Seth-- GREAT research here and...many of us have heard little bits here and there BUT this is starting to blow it all out.

We need to get the media to cover this -I wonder if they will? I don't mind an actual security pact-- a group of allies who stick together in good times and in bad times. BUT can we call the Mexicans allies? I think not.

Raven --

If this is happening at the rate it is, and the three governments are managing to keep this tight of a media lid on it, I believe we're in serious trouble.

As I see it, the only country that benefits is Mexico -- our tax money would necessarily be committed in massive amounts to "fix" their mismanaged country, and I mean continuously as they continued to screw thing up.

The country that loses the most is ours, not only in terms of money -- can you imagine the tax hikes we'll face, supporting Mexican welfare? We'll end up paying the unreasonably high rates they pay in Europe, and eventually with a smaller percentage of working people paying for a larger percentage of non-workers.

I've heard bits and pieces about it too, Seth, but you've put together the most comprehensive article on it I've seen yet. Kudos! Not that I needed anything else to worry about, mind you!

I do not understand Bush going along with this??? I'm also surprised that Fox News hasn't covered it, at least not as far as I can tell. Possibly they aren't covering it because it may result in hurting the GOP come November, but that's exactly why the rest of the MSM would cover it!

I'm in Texas, and I've already seen the beginning of the work being done on this. (shudder)

What really surprises me is that since Bush is for it, why aren't the Dems against it? I know they love the illegal immigrants, but really, anything Bush is for they are automatically against, even if they are secretly for it too! It's a wonder they haven't blasted Bush on this! I'm glad they haven't, because Dems in power is an even worse nightmare than this plan is.

I'm not worried about Canada, especially since they have a conservative PM now. But I still would like to hang on to our original borders. One thing for sure, I don't want any part of Mexico!

America is gone. It doesn't exist. We are now the AU (American Union).

Gayle --

It looks like Bush was an initiator of this, rather than going along with it.

As far as media coverage goes, except for a WSJ reporter who was privvy to one meeting, it looks like the media's been shut out of this altogether, just as Congress has.

As long as the people putting this together continue to keep an effective lid on it, as they're doing, we won't hear a whole lot about it... As far as the Democrats go, in their present state, even with all their anti-Bush rhetoric, the concept of a NAU would suit them just fine -- what better, faster way to usher in a blatant socialist environment than to dilute the Constitution with laws passed with Mexico and Canada sitting in the new Senate?

And yes, Mexico is the last place we need to go for lawmakers.

Ogre --

We ain't seen nothing yet!

Thank you Seth; you're right, it does look as though Bush is the initiator of this, but I do not understand it. I am completely confused as to why he would want to do such a thing. It simply doesn't make any sense! :(

I know several conservatives who are concerned that GWB has served as a Trojan horse when it comes to our national sovereignty.

Seth,
You should contact Sixth Column about this. The team over there has been following this information since this past summer.

Gayle --

It appears that he is, or has become, one of those who believe in having a world government -- I should have thought that to be more in line with today's Democrats' thinking by the way they want to run everything by the UN or their justices prefer to consult European law rather than the U.S. Constitution in forming decisions.

I'm beginning to wonder if there's not a bipartisan angle here that's being kept secret.

AOW --

It appears they may be right. It is unconceivable that any American President could contemplate something like this, thus it comes as a shock -- our country, our Constitution and the rights we enjoy here are unique in the world and what this means is the end of 230 years of this great and unique political enterprise engendered not by outside enemies, but by enemies within.

Thanks for the tip, I will email Sixth Column today.

Seth,
This issue is most distressing. As to the 'why',
one wonders if it is an extension of NAFTA, economically driven by special interests. Any
thoughts of the reasons behind such an action?
I see no benefits, particularly in security and
believe it would open our already porous borders!

BB --

There have long been those who believe in creating a world government, most of them people who are either wealthy enough and/or politically embedded to the extent that they will always exist above the level of the common man. This goes beyond any specific political dogma, it is purely marketplace oriented.

The first step in creating such a body would be establishing regional bodies, getting local governments under the umbrellas of continental unions, the next step would be combining them under one unified governing body, which would then relegate the element unions to the equivalent of individual states, countries to parishes.

This SPP deal could well be that first step in our neck of the woods.

I long ago stopped trusting politicians of either party, which is why I let their track records speak for them and take what they say with a grain of salt. If Bush is behind this tri-lateral deal, then shame on him -- he is committing treason by engaging in activities that undermine the Constitution and jeopardize the sovereignty of the United States.

If I am misreading this entire situation, which I would like to believe I am, then I'll be profoundly relieved.

Returning to the SPP -- I agree that it will not benefit us in terms of security. Mexico is a 3rd World country. It is run like a 3rd World country. Its economy and the integrity of its national security and law enforcement aparat are those of a 3rd World country. Its shores and borders are as porous as collanders. Widening our security perimeters to include Mexico would prove a disaster in every sense of the word.

This SPP -- more accurately, North American Union, is in anything but our best interests.

My first reaction was that these allegations were in the same category of believability as warnings about the Trilateral Commission or Christian Reconstructionists. However, I also believe in following the money, and since there are definitely commercial interests who stand to benefit from a North American regional state, I think this does need to be monitored, especially since the U.S. Congress has already set a precedent for allowing the U.S. Constitution to be subordinate to supranational entities.

What I found quite intriguing was that this state was to be a North American state which is planning the establishment of a common security border perimeter around North America by 2010. Since there would be no northern border to be sealed, this would establish Mexico's southern border as the principal security line.

