SPP Destroying Evidence?

In a previous post, I criticized the attempt to debunk criticisms of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) made by the official government website of the SPP (spp.gov).

That webpage purports to answer a "Myth" with a government "Fact."

Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.

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.

One problem with this government "fact" is the claim by then Prime Minister Paul Martin that "[O]n March 23, President Bush, President Fox and I signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America that establishes the way forward on our continental agenda for security, prosperity and quality of life." [my emphasis] So whom should we believe: former Prime Minister Paul Martin, or the college intern who put together the SPP website?

Earlier today I sent a note to the SPP webmaster asking this very question, citing the URL found in this webpage from Vive le Canada, which has this URL:

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/cip-pic/ips/ips-overview2-en.asp

That webpage, as I write this, is now missing, and a patriot in California is huffing mad, accusing me of tipping off the SPP to a website that contradicts the SPP claim that nothing was "signed."

I think the webpage will be back online in the morning, after whatever late-night repairs on the server are completed. In case I'm wrong, I encourage readers to copy the print version of the page found here.

I don't believe that anything was "signed" back on March 23, 2005, despite the use of the word by Prime Minister Paul Martin. Signing something might require Senate confirmation (Art. II, §2 cl. 2). The modern trend of the New World Order is called "soft law" -- unsigned and even unwritten laws that advance the agenda of hemispheric integration without allowing Congress to exercise congressional oversight. Here are five articles explaining this legal revolution: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Americans trust their incumbent Congressmen, and trust their government. This is unAmerican. We are not to trust government, but DIStrust it, and remain cynical and vigilant of government's claims. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1799:

Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power.… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

As you are reading this, a new government is being created which will overrule all laws and constitutions in the United States. The progress being made in this "soft revolution" will continue unabated regardless of whether or not anything was signed on March 23, 2005. We need representatives in Congress who will work to stop it.

Unfortunately, this issue is not on the political radar of most voters in 2006, and many important milestones in the creation of the North American Union are scheduled for completion in 2007, which will create political and legal inertia that will make it even more difficult to stop in 2008.

In the long run, humanity must reject Jefferson's claim that "we are obliged to trust [ANYONE] with power." The whole concept of political power must be repudiated if the human race is to survive.

Global Supply-Chain Fascism

AMR Research is a consultant for multi-national corporations. AMR released an article yesterday singing the praises of the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership) and bowing to government as the savior of the supply-chain.

Imagine the Devil's Workshop: the idle hands of a high-school dropout hanging out behind a grocery store. He picks up a can of spray paint and "tags" a palette of produce.

Is this an act of international terrorism? Is the intervention of Homeland Security called for?

Yes, says the Customs and Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). And Yes, says AMR Research, President Bush should take entire industries under his wing, as is in fact being done, regulating the Market -- effectively nationalizing industries -- with a sweep that would make Benito Mussolini and Hugo Chavez envious.

Granted, U.S. military presence in more than 100 nations is making recruiting for terrorism a breeze, and stirring up techno-vandals around the world, potentially more dangerous than our drop-out above. But do their numbers justify international socialism?

AMR shows that that the world of George Orwell is not wholly imposed from the top down; it also bubbles up from the bottom. Industry leaders and so-called "global capitalists" clamor for salvation from the State; the Free Market is crucified: "We have no market but Caesar!"

AMR recommends,

Don’t let the term “compliance” scare you — C-PAT offers great business benefits to those that do.

Global Industry is being subsumed into the Messianic State, not by forcible imposition, but by the faithless desire on the part of industry for political salvation. Welcome to the Bush Regime's New World Order.

Bush's Transportation Secretary and NASCO

The following is reported by Wayne Madsen:

George W. Bush's pick for Transportation Secretary represents a major conflict-of-interest designed to spur the construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor -- a project in which Bush and his cronies are heavily invested. Last week, Bush nominated Mary Peters to replace Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Unlike Mineta, a former congressman who then became a Vice President of the aerospace defense giant Lockheed Martin, Peters comes out of the surface transportation industry. She is a vice president for the engineering firm HDR and co-vice chairman of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. From 2001 to 2005, Peters was the head of the Federal Highway Administration. Peters is also a former head of the Arizona Department of Transportation. Peters worked in the administration of disgraced GOP Governor Fife Symington, who was convicted of bank fraud and resigned from office. (Symington was later pardoned by his college friend, President Bill Clinton).

