Now this sounds like the "first" step or steps have already been taken, and we're ready to move on to the next steps. The first sentence of the webpage describes the initial step that was taken in 2005:
The three leaders of North America agreed to advance the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) by focusing on five high priority initiatives.Those "initiatives" -- the "next steps" -- are then listed. Together with other documents, such as "Building a North American Community: Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America," which propose a new intergovernmental structure consisting of such institutions as an "inter-parliamentary" institution, "a permanent tribunal" "that would replace the ad hoc dispute settlement mechanisms that were in NAFTA," and other institutions that have an executive function, these "steps" represent nothing short of the creation of a new system of government. All those who did not sleep through Civics 101 can see the outlines of the three branches of government, which this new "Partnership" will create. A moderator (New York Times correspondent Anthony DePalma) of a panel proposing this new regional government structure summed up these steps nicely:
DEPALMA: Thank you, Bob. I won’t go over all ... of those recommendations, but among them are the North American advisory council, the creation of an inter-parliamentary group, and a permanent tribunal to deal with NAFTA disputes.Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.
These kinds of documents have recently ignited an explsion of controversy on the Internet among people who have been opposed to the idea of the U.S. and Mexico merging into a "North American Union" for over a decade, and specifically over the agreement reached in 2005 between Bush, Fox, and Martin to "establish" the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America."
It was only a matter of time before the SPP decided to attempt to defuse the controversy, or as a writer for the Kansas City Star described it, the "flood of conspiracy charges." So the official SPP government website now has a "Myths and Facts" page which attempts to refute these "conspiracy theories" with a series of "Myth vs. Fact" couplets. The first couplet sets the tone:
Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005."What's all this talk about a new government?" they seem to be saying. "We never signed an agreement to create a new government! No agreement has ever been signed. This is all just a big CONSPIRACY THEORY!"
Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.
This is calculated deception. It is evidence of a fundamental self-deception on the part of the government agency or bureaucrat who wrote this webpage, or it is evidence of a malignant corruption of ethics.
OK, so it was a "Gentlemen's Agreement." Nothing signed. The White House website linked at the top of this post admits there was an agreement, and boasts about all the progress made along the path that was "agreed" upon.
Billy and his sister are fighting, and Billy pokes Sis in the eye. She runs to Mommy, "Billy hit me!" Billy says "I didn't hit her!" The next-door neighbor, who witnessed the conflict, confirms Sis' story. Under pressure, Billy confesses, "I didn't hit her, I poked her." And the Mexican, Canadian and U.S. governments didn't sign an agreement, so you don't have to worry about a thing, and shouldn't listen to all those crackpot "conspiracy theories."
I love the word "dialogue." Few words set off more red flags. It's perfect for this slimy unethical government propaganda. The SPP is not an "agreement," it's a "dialogue." Use that line in an SPP court ("tribunal") when Missouri Law is overridden by SPP laws, and your company is ordered to pay millions of dollars in fines.
We'll look at more of this unethical government deception in future posts.
Stop the SPP