It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 09:44 AM
In the past little while, if you've been watching Lou Dobbs on CNN, then you are more than likely aware of the SPP.
Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America

The SPP provides the framework to ensure that North America is the safest and best place to live and do business. It includes ambitious security and prosperity programs to keep our borders closed to terrorism yet open to trade.

The SPP builds upon, but is separate from, our long-standing trade and economic relationships. It energizes other aspects of our cooperative relations, such as the protection of our environment, our food supply, and our public health.

It is my understanding that this initiative, brought about by the turmoil of 9/11, is going to have a major impact on all three countries.

North American Emergency Management. The commitments made in the SPP recognize that a disaster - whether natural or man-made - in one North American country can have consequences across national borders, and may demand a common approach to all aspects of emergency management. Recent experience with hurricanes, ice storms, industrial accidents and the like demonstrate our interdependencies, as well as the need for coordination and mutual assistance in protecting and safekeeping our populations. Moving forward we will:

Develop a common approach to critical infrastructure protection, and response to cross border terrorist incidents and natural disasters, across a number of different sectors including, but not limited to, transportation, energy, and telecommunications.
Develop and implement joint plans for cooperation for incident response, as well as conduct coordinated training and exercises in emergency response

Lou Dobbs feels that this way forward is the beginning of the end for the three seperate countries and the means by which all will be absorbed into one government/one country.

Personally, I see a lot of good things come out of this, but I'm also wary of the warnings good old Lou is presenting.

What do you think? Are we destined to become the United Countries of America?

[edit on 2-10-2006 by masqua]

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:21 AM
Here is some more on the SPP for you, just more sneaky stuff if you ask me. My guess is that Fox will be running this soon.

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:03 AM
At first-blush... I have some concerns. Since NAFTA who can you trust, you know? Sounds like a great way to manage commodities... like fear and the perception of sovereignty, worker-movement... culture.

Is it needed? In the minds of some. Would I feel more secure and properous? Likely not. I'll give the notion fair-hearing but it smacks of NWO, Bilderbergers and psuedo-socialism sold as capitalism and especially corporate influence-peddling welfare-bums who want a larger playing field of marques. Seems about greed and control more than any perceived tangible social-benefit.

How long till Lou's next book? Who stands to gain? Who will lose? Why now? What do they really "want"?

I'll give this some time and do a liitle "under-rock-looking" and report back if I find anything untoward... this does seem a serious play to shift public opinion and will be interesting to see who hops on the gravy train.

Victor K.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by V Kaminski]

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:47 PM
From the GOP itself, it is clear that the concept of the SPP is encompassing existing legislation, becoming a unified effort to create a 'level playing field' from the southern border of Mexico to the Arctic.

Relationship to Other Initiatives

The SPP will complement, rather than replace, existing bilateral and trilateral fora and working groups that are performing well. It establishes leader-level priorities for ongoing and new trilateral and bilateral initiatives, giving existing efforts additional momentum, and creating new programs and initiatives where necessary and appropriate.

The SPP will enhance and strengthen ongoing security efforts, such as the Smart Border Accord, the Border Partnership Action Plan, and the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) Initiative.

The SPP builds upon, but is separate from, long-standing trade and economic relationships, and it energizes other aspects of our cooperative relations, such as the protection of our environment, food supply, and public health. The issues of immigration and trade disputes will be dealt with outside the SPP thru existing treaties and congressional action.

And it is a response to 9/11

New acronyms abound. To protect borders, the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) launched the CSI (Container Security Initiative) to ensure that objects are unobjectionable, and US-VISIT (Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology) to ensure that people are as well. The U.S., Mexico and Canada will cooperate on issues of shared concern through the recently formed SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

I've read, in certain sites of a more biased nature, that the SPP was never discussed by congress. If that is the case and no public debate has taken place prior to implementation, what restraints are there? It seems to me to be a new overall 'control' established to encompass all other agreements already in place, such as the Free Trade Agreements.

But, the dissenting voices are beginning to be heard;

Presidential candidate George W. Bush stated in August 2000 in a speech on Latin America in Miami Florida:

"...By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America."

In March 2005, President George W. Bush and the leaders of Mexico and Canada announced the establishment of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America." This represents the official public beginning of an ongoing series of agreements and implementations aimed at combining the economies, populations and cultures of the nations of North America into a borderless “North American Free Trade Zone”.

As a Canadian I am concerned of the ramifications. It sounds good initially...good for security and business, but what are the three countries about to give up in return?

What will the impact be on wages in America and Canada as more and more companies take advantage of cheap Mexican labour? What will be the impact on the borders which seperate the 3 countries?

The less we know, the more questions come up. The best one I can think of is this;

Why is it that such an important bit of legislation, promoted by the 3 governments involved, became a reality without much fanfare at all?

It seemed to grow 'under the radar' since March '06.

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:50 PM
Looks like things are heating up on this issue, going by this worldnetdaily article. At least Corsi is answering the question of why it seems to not be newsworthy. Looks like they don't want it to be news, according to him.

Now that Congress is preparing to take up the issues of the North American Union and NAFTA superhighways, we are moving out of the realm where critics can attempt to disparage the discussion as 'Internet conspiracy theory,'" explained Jerome Corsi, author and WND columnist who has written extensively on the Security and Prosperity Partnership – the semisecret plan many suspect is behind the efforts to create a European Union-style North American confederation and link Mexico and Canada with more transcontinental highways and rail lines. "This bill represents a good first step."

