the proposed North American Union once it is formed:

NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual bilateralism, driven by U.S. power, continue to govern and irritate. Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance that rules, not power, will resolve problems.

This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new North American Advisory Council. Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European Commission, the Commission or Council should be lean, independent, and advisory, composed of 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation. Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the implementation of the resulting agreements.

Pastor was a vice chairman of the CFR task force that produced the report “Building a North American Union.”

Pastor also proposed the creation of a Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment with the view that “a permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” The intent is for this North American Union Tribunal would have supremacy over the U.S. Supreme Court on issues affecting the North American Union, to prevent U.S. power from “irritating” and retarding the progress of uniting Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. into a new 21st century super-regional governing body.

Robert Pastor also advises the creation of a North American Parliamentary Group to make sure the U.S. Congress does not impede progress in the envisioned North American Union. He has also called for the creation of a North American Customs and Immigration Service which would have authority over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security.

Pastor’s 2001 book “Toward a North American Community” called for the creation of a North American Union that would perfect the defects Pastor believes limit the progress of the European Union. Much of Pastor’s thinking appears aimed at limiting the power and sovereignty of the United States as we enter this new super-regional entity. Pastor has also called for the creation of a new currency which he has coined the “Amero,” a currency that is proposed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso.

If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero,” we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election. Pursuing any plan that would legalize the conservatively estimated 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States could well spell election disaster for the Republican Party in 2006, especially for the House of Representative where every seat is up for grabs.



Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.


Not a subscriber to HUMAN EVENTS? Sign up now!




(You will receive the latest conservative news and offers by email. Unsubscribe any time. Read our Privacy Policy.)











Home | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Subscribe
Copyright © 2006 HUMAN
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Okay I checked out your link. The SPP doesnt sound much different than NORAD or NATO.
If you guys dont like NATO, Canada can bring its troops home from Afganistan anytime you want<joking>.
Im in favor of CAN/US working together on issues that involve both countries. But this SPP is a long ways from Canada giving up its sovernty to the United States or createing a Euro style union.
BTW as you should know, international agreements like NAFTA,NORAD,etc. really are not worth the paper they are written on. They are sort of like warranty. Warranty is no better than the guy who stands behind it.
You guys are getting worked up over nothing.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
This is being talked about more openly now, so I am bringing it back to
the top.

There is more information brought by Kathy in Political Bull, if
anyone cares to read it.
 

jigs

Well-known member
I don't mind a co-op with Canada, but build a wall long and tall between us and Mexico. those thieving bastards are in no way invited here as far as I am conscerned.

we support them enough with the damned illegals. open up a hunting season on them, then perhaps they will figure it out!
 
Top