Peters' commitment to major "infrastructure development" of the nation's highways centers on the development of the North American SuperCorridor (NASCO) highway, of which the Tran-Texas Corridor will be a major component. Already, Bush crime syndicate cronies, including interests tied to Texas Governor Rick Perry, are purchasing property along the proposed Texas highway route at cut-rate prices, using "eminent domain" statutes to pay less than what private and commercial property is worth. The money for the massive land grab is coming from Saudi and Chinese sources, according to knowledgeable sources in Texas. The NASCO highway will cross 11 states: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois. It will also connect proposed Mexican super ports in Manzanillo, Mazatlan, and Lazaro Cardenas to various United States trucking and distribution super-hubs in San Antonio, Dallas, Kansas City, as well as one in Winnipeg in Canada. The Mexican ports will be receiving points for manufactured products from China. The theft of the Mexican presidency by conservative Felipe Calderon at the expense of populist leader Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was engineered to protect the sizeable investments the Bush crime cartel, including The Carlyle Group, and their Saudi and Chinese financiers have already sunk into the project.

New Transportation Secretary Mary Peters to ensure Bush
crime family super-highway projects proceed unimpeded.

Eventually, NASCO will be expanded as far south as Argentina by linking North America to Central America (Mexico-Central American Corridor and an improved Pan American Highway). The expensive tolls charged throughout the 10-lane super-highway system will be used to line the pockets of the Bush family well into the middle of the 21st century. Peters, as a highway and trucking industry shill, has been entrusted by the Bush crime cartel to ensure that the plans for NASCO and the Pan American Super Corridor proceed unimpeded. It is estimated that as many as 1 million Texans alone, many in rural and poor urban areas, could be displaced by the Trans-Texas Corridor.

Mary Peters at Transportation: Major responsibility is to
ensure roadblocks to North American SuperCorridor are eliminated.

[end WayneMadsen report]

Thomas DiLorenzo has shown that transportation in early America was privately financed, and "the idea that because of pervasive free-rider problems, it was supposedly necessary for the taxpayers to subsidize the building of roads, canals, and railroads" is false.

History shows that while governments did subsidize such “internal improvements,” most of them during the first half of the nineteenth century were privately financed. Moreover, in virtually every single instance where governments intervened to build roads, canals, and railroads during this period the result was corruption and financial debacle. It was because of such debacles that dozens of states eventually amended their constitutions to prevent taxpayer subsidies for internal improvements.

The Real Enemy: Bush or al-Qaeda?

The Council on Foreign Relations -- of all people! -- has published an extraordinary article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs (the periodical described by the Washington Post as "The Bible of Foreign Policy Thinking," and which TIME Magazine described as "The most influential periodical in print"). Here is the conclusion:

Although it remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests that fears of the omnipotent terrorist -- reminiscent of those inspired by images of the 20-foot-tall Japanese after Pearl Harbor or the 20-foot-tall Communists at various points in the Cold War (particularly after Sputnik) -- may have been overblown, the threat presented within the United States by al Qaeda greatly exaggerated. The massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11 may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely exists.
John Mueller, "Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?"

"They hate us for our freedoms" we have been told for the last five years. And in order to protect our freedoms, we have virtually abolished the Fourth Amendment, spent over $400 billion dollars, and seen more Americans killed and maimed in Iraq than we did in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on 9/11/01.

If we weigh the total costs of the Bush Administration -- to our wallets and to our Constitution -- with the risk of costs inflicted by al Qaeda, it seems undeniable that the Federal Government is a greater threat to our freedoms than "terrorism."

The number of Americans hurt in America by al Qaeda in the last five years (under near-martial law) is equal to the number of Americans hurt in America by al Qaeda in the five years prior to 9/11/01 (with far less government infringement of the Constitution): None.