The irony is intense: Mexico, which protests any efforts by the U.S. to control its border with Mexico, is promoting strict control over its southern border. Of course, this is no surprise since Mexico has long discriminated against immigrants into its country and brutalizes immigrants from the south with such intensity that dwarfs anything the U.S. has done. (A google search will find you multiple stories.)

Civil Truth --

When I first ran across rumblings of this, I also discounted them. I mean, c'mon, why would Bush or any other patriot want to try something like that, right? Our total sovereignty and self rule are inherent to the very principles that make America the greatest country in the world.

But then I began reading other accounts of the activities of the SPP folks, about the meetings that excluded the media and about the fact that none of our politicians had made any reference to the issue. A couple of months ago, I started thinking, "what if...?"

Like you, I believe in following the money, and I began thinking about how appealing such circumstances would be to the richest of the rich who could thrive on a multinational marketplace with uniform business, import-export and banking laws. So I began paying attention.

A couple of weeks back, I don't recall exactly where, I read an account by a Canadian journalist of the conference on his turf that was held without the media permitted to attend, wherein he cited former high ranking Bush Sr. staffers and other govt officials as having attended. Then there were reports of W, Fox and the former Canadian PM having signed an agreement without consulting their respective congresses/parliaments.

The SPP website denies this, but as I said in my post....

When I followed the second link you included in a comment on that other thread, I spotted the Welsh Report link, skimmed it and decided that this was the time to investigate the issue more thoroughly.

There is simply too much out there from too many sources to disregard it.

I believe it's very real and will, indeed, be monitoring it.

As far as Mexico goes, the very idea of placing that country between us and our outer security perimeter is downright chilling.

Seth,

Truly a great post. This is such an important issue; it isn't separate from, but rather, part of, the same problem we face with Islam.

The reason is (at the most superficial level - it really goes a lot deeper) that Islam, including al-qaeda and Hezbollah, have strong relationships with many Latin American organizations, especially in the "Tri-Border Region" (Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina). Their closest allies are the drug cartels who run the gangs, including here in the US.

Probably by this time, most of us have heard on Fox about the corruption problem among our own border guards (oh, well, since there is no effective border, why not?). Even a senior FBI has been hauled into court on major bribery charges.

More and more, the area between Mexico and the U.S. is becoming a No-Man's Land rather than a border, and is nothing more than a conduit through which, for a price, thousands of "OTMs" (Other Than Mexicans), including hundreds of Middle Easterners, have been smuggled into the United States.

Not long after 9/11, a forensic economist who makes his living by chasing down "paper trails" in white collar financial crimes, followed paper trails that led from the now very well known UN "oil-for-food" scandal, wherein UN trucks carried food and medicine into Iraq, and when emptied, were reloaded with WMDs which were then transported to Syria. Some of these were re-loaded onto ships bound for Canada, where they received documents allowing them to be transported, without any inspections or restrictions, anywhere. Ultimately, many of these trucks with various components of WMDs came across the border with Canada, and were dispersed and hidden throughout the United States.

Obviously, it occurs to many of us that the terrorists are taking similar advantage of the border situation with Mexico; after all, they may be evil, but they aren't stupid.

Even further problems are that many of the Latin American gangs are sending members to join up with our military, where they receive the same training as all our other military members. They go to Iraq etc. along with everyone else, where they gain urban combat experience - ain't THAT a hoot - and then return here to re-up with their old gangs and train them. They also steal equipment from the military; for example, several times in the last couple of years, an Army base a few miles south of where I live has gone into lockdown because of such thefts. The last time, about 8 months ago, was for the theft of night-vision goggles.

This whole border thing is desparate. The "Project World-Wide Caliphate" of Islam is horrendous, but at least it is somewhat longer range because it is so recognizable, and to some degree, it is being opposed.

The border aspect of the problem is largely unrecognized and unopposed, and so represents a more immediate danger.

We MUST get on the stick here. We are in the "squeeze-play" of our lives here.

Once the North American Union (can you imagine saying "I pledge alliegiance to the flag of the North American Union"?) is in place, the floodgates will be completely open, and the Enlightenment principles of rights and freedom embodied in our Constitution will be unrecognizably diluted, and eventually destroyed, as will our sovereignty. Many of us already recognize that they are being severely and rapidly eroded.

It won't stop with the European Union (the first to be implemented) and the North American Union; other blocs will be formed - the "Asian Union," the "African Union," etc., and the ultimate goal of these globalists is to form the "World Federation of States."

This will eliminate any progress in thinking, including the kind of thinking that led us out of the Dark Age, into the Renaissance, and from there to the Enlightenment, and to the Constitution of the United States.

We will be trapped in a new Dark Age that may last far longer than the old one.

Down with the "World Federation of States!"

Cubed --

Welcome.

I have been saying for some time, just based upon the political direction and consequent significant changes our country has experienced since I was a teenager, that I am supremely glad I've passed the half century mark, because I don't think I want to see what people only just turning 21 will be witnessing after I'm gone.

However, I never imagined that I would live to see the day officials of our own government would work to so completely obliterate this most successful of all political enterprises. America works, and has from the beginning, better than any country in history.

That they would even consider diluting our country thus by sharing its governance with other governments is pure treason, yet it is in the works.

The trouble that will enter the equation because of our wide open borders will not be pleasant, especially given some of that which you cite above, and the government's response will include the first of several retractions of our freedoms.

That will be the beginning of the end.