An ultra-conservative’s view of the SPP/NAU

Those skeptic readers who think that the SPP/NAU is merely a figment of the ‘paranoid imagination of some liberals (tin-hatted leftists, commies, loonies, etc.) would be well advised to read this piece from the ultra-conservative mag Human “Leading the Conservative Movement since 1944”, written by Jerome Corsi…

The Plan to Replace the Dollar With the ‘Amero’

The idea to form the North American Union as a super-NAFTA knitting together Canada, the United States and Mexico into a super-regional political and economic entity was a key agreement resulting from the March 2005 meeting held at Baylor University in Waco, Tex., between President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin.

A joint statement published by the three presidents following their Baylor University summit announced the formation of an initial entity called, “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The joint statement termed the SPP a “trilateral partnership” that was aimed at producing a North American security plan as well as providing free market movement of people, capital, and trade across the borders between the three NAFTA partners:
Read more here.

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry” (along with John O’Neill), “Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil” (along with Craig R. Smith), “Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians,” and most recently, “Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders.” He will soon author a book on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and the prospect of the forthcoming North American Union.


10 Responses to An ultra-conservative’s view of the SPP/NAU

  1. Jim says:

    An Amero would be terrible for Canada’s economic health. Right now, we have a nationalized Bank of Canada that is supposed to be accountable to Canadians, although it has recently, sadly, followed the IMF mandate instead of the mandate laid out in the Bank of Canada Act. It is not a private bank like the US Federal Reserve, since the Minister of Finance has owned all the shares since 1938.

    Should we really give up our economic sovereignty? What about the US economic problems with subprime mortgages, the falling dollar with trillion-dollar debts locked up in China, and their huge deficits and debt? Not to mention, the private Federal Reserve didn’t exactly handle the Great Depression well.

    Why exactly should we merge our rising, nationalized dollar with a country as mis-managed as this?

    “Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told congressional leaders Monday the agency is now predicting it will reach the nearly $9 trillion statutory debt limit in early October and urged lawmakers to raise the cap before then. In a letter, Paulson said Congress should hike the $8.965 trillion debt ceiling “as soon as possible” to preserve the “full faith and credit” of the United States. Congress must increase the debt limit or else the United States, upon breaching that cap, would face default on its worldwide financial obligations and risk a government shutdown because it would be unable to pay its bills. That has never happened before, although lawmakers regularly use must-pass debt limit legislation to debate each party’s fiscal priorities. The last debt limit increase, which boosted the cap by $781 billion, occurred last March; and was the fourth debt limit increase to take place during President Bush’s tenure. The largest-ever debt limit increase — $984 billion — was approved in 2003.”


  2. str8shooter says:


    I could have a LOT of fun with you over that post, but I’m in a generous mood this morning and will simply suggest that you go back and do a LOT more research, because you’re operating under a HOST of misconceptions.


  3. verbena19 says:

    Thanks for the link, Jim. I just finished reading it, and the comments there as well. You put in a good one. 🙂

    S: You always disagree with everything I put up here, so that’s nothing new. But did you notice that the article was written by one of your ultra conservative ‘friends’? So I guess you disagree with his views as well as Jim’s comment… Good to see you were in a generous mood though, so weren’t your usual acerbic, pontificating self… 😉


  4. str8shooter says:


    My problem isn’t with the article, merely with Jims rambling “assessment” of it, and his far flung, and completely disingenuous attempt to draw a correlary between the Dim-O-Crap and RINO sponsored budgets, and the value or viability of the Treasury Department. Perhaps a basic Economics class would have averted his misunderstanding, but lacking that, a miniscule amount of common sense should have been applied. The Treasury Department PAYS the bills that Congress runs up with their spending, not the other way around.

    The Treasury has NOTHING to do with independent financial institutions writing sub-prime mortgages for people who couldn’t afford a mortgage in the first place, the Treasury cannot legally refuse to sell Bonds to China, or any other country for that matter (again, thanks to a Dim-O-Crap sponsored Bill, run through a Dim-O-Crap controlled Congress, and signed by a Dim-O-Crap President many decades ago), the Treasury has nothing to do with the debt and deficit (again, that’s CONGRESS), and lastly, the Treasury had precisely DICK to do with the Stock Market crash in ’29 that led to the Great Depression.