What have we gained by the "War on Terrorism?" What have we lost?

We have gained a police state. We have lost a Constitution and the psychological freedom which exists in the absence of relentless government war-mongering propaganda and scare-tactics.

A similar analysis has to be done with environmental risks. It may cost an acceptable amount to remove 99% of pollutants, but the cost of removing the final one percent may require steps which are vastly more expensive than the removal of the first 99%. That cost may be unacceptable.

Prof. Mueller writes:

it is worth remembering that the total number of people killed since 9/11 by al Qaeda or al Qaeda­like operatives outside of Afghanistan and Iraq is not much higher than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States in a single year, and that the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 -- about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor. Even if there were a 9/11-scale attack every three months for the next five years, the likelihood that an individual American would number among the dead would be two hundredths of a percent (or one in 5,000).

What is the likelihood that your 4th Amendment freedoms have already been violated by the Federal Government? How much has al Qaeda taken out of your bank account, versus the amount taken by the Federal Government? How much productivity has America lost by time consumed by senseless and invasive Homeland Security regimentation?

America's biggest enemy, and the biggest threat to "the American way of life," is the Federal Government.

The Meaning of 9-11

9-11 proves that the government cannot be trusted to keep our liberties and freedoms secure.

If Osama bin Laden (who, we are told, hates America because of our freedoms -- and our Western decadence) were to take over America, we would undoubtedly lose our freedom to take colognes, mouthwashes, and shampoos -- all designed to increase our Western decadence -- onto planes. Thanks to the government, this freedom has been . . . .

OK then, if Osama were to take over America, we wouldn't be able to hop on a plane and attend a business meeting in the next state, because we would have to pray to Mecca for an hour before leaving. But thanks to the government, we can quickly travel anywhere we . . . .

There are about 700 million "passenger enplanements" each year in America. If Homeland Security causes each one a one-hour delay on each flight, and each one produces/earns $18 an hour, the cost to our economy is $12.6 billion. That cost does not include the cost of creating that cost (TSA budget = $5 billion). TSA has been criticized for

Widespread theft by its employees of airline passenger possessions [1] [2] [3] [4]

Lavish spending by TSA officials on events unrelated to airport security [5]

Dictatorial bullying and unnecessary delaying of passengers [6]

Is the "cure" worse than the disease?

And did our doctors have a vested interest in creating threats of disease in order to increase the number of paying patients? A third of all Americans believe that the government could have prevented 9-11 if it wanted to. Believe that an airplane hit the Pentagon if you want, but don't believe that the government was surprised.

If you had hired exterminators to kill the termites, and shortly thereafter armies of termites kidnapped your children, would you re-hire those exterminators? Were dozens of government "security" officials fired after 9-11? Who has been held accountable for the failure of 9-11 and thereafter?

If Congress knew on Sept. 12, 2001 what it knows today, and had decided to take no action whatsoever -- no PATRIOT Act, no war authorization, no increase in airport security, and no effort to find Osama -- if we had not learned what the Bush Administration says are the "lessons of 9-11" -- would we have fewer freedoms today, or more freedoms? Would we be more safe, or less safe? Would there be less terrorist recruiting around the world, or more?

It seems to me that in every way our lives would be better if the government had taken no action after 9-11 to make our lives "better" and "safer."

The people of America are hard-working, and their products are coveted in every nation. The people of America are generous, and their charity is appreciated by hundreds of millions of the world's poor. But the government of the United States is a global bully, resented and feared around the world, and is creating a rich, fertile, organic potting soil for international terrorism.

Back when America was a Christian nation, we sent missionaries to every nation on earth. Today, under the religion of Secular Humanism, the secular American Empire sends armed centurions.

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said legislators should vote against any proposed legislation if

the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.

Congress has approved legislation promoting global military hegemony and a police-state at home. This is a radically anti-Christian agenda. God will reward this agenda with more 9-11's.

The Meaning of 9-11

9-11 proves that the government cannot be trusted to keep our liberties and freedoms secure.

