Target: SPP

By Erik Rush

"So how far do you think the globalist fools among the Americans will go in selling out their nation? ...Excellent."

— Hypothetical movie villain

This Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) thing has Tom Clancy written all over it (no pun intended). An emerging shadow government if ever there was one (perhaps even a shadow government within a shadow government), strategically it ought to be the next hard target for destruction by grass-roots organizations in America.

When I was in my twenties and still living in New York, my very small crew of Reagan Republican buddies and I would sit around on weekends, discuss political writings and talk politics (or prophesy, if subsequent outcomes regarding our observations were any indication of our insight).

One of the writers we came across in 1980 was Norman Podhoretz, who had just published a book entitled "The Present Danger: Do We Have the Will to Reverse the Decline of American Power?"

Podhoretz, who went on to become one of our most prolific, well-read and analytical conservative columnists and authors, Editor-At-Large of "Commentary" magazine, and a major political consultant, is often referred to as "the Godfather of the Neocon Movement" (As an aside: After much thought and prayerful consideration, I've come to the conclusion that people who use the word "neocon" in general conversation are akin to those who use the phrase "hate-speech": Far-Left morons).

"[Norman Podhoretz] has argued for a forthright approach toward Iran and Islamic extremism. Republicans increasingly measure their leaders by this yardstick: will they appease Islamic extremists or defend America from them? Rudy already scores well in this area; Podhoretz will buttress his credibility."

— "Rudy Giuliani's New Foreign Policy Team," By Ed Lasky, American Thinker, July 11, 2007

So Podhoretz, 77, the son of Jewish immigrants and a former Democrat, remains vital to this day; perhaps he reasons that he can do more good on a questionable team than doing nothing at all; nevertheless, I don't believe Giuliani can win the presidency should he get the Republican nomination because too many conservatives will refuse to vote as they did in 2006.

At any rate, with "The Present Danger," Podhoretz revealed to us green (as in "immature") conservatives the shocking fact that there was essentially no difference whatsoever between Democrat and Republican politicians in New York's political machine.

How could this be? we thought. We were Reaganites, Republicans, and he was a True Conservative of the Highest Order. He'd even grown up poor. Well, the difference between an Oklahoma Republican congressman and a New York Republican congressman these days might give you a hint at what Podhoretz was getting at — and perspective on the ethical cancer that metastasized, spreading across America's political spectrum.

Reagan was, as they say, one in a million. Like Lincoln. Like Churchill. A man with far, far more character, conviction and sincerity than anyone who worked for him. Perhaps we oughtn't be too hard on those presidents or others in high office who don't measure up to our expectations of leadership, accountability and sense of service. You either got it, or you don't.

Closed to the press, the first SPP North American Forum meeting was held in Alberta, Canada, from September 12-14, 2006. The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is ostensibly "a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing." (From website www.spp.gov)

Shrouded in secrecy, these meetings (the third to take place this week in Montebello, Quebec) have involved secret memos flying about, members of Congress from both parties pressuring President Bush to back out of the process, and everything from uninformed murmurings to hard evidence surfacing from people in a position to know about secret military aid to Mexico, a unilateral opening of the three nations' borders, and a planned "unification" of Canada, the United States and Mexico sooner than anyone might imagine such a thing taking place, and in a manner by which the American people would heartily disapprove.

The use of the word "trilateral" in the SPP statement raised a big red flag for me...

The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 by David Rockefeller, a prince among the globalist elites, and power brokers from Japan, Europe and the United States and Canada "to foster closer cooperation among these core democratic industrialized areas of the world with shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system. Originally established for three years, our work has been renewed for successive triennia (three-year periods), most recently for a triennium to be completed in 2009." (From website www.trilateral.org)

Even in our twenties, my friends and I believed cooperation with their agenda by any American to be abject treason. Membership to the Commission is by invitation only and includes such luminaries as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Paul Volcker, and Alan Greenspan. It's current North American Chairman? Thomas S. Foley, former Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives. I've followed the Trilateral Commission since the 1980's. Their membership has included "conservatives" those on the far Left would label fascists. Such things as the involvement of Reagan Secretary of State George P. Shultz with Bechtel, a massive international industrial development firm that was heavily invested in Saudi Arabia also puzzled and alarmed me — but that was 25 years ago.

