ShareThis Page

Working to kill America

| Friday, Sept. 1, 2006

For the morbidly curious, please go online -- -- to see the end of America.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, "a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing," was launched March 2005 -- in Texas.

The premise of the near-treason is that the SPP hopes to unite this republic, Mexico and Canada in a near-suicide pact; that the security and prosperity of the gang of three are mutually dependent and complementary; and that the SPP supposedly will reflect the "shared belief" in freedom, economic opportunity and strong democratic values and institutions.

And yet Mexico is part of this.

The hope is that any agreement will help "consolidate" the SPP action into a North American framework confronting "security and economic challenges, and promote the full potential of our people, addressing disparities and increasing opportunities for all."

At one of the SPP meetings this year, the representatives of the three countries included Sergio Garcia de Alba, Carlos Gutierrez and Maxime Bernier. For anyone unfamiliar with the person representing America, who happens to be the U.S. secretary of Commerce, here's a hint. Mr. Gutierrez was born in a Spanish-speaking country and lived there for seven years before his family emigrated from Cuba to America. He became the youngest CEO in the history of the Kellogg Co.

There is at least one reference to the U.S. Constitution, in the "Myths vs. Facts" section. The "myth" is that the SPP is illegal and violates the U.S. Constitution. The "fact," according to the SPP, is that the SPP scheme "in no way violates the Constitution."

It violates it in darn most every way. Where in that once-relevant document do the American citizens authorize Mexico and Canada to confront American security and economic challenges• Since when are those issues -- or any other ones affecting America -- the business of any country but ours?

"Addressing disparities"• Where is the authorization for that in the Constitution• Especially when the disparity includes foreign governments• Since Americans are at the top of the "disparities" food chain, what exactly is the problem?

If Mexico and Canada are concerned about the disparities between Americans and their citizens, whose problem is that?

That might explain what was in the "Prosperity" section, subtitled "Temporary Work Entry," of a 2005 SPP report.

"The three countries have forwarded a trilateral document setting out each country's domestic procedures to modify NAFTA's temporary entry appendix on professionals to the NAFTA Free Trade Commission for approval.

"This will clarify procedures in each country, thereby providing a mechanism for more North American professionals to be given temporary entry."

How many American "professionals" are clamoring for temporary entry to Mexico• To Canada• The defenseless borders policy of President George W. Bush is giving virtually unlimited access to Mexican professionals and every other Mexican with enough money to hire a "coyote" to guide him into the promised land, whether the entry be temporary or, for 99.9999 percent of the illegals, permanent.

Why would one need a crystal ball since America's fate is spelled out and sealed by the Security and Prosperity Partnership•

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.