If Osama bin Laden (who, we are told, hates America because of our freedoms -- and our Western decadence) were to take over America, we would undoubtedly lose our freedom to take colognes, mouthwashes, and shampoos -- all designed to increase our Western decadence -- onto planes. Thanks to the government, this freedom has been . . . .

OK then, if Osama were to take over America, we wouldn't be able to hop on a plane and attend a business meeting in the next state, because we would have to pray to Mecca for an hour before leaving. But thanks to the government, we can quickly travel anywhere we . . . .

There are about 700 million "passenger enplanements" each year in America. If Homeland Security causes each one a one-hour delay on each flight, and each one produces/earns $18 an hour, the cost to our economy is $12.6 billion. That cost does not include the cost of creating that cost (TSA budget = $5 billion). TSA has been criticized for

Widespread theft by its employees of airline passenger possessions [1] [2] [3] [4]

Lavish spending by TSA officials on events unrelated to airport security [5]

Dictatorial bullying and unnecessary delaying of passengers [6]

Is the "cure" worse than the disease?

And did our doctors have a vested interest in creating threats of disease in order to increase the number of paying patients? A third of all Americans believe that the government could have prevented 9-11 if it wanted to. Believe that an airplane hit the Pentagon if you want, but don't believe that the government was surprised.

If you had hired exterminators to kill the termites, and shortly thereafter armies of termites kidnapped your children, would you re-hire those exterminators? Were dozens of government "security" officials fired after 9-11? Who has been held accountable for the failure of 9-11 and thereafter?

If Congress knew on Sept. 12, 2001 what it knows today, and had decided to take no action whatsoever -- no PATRIOT Act, no war authorization, no increase in airport security, and no effort to find Osama -- if we had not learned what the Bush Administration says are the "lessons of 9-11" -- would we have fewer freedoms today, or more freedoms? Would we be more safe, or less safe? Would there be less terrorist recruiting around the world, or more?

It seems to me that in every way our lives would be better if the government had taken no action after 9-11 to make our lives "better" and "safer."

The people of America are hard-working, and their products are coveted in every nation. The people of America are generous, and their charity is appreciated by hundreds of millions of the world's poor. But the government of the United States is a global bully, resented and feared around the world, and is creating a rich, fertile, organic potting soil for international terrorism.

Back when America was a Christian nation, we sent missionaries to every nation on earth. Today, under the religion of Secular Humanism, the secular American Empire sends armed centurions.

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said legislators should vote against any proposed legislation if

the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.

Congress has approved legislation promoting global military hegemony and a police-state at home. This is a radically anti-Christian agenda. God will reward this agenda with more 9-11's.

CAGW vs. WHTI

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), joined by representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union and The Cato Institute, yesterday released its report, "Border Security: PASS Card Fails on Cost, Privacy." (pdf)

The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, slated to go in effect in 2008, requires U.S. citizens and all travelers to show a passport or other document approved by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in order to enter the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (spp.gov) is supposed to secure the borders of North America and make it easier for citizens of the "North American Community" to travel within North America. But it turns out the real purpose is to make it easier for the government to monitor and control us, even as it in fact makes it more burdensome, not easier, to travel within North America. The CAGW Press Release says:

The PASS Card, or People Access Security Service, may be embedded with an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip that could be read from 30 to 50 feet away.

CAGW’s report questions whether the cost to travel, commerce, and taxpayers outweighs any benefit of the new PASS card. The federal government’s cost estimates have been notoriously low in similar projects. For example, the estimated cost of the REAL ID Act was $100 million, but current estimates are that REAL ID could eclipse $17.3 billion.

(But when has a government estimate not understated costs by at least 1,000%?)

"Your papers, please."

Freeman's Journal Candidate Survey

On Sat, September 2, 2006 1:27 pm, Greg Rothenberger said:

> Dear Mr. Craig,
>
> I'm the publisher of a website based in southern Indiana called
> Freeman's Journal. Currently, I'm focusing on independent and
> third-party campaigns for US Senate and Congress. I was hoping you might
> take some time to answer a few questions, and would agree to having
> those answers published on Freeman's Journal.
>
> 1. Why are you running for Congress?

