.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Sunday, October 09, 2005


It's called the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," and the plan will effectively erase the borders with Canada and Mexico.

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
Bill Daniels Activity Center, Baylor University
Waco, Texas
March 23, 2005

President George W. Bush walks with Mexico President Vicente Fox, left, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin upon their arrival Wednesday, March 23, 2005, at the Bill Daniels Activity Center at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. [White House photo by Eric Draper.]

Why aren't we hearing about this? Where's the outrage?

On March, 23, 2005, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin met at the Bush’s Crawford ranch and in Waco, Texas, to reaffirm their commitment to a "common security perimeter" encompassing the three nations. The plan is intended to open the borders, facilitating the free flow of trade commodities while lifting the restrictions on immigration that inhibit workers from enjoying gainful employment throughout North America. Called the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," the plan will effectively erase the borders with Canada and Mexico.

The agreement is going forward on the fast track and is scheduled to be implemented by 2010." More details.

According to a report in the World Peace Herald, "In Mexico, attention is fixed on different questions about the partnership -- which Mexican officials refer to as the Security, Prosperity and Quality of Life Partnership.

'Why has the initiative not included funding provisions for reducing the economic gap between Mexico and the United States and Canada?' asked a Mexican reporter of Chertoff and Gutierrez." (Emphasis mine -HH)

Is this agreement really in our best interests? The EU does have some rationality behind it. Many are small countries lacking resources, armies, etc. and see a union of sorts to their benefit economically and from a security standpoint. If only they could work it so that each country's sovereignty remains intact, there's some legitimate logic behind the idea.

In this kind of arrangement, for the U.S., what is our derived benefit? In large part, all three countries are pushing the idea of security, border control, etc. as a key component to the agreement ... certainly a selling point to the American people.

But are we just merely being held hostage by the other two countries - 'We will do nothing to help with border security unless you "sell your soul"?


1.Canadian Announcement:
Prime Minister of Canada: Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Established

2. White House Announcement:
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Prosperity Agenda

3. Mexico's Announcement:
Joint Statement by Bush, Fox, and Martin

4. U.S Department of Homeland Security
Press Releases
Fact Sheet: Security and Prosperity Partnership

5. Building a North American Community, the Selling of America
By Deanna Spingola

6.CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada
By Phyllis Schlafly

"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has just let the cat out of the bag about what is really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries. A 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the 'esand security community' with a common 'outer security perimeter.... [ie] wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada."

7. Beware the Secret Heart of the EU

"This consequence of past treaties, and now the discredited EU constitution, are clear. Strip away the thousands of words and the real purpose of the constitution is obvious. The EU would no longer be the servant of the member states. It would have become their master. Every previous treaty was a small step along that road.

Europe has a long history of failed attempts to unite it. Each has ended in disaster of one kind or another. Each has produced some form of political or military ruination – sometimes both."

(HeavyHanded wonders if this is the direction we want to take.)

8. Treasonous agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations
By Devvy Kidd


Post a Comment

<< Home