Corsi explained to WND that the Bush administration is trying to create the North American Union incrementally, under the radar scope of public attention.

"Even today," said Corsi, has a 'Myths vs. Facts' section that denies the administration is changing laws or working to create a new regional government. Unfortunately, the many references on to Cabinet-level working groups creating new trilateral memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements makes these denials sound hollow."

bolding mine

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:54 PM

Originally posted by factfinder38
Here is some more on the SPP for you, just more sneaky stuff if you ask me. My guess is that Fox will be running this soon.

Thanks, factfinder. There's some food for thought in your link. I am beginning to really not like the way things are unfolding.

Just as you say...very sneaky stuff.
President George W. Bush, President Vicente Fox of Mexico, and former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin agreed in March 2005 to create this union by executive regulations and agreements rather than by treaty to bypass Congress. Twenty working groups were formed and are well on their way to establishing a super-government for North America that will not be bound by our Constitution. The web site for this new bureaucracy—located at—provides a look at their plans and accomplishments thus far. The plan is to have this arrangement implemented by 2010.

Behind its innocuous title, the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” the United States will surrender its Constitution. According to Jerome R. Corsi, an author and political commentator, our nation-state prerogatives would be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body and our dollar would become the “Amero.”

bolding mine

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:52 PM
Anyone get the feeling that this is a "deal-done"? Something this encompassing just doesn't develop in short-order... this must have "been on the stove" for quite a while.

I wonder who "pulled the trigger"? I'm doin' a bit of lookin' and I see this notion goes back to at least the Reagan-era. Perhaps before... lemme look at my AEI and Brookings, Simon Fraser, Calgary School stuff, etc... talk about transformational. If I'm not mistaken there are papers from both schools of thought that advance the notion of such a concept. Full spectrum...

Victor K.


EDIT: SPP - Supra-national Power Play

[edit on 2-10-2006 by V Kaminski]


posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:12 PM

Originally posted by V Kaminski
Anyone get the feeling that this is a "deal-done"? Something this encompassing just doesn't develop in short-order... this must have "been on the stove" for quite a while.

You're getting that feeling because it is a done deal. It's already been signed by our current President Bush, the former President of Mexico Vicente Fox and Canada's PM. As Alex Jones says, we are in the NAU. Alex Jones has been talking about this for ages. Lou Dobbs has picked this up because of his fight against our current government's support of an open border with Mexico.

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:17 PM
I've been roaming the net as well, V...there seems to be only 2 main players in the field set against this huge experiment. Those two are Worldnetdaily and Alex Jones.

No-one else is paying the least bit of attention.

Googling 'security and properity partnership of north america' gains thousands of links in Canada alone, but 99% only laud the idea within government websites. Only a small number of blogs seem to be pointing out any cautious alarms.

It's as if this is being accomplished with as little fanfare as possible. Kind of amazing, considering the importance of such a move.

Corsi is the most vocal dissent I've read yet. Where is everybody on this?

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 09:48 PM
I just had a dreadful thought... how much opposition would there be to any of this if there were another 911 or worse attack on continental North America that affected ALL three nations. How about 2 of the 3? Yikes!

I haven't done much diggin' yet but I do recall from Rummies Full-Spectrum Warfare doctrine and "the world according to Donnie" something along these lines... kinda lookin' beyond "fortress North America" as if it were "already a done-deal". No wonder they didn't push harder on BMD... it was already built in.

I've sent a couple email to some Canadian newsies... see what happens. We will be having an election up here and I'd bet even money that the two mainstream parties may be along for the ride as conductors. I sincerely hope not.

Funny how there's a big stink about road infrastucture up here, right now, at this time, we've got the two Laval bridge collapses (seven years apart) in the news and half of Montreal can't get in to work and the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto as a major mayoral race issue.

I do recall some meeting of the Tri-lateral Commission up in Muskoka when Mike Harris was Premier (mid-90's), 41 and Fox were there... hmmm.

Who is the body of SPP "Super-governance" gonna be comprised of? Whose "people"? Can I vote for them? Likely not.

I don't watch CNN anymore but it would be interesting to see who Lou has on board or rather who has Lou on board... as celebrity guest cognoscente in regard to this issue.

This is so NOT on the radar up here... yet.

Victor K.


EDIT: So I went lookin' - silly me. Keep coming up with folks related to the CFR
I did some preliminary sniffin' around and I came up with some stuff on the CFR search engine... that leads all over... into infrastucture, power (especially nuke), roads, security, rail, seaports of all political stripes seemingly. Considering the CFR's rep in some lore as being implicated in lots of stuff I thought this might add to the discussion... the list of names if one searches them leads to lots of... well you know. Steamy pile... all I did was key up masqua's title in the search engine. Maybe some folks might wanna try other 'alphabet" organizations...

Building A North American Community
Task force Urges Measures

John P. Manley Nortel bio Liberal, Chair of the Cabinet Committee on Public Security and Anti-Terrorism '03, CFR guy eh.

William F. Weld, Governor of Massachusetts on Establishing A Seaport Advisory Council CFR guy eh.

Anyway perhaps take a look and maybe look up some of the other characters involved. Is sovereignty toast? Seems these CFR people are everywhere and very influential... and wrapped up in this to some extent.

Victor K.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by V Kaminski]

top topics


log in