I would only vote for a candidate that America's Founding Fathers would vote for. There is no such candidate running, so I had to run. This gives people like me someone to vote for.

So why would America's Founding Fathers vote for Kevin Craig and not the Republican or Democrat candidates? Top three reasons:

Abolishing the USA
Most Americans have never thought about what America's Founding Fathers would think about today's government. If they were to travel through time from 1776 to 2006 and see the government they created, the Founders would immediately begin overthrowing it. In no meaningful way can the federal government be said to bear any resemblance to the Constitution they signed. The Declaration of Independence says it is our "duty" to abolish any government that is as destructive of God-given rights as the government under King George III was. The British government was a benevolent libertarian Christian government compared to the Bush-Clinton regime, which is hostile, tyrannical and atheistic.

Most Americans are also unaware that the Bush-Clinton regime is in fact working to abolish the government created by the Constitution, merging the U.S. and Mexico into a new government which might be called the "North American Union" or "The United States of North America." I have described this incredible "paranoid conspiracy theory" here:

http://www.STOPtheSPP.us

It is not a theory, it is an on-going government program that even has its own
website: www.spp.gov

EDUCATION
When the Bible and voluntary prayer were taken out of local schools by the federal government in the early 1960's, one concurring Justice admitted that the Framers of the Constitution believed that teaching religion and Christian morality was the most important function of public schools. Most parents today agree with America's Founding Fathers. Kevin Craig passionately stands for parental choice and "the separation of school and state."

http://education.KevinCraig.us

Government schools train people to become slaves of the government.

WAR on TERRORISM

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."
— Washington, Farewell Address (1796) [Washington's emphasis]

I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
— Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (1801)

The U.S. federal government's entangling alliance with the Soviet Union, including economic and technical aid, enabled the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan. The federal government's entangling alliance with the Afghan "Freedom Fighters" enabled Al-queda to invade the U.S. The federal government's entangling alliance with the Shah of Iran gave rise to the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the taking of U.S. hostages, and justified U.S. foreign aid for Saddam Hussein when he was at war with Iran.

In short, the U.S. government created "terrorism." Most Americans are unaware of this shocking history.

And now the federal government wants to destroy our liberties to fight the enemy the federal government itself created.

Not a single person who signed the Constitution would stand for this.

>
> 2. Why are you running as a Libertarian rather than as a Democrat or a
> Republican?

The Republican incumbent will have about $2 million in his campaign war-chest for the 2006 campaign, and is the third most-powerful man in Congress. If I ran as a Republican, I would not make it past the primary to be running in the general election.

Republicans SAY they are for smaller government (in some areas), but Democrats don't even CLAIM to be for smaller government. Both parties believe the State is the Messiah, the bringer of Salvation at home and abroad. Both parties inculcate blind obedience to the state, and party members tend to believe all propaganda emanating from the Ministry of Truth.

"We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent
state and defend the rights of the individual."
-- "Statement of Principles," Libertarian Party National Platform
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#sop

"I was just following orders."
"I need to feed my family."
These are the slogans of members of the cult of statism, who are willing to take up arms against their neighbors if ordered to by the government.

"I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving
political or social goals."

To become a member of the Libertarian party, one must sign this pledge. The Libertarian party is the only party of principle. This is why I'm a Libertarian.

>
> 3. What do you feel are the most important issues facing the United
> States today?

See above:
SPP
Education
"Woah on Terruh"
also:
Social Security -- fraudulent and unethical program, racking up trillions in debt; should be abolished/privatized.

More issues here, many of which are equally crucial, because each one logically implies many others:

http://issues.KevinCraig.us

>
> 4. Is there anything you would like to add that you believe people
> should know about you?

I am a Christian Anarchist.

