A conspiracy is a secret agreement to perform an illegal act. I’ve never alleged a conspiracy. Quite the contrary, the facts show that the ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America’ is a clear and unfortunate reality, one antithetical to a healthy republic:

“…
On March 23, 2005, President Bush joined the heads of Canada and Mexico at a summit in Waco, Texas. There the three leaders jointly launched the Security and Prosperity Partnership. This many-faceted initiative has led to the formation of numerous active "working groups" within the U.S. Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, other agencies, and with the other two countries.
SPP represents the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican governments’ efforts at regulatory and other "harmonization" among the three SPP partner nations. These initiatives relate to such wide-ranging policies as trade, transportation, immigration, national security, law enforcement, and energy...
The March 23, 2005, joint statement of Presidents Bush and Fox and Prime Minister Martin indicated the SPP’s intent … that the "trilateral effort" would "help consolidate our action into a North American framework" to "[i]mplement common border security and bioprotection strategies[,] . . . a border facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve the legitimate flow of people and cargo at our shared borders…"…
A March 15, 2006, Washington, D.C., meeting with U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, providing the priorities of corporate interests for SPP, included, "Work must continue to formalize a transnational labor force that could work in any North American country on a temporary basis." In other words, the "guestworker" concept would become more prevalent and possibly further undercut the wages and job security ...
On May 26, 2006, a subsequent U.S. body was launched, called the North American Competitiveness Council. The NACC is largely the corporate counterpart to the governmental SPP efforts. The working groups and Competitiveness Council have recommended a range of measures to harmonize such things as regulatory standards, border issues, customs, energy, etc. Transnational businesses voiced support for border policies that serve the special interest over the national interest…
The NACC’s final recommendations proposed effectively making the continent’s outermost perimeter the "borders" of all three nations, by "a Perimeter Clearance Strategy for goods and people that interdicts inadmissible people and non low-risk [sic] goods at their foreign point of origin before they reach North American soil…
The self-serving NACC recommendations also sought to merge several credentialing programs with the US-VISIT entry-exit system, effectively removing any chance of fail-safes catching human threats to national security once someone is on the continent... Further, the NACC would gut the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative by allowing Mexicans, Canadians, and other international travelers to use "low-cost and easily obtainable federally issued documents" which could be easier to falsify and get than a passport.
At the same time during 2005 and 2006, the Traveler Screening Systems Working Group met regularly to determine SPP-oriented policies. The Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, State, and Transportation had people in this group, which the US-VISIT Office heads. Materials obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the public interest watchdog group Judicial Watch unveil such "deliverables" as technical standards for international travel documents, biometrics and traveler screening "enhancements," ... This working group also coordinated talks with Canada and Mexico for a "One Card," which would amount to an international identification card for easily crossing the borders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
The trilateral "North American Forum," jointly chaired by former high officials from Mexico, Canada, and Reagan’s Secretary of State George Shultz, met in Banff, Alberta, Canada, September 12-14, 2006. Then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and U.S. Northern Command head Timothy Keating numbered among attendees, along with other government officials and corporate elites.
Conference notes (again disclosed under FOIA compliance forced by Judicial Watch) show that attendees considered the Mexican view advocating a change to where the three North American nations "are focused on the best interests of North America" — not national interest. The direction of Mexico’s influence over SPP was clear: "Troops on [the] border send an enormously powerful negative message;" "North America needs to be more competitive and yet security goals seem to interfere with this outcome[;] [c]losing borders with troops seems to be counter to a continental vision."
Notes from Banff include those of a session on "demographic and social dimensions of North American integration." They discussed the immigration issue as the "[p]roblem is defined the wrong way — as illegal immigration." … "Labor mobility is a key to addressing the immigration and economic issues." The North American Forum further tipped its hand as to its purpose: "Most people [are] not compelled by North American integration — need to identify steps that demonstrate [the] concept and success."
In many ways, the SPP follows the contours of broad integration of the three North American nations as outlined in a 2001 book, Toward a North American Community. … modeled after the European Union. SPP’s general direction tracks a 2005 plan put forth by the Council on Foreign Relations called "Creating a North American Community" ...
Related issues prompt further concern about SPP. These include several states and localities granting foreign companies long-term leases to manage U.S. highways and to operate them as toll roads; the formation of coalitions advocating huge highway projects such as the Trans-Texas Corridor; and Chinese ownership interest in key trade and transportation enterprises... “
http://www.frontpage...

And you counter with the trite and irrelevant bit of information that 'Canada bought some IceBreakers'. Quite frankly you are the one that refuses to read and contemplate what you don't want to hear, and we can chalk your emotional blather up to projection.

Well, it's my hope that with the profusion of small recording devices these days, one of these wonderful patriots listed above will decide for him or her self that the people need to know what's doing in these closed-door meetings. THAT recording, if it ever leaked, might lead to some real entertainment!! :)
JMR

same here BT.  I was was one of those faxes, and phone calls.  That defeat gave me a much needed boost in morale for my country. 

What the MSSM doesn't report can kill you.

Um, wasn't the Immigration Bill that sucked an integral part of this whole plan? That's what people allege, anyway. As I've said, I don't know that much about it, but I don't think it does your argument too much good to try to paint opponents as scared of free trade when they're actually scared of creeping UN-control over the USA, and pro free-trade. I like cashews, too, and they taste good no matter where farmers grow 'em (but California's are best!) so let trade be free!
JMR

WhichWhine, I now see why you are an atheist.  Your mind is too addled with other fantasies to be bothered with religion.  Inculding the idea of my participating in "drive-by insultings" (and you wonder why I call you WhichWhine). 

If this NAU/SPP is just going to wipe away centuries of history and cultural development as you and especially your buddy Chicken Little (who you know as Ten7s)...

...actually, I am going to ask a different question this time. 

It seems that the Canadians are buying a few extra vessels to patrol the waters of the Arctic Archipelago.  They claim sovereignty over them.  The United States is totally opposed to such a claim.  Now, if these two countries, along with Mexico, are supposed to merge in 2010 in this ballyhooed conspiracy, then why is this purchase being made?  Why are the Canadians taking actions to defend their sovereignty?   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

I really think you're starting to lose it 'Non Compos Mentis' one. You certainly can't be referring to me; perhaps you've mistaken me for another poster. I've never "impugned" your patriotism. I've questioned your reading skills, knowledge, ability to think coherently, but not your patriotism. I have no doubt that you are sincerely patriotic.