What had me perplexed was our President's support of SPP. Like his support for the Senate Immigration Bill, it appeared that George Bush's resolve as an American President had all but melted down since the 2006 Republican congressional rout — never mind that his abandonment of conservatives and lack of leadership largely led to that occurrence.

Then it came back to me, what I and so many other conservatives already knew: Neither George W. Bush or his father, George H. W. Bush, are truly conservatives. In fact, the latter proved to be at least as much of a globalist years ago as his son is now evidencing. George W. Bush appears to be a selective social conservative due to his Christianity, but that's pretty much where it ends. His father's performance as president, his betrayal of basic constitutional tenets in the name of political appeasement (such as his assault weapons ban) and membership in The Trilateral Commission speak for themselves.

So this has been going on for a long while, my friends. Now you see why I suggested a shadow government within a shadow government. Like the character in the opening of this column, I can also imagine a villain in one of Clancy's books informing the hero or heroine that "The American ideal is dead, dear boy [or girl]. Globalism is inevitable. 'The people' have proven through their apathy that they are better fit to be... managed by those who are better suited to do so..."

Could this be where President Bush lives? He, like so many of "the few" who occupy the corridors of power tend to be almost hard-wired with a sense of manifest supremacy, regardless of party affiliation. One can acquire this philosophical modality through effort (as did Bill Clinton, for example), or through what the "high-born" used to call "breeding" (as in the case of President Bush). Like rockstars, they are the anointed; they live by self-will and more often than not, for themselves — because they can. Sound familiar?

It doesn't necessarily make them evil, but quite frequently can lead them to commit evil acts or serve evil purposes.

"We finally have good operating understanding of 'universal' health care: somewhere in the universe there may be a place for you to get treatment."

— "Canada's 'universal' health care," Thomas Lifson, American Thinker, August 17, 2007

If we have a hard enough time getting accurate news coverage in our own country, it stands to reason that obtaining knowledge of events and trends in other nations should be even more challenging. So it might surprise the reader that the American people have an ally in the Canadian people, despite what their socialist oligarchs have in mind for them. There is growing opposition to the SPP amongst the Canadian people, and they still have nearly as much political power as the American people do when they're sufficiently motivated, as Americans were in the case of the failed Senate Immigration Bill. Canada's people would be big losers with SPP, but not to as large a degree as the U.S. overall: We're the superpower and the economic dynamo who would be more readily leeched off of by Mexico and subverted by Canada's socialist government. Mexico would of course be the big winner — particularly the corrupt power brokers of that nation.

Globalism inevitable? With much time and a quantum leap in human social and cultural evolution, perhaps. But forced on an unwilling population who will be "managed" by narcissistic elites who are "better suited" to do so?

Not in America.

In the 1962 film "Lawrence of Arabia" (which yes, I've quoted previously), there is a scene in which a camel caravan including T.E. Lawrence (Peter O'Toole) and Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif) is crossing the deep desert at night. When they arrive at their destination in the morning, they discover that one of the men's camels in now riderless. As Lawrence sets off to fetch him, Sherif Ali begins to berate Lawrence as an "English blasphemer," defying the will of Allah, because it was "written" that the man should die in the desert after nodding off in the middle of the night. Sherif Ali also points out that Lawrence's chances of survival in the midday sun, let alone finding their comrade, are minimal.

Many hours later the caravan rejoices as they see Lawrence return, dehydrated and sun-baked on his camel with the man clinging to his back. Lawrence approaches Sherif Ali and with a smile, says these words:

"Nothing is 'written.'"

© Erik Rush