I passed the California Bar Exam but was denied a license to practice law because my allegiance to God is greater than my allegiance to the State:

http://i.am/not-a-lawyer

Most people vote for bumper sticker slogans and political parties.
The only people who will vote for Kevin Craig are those who are willing to learn and think about the issues.
I am committed to continue learning about the issues, and appreciate feedback on my website, KevinCraig.US, or my blog, blog.KevinCraig.US

>
> Thank you for taking the time to respond to these questions. I look
> forward to hearing from you, and placing your responses in Freeman's
> Journal.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Greg Rothenberger
> New Albany, Indiana (USA)
> http://freemansjournal.net
>
>
>

Thank you, Greg.


Kevin Craig
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives, MO-7th
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
www.KevinCraig.US
blog.KevinCraig.US
www.STOPtheSPP.US

SPP = European Union

Let's examine some more deception found at the government's SPP website:

SPP Myths vs Facts

Myth: The SPP ["Security and Prosperity Partnership"] is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.
Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

There are two possibilities here. First, some high school intern was given the assignment of writing this. The intern knew nothing about the European Union being a model for "regional integration" of the Western Hemisphere, and so could say with all honesty, "I don't know anything about creating a North American Union modeled after the European Union."

The other possibility is a little more frightening: someone who knows the truth is lying.

The SPP represents the abolition of the United States and the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. and Mexico will be merged together into a new system of government, having legislative, executive, and judicial powers that will overrule those of the present U.S. Constitution. After the U.S., Mexico, and Canada are integrated, the nations of Central America and South America will be added, until the Western Hemisphere takes the shape of the European Union.

To doubt these claims is evidence of a love of America: "Our leaders would never do that!" But it is also evidence of an ignorance of the facts. Here are the facts:

The SPP was agreed upon by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and then-Prime Minister Paul Martin. Here's how President Fox described the purpose of his "partnership" with the U.S. and Canada:

Eventually our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes [such as] the future prosperity of North America, and the movement of capital, goods, services, and persons.
Mexican President Vicente Fox in a candid address before the "Club XXI" at the Hotel Eurobuilding in Madrid, Spain, May 16, 2002

Did President Fox speak out of turn? Did Bush gasp in horror when he heard the obvious mis-statement of Fox? Not at all.

Well-known supporters of the SPP, such as the Wall St. Journal, have also drawn the parallels between the SPP and the EU:

---

Reformist Mexican President Vicente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper....
Robert L. Bartley, July 2, 2002 Wall St. Journal editorial:
"Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?"

---

The SPP has been called "NAFTA on steroids." Concerning NAFTA, Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called the vote on NAFTA the single most important decision that Congress would make during Mr. Clinton's first term. Indeed, Kissinger acknowledged in the Los Angeles Times that NAFTA "will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere." NAFTA "is not a conventional trade agreement," he noted, "but the architecture of a new international system."

Soon after entering into the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" with Mexico, President Bush met with members of the European Union, and made it clear that the goals of the SPP were shared with the EU, and that the long-term goal is integration -- not just of North America, and the rest of the the Western Hemisphere, but ultimately integration of the EU and the "Free Trade Area of the Americas":

During the conversation our talks reminded me about the importance of our partnership and the fact that this partnership is based on common values and shared aspirations; a partnership that really has helped build a Europe that is whole, free and at peace. The United States continues to support a strong European Union as a partner in spreading freedom and democracy and security and prosperity throughout the world. My message to these leaders and these friends was that we want Europe strong so we can work together to achieve important objectives and important goals.

The goal is, of course, the "New World Order" which Dubya's father spoke about so frequently. As the elder Bush put it,

Half a millennium ago, Portugal and Spain helped chart a course towards a new world. Five hundred years later, European unity guides the way towards a new world order. Those early pioneers believed their mission was to probe the secrets of the world. Now we must explore the frontiers of common interest and common ground. The next horizon: a strengthened partnership between the United States and the European Community.
Remarks at the Departure Ceremony for European Community
Leaders Anibal Cavaco Silva and Jacques Delors, April 22nd, 1992

More facts about the EU can be found at the STOPtheFTAA.org website.

Have you told your Congressman that you oppose the abolition of the US and its merger with Mexico? Click the link at the top of this page: www.STOPtheSPP.US