    Simply put, as usual, Jim’s piece is more proof that Libs (especially those in other countries) don’t know a DAMN thing about how things REALLY work, and seem to LOVE to expound their complete ignorance, usually at the top of their lungs, for the whole world to see and hear. There’s an old maxim that Jim should have been taught when he was young, and is extremely applicable here “it’s far better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt”.


  5. str8shooter says:


    BTW, I may seem to be acerbic to some, but only because I’m having to spend so much time attempting to educate the “unwashed masses” of Liberals who seem to “know” so much that simply isn’t true.


  6. verbena19 says:

    Thanks for the clarification. I must confess that I’m rather ignorant about anything to do with finances, so that’s why I haven’t said anything about the Treasury… (numbers are not my strong suit, never have been)… As for that maxim, my father made sure that I learned that one! Although I sometimes forget….


  7. str8shooter says:


    My pleasure. Perhaps your ignorance of economics and finance is behind your aversion to the American systme, and affinity for Canadas. It’s been my experience that, with very few exceptions, the only people who prefer a “Socialist” system are the ones that simply don’t know enough about economics and finances to be able to plan for their own financial future. It’s really not that difficult, and a trip to a good financial manager will answer a lot of those questions, and before long a Socialist will transform into a true Capitalist.

    One point, have you noticed how many British rock stars move to the US, or become US citizens? Did you ever wonder why? Economics! Our tax rates are so much lower than theirs that they can live here and keep their money, or stay in GB and have it eaten up in taxes quicker than their royalty checks come in.


  8. verbena19 says:

    S: I can’t see myself as a true Capitalist, even if/when I should ever learn about economics. I have many friends here who are well versed in the subject, and still are not Capitalists. No, if I had more money, I would only be giving away more to where it’s needed… so capitalism is not in my psyche.

    Yes, it’s true about the British rock stars. Guess money is the most important factor in their lives. Can’t see myself doing that if I were a rock star, but then again, I’m not and never will be so it’s a moot point, isn’t it?

    A man I rather admire is one of my countrymen, Peter Monk (or is it spelled Munk?) . His family were well to do in Hungary, but lost everything during Hitler’s and subsequently the Stalinist regime’s reign. He immigrated to Canada, worked hard in the tobacco fields of S. Ontario, studied economics in spare time. He managed to make lots of money. Then he lost it. Soon he re-made it, and now owns the biggest gold company in the world. Monk is also one of the biggest philanthropists, giving away a large percentage of his money, much of it to educational institutions, for he believes that education is highly important to keep competitive in the workplace. Yet he is a rather humble man, and taught his children the value of earning what they have as opposed to simply giving it to them. When they wanted a car, he loaned his and told them to save to get their own, if if it’s an old used one. He says that’s the only way that they learn to value what they have and work for what they want and need. He also says that he doesn’t need palatial houses, as the ‘modest’ one he has is comfortable enough. Look up his bio, and you’ll see what I mean. I’m not explaining it well, as I’m sleepy and can’t write. Let me know what you think of this man, ok? g’night.


  9. str8shooter says:

    Perhaps we’re having a difference in our definitions here V. If you’re making a lot of money, even if you decide to give a lot of it away to charitable purposes, wouldn’t you still be a Capitalist? You see, that’s one of the biggest misconceptions among most Liberals I’ve known, they seem to think that if you’re a Capitalist, you can’t feel a sense of social responsibility, and nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, a lot of the most famous “Socialists” are really Capitalists who just don’t want to be known as Capitalists because somebody told them once upon a time that being a Capitalist was a BAD THING!

    I’ll look up your Mr. Monk, but from what you’ve just told me, he sounds like a great Capitalist, how else could he afford to be such a great philanthropist?


  10. verbena19 says:

    Yes, Mr. Monk is a capitalist, but one with a ‘social conscience’. That is why I admire him. I am not against capitalists per se, but I AM against those whose motives are purely driven by greed. To me, it’s not the ideology so much as the actions. If those are noble and good for society, including the workers, that’s what counts.

    You could pigeonhole my family before WWII and prior to the Stalinist regime as ‘capitalist’, if that’s how you view anyone who is a business owner. We owned our own factory, and were relatively well off. But we treated all employees fairly, justly, equitably. Our wealth did not come at the tribulations of others. My father worked alongside his employees. Although the Stalinist regime took everything away, my father was not bitter. He found other line of work, and remained a person with a strong social conscience until he died, never refusing to help those who needed it. So was he a ‘capitalist’ or a ‘socialist’ or somewhere in between? You tell me… (He considered himself a ‘humanist’.)


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: