Meeting at Montebello
Vol: 71 Issue: 25 Saturday, August 25, 2007
The Montbello SPP Summit wrapped up on Tuesday with all three leaders announcing their earth-shattering agreement to block “unsafe toys” and the usual ‘commitments to balance border security and trade’ etc., etc, blah, blah, blah.
Based on what was actually accomplished, the SPP summit was a nice chance for Bush and Calderon to visit Montebello, maybe have a couple of beers together, but not much more.
An agreement to block ‘unsafe toys’. I mean, really. Was one of the three considering importing unsafe toys for sale to his citizen’s children?
So they hammered out an agreement not to?
“Ok, ok, it’s a deal! I won’t import unsafe toys . . . enough with the pressure! “
Picture the scene. Montebello is crawling with mask-wearing dissidents and militant protesters. On the other side, hordes of heavily-armed riot police and military personnel.
Overhead, helicopters buzz the crowds. Plainclothes security, reporters and cameramen are everywhere.
And out steps Stephen Harper, Canada’s Prime Minister, with the news that;
“We agreed to work together on consumer protection, we have to identify and stop unsafe goods from entering our countries, especially those designed for our children.”
(The collective yawn sent so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at once that Al Gore is producing a new documentary explaining why public boredom is responsible for global warming.)
Trying to spice it up a bit, President Bush added helpfully, “We also agreed to discuss border security.”
Felipe Calderon, thinking hard, chimed in. “We also discussed the need for discussion on practical solutions to environmental challenges.”
Let’s see. Did they miss anything? Protecting children, border security, the environment. . . oh — and regulatory cooperation, pandemics, intellectual property and research and energy . . . that pretty much panders to everybody.
(Except the lunatics who oppose surrendering national sovereignty to a secret unification of their countries into a wider union – we’ll get to them later.)
After the three leaders announced their unified view on safe children’s toys, their agreements on the need for further agreements, agreements on the need for further discussions, and pandering to every special interest group in North America from the environment to border security, somebody asked Bush the Question:
“Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union? Are there plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all three countries? And do you believe all of these theories about a possible erosion of national identity stem from a lack of transparency from this partnership?”
The question was in three parts. The simple answer would have been, “Yes, no, and no. Next question.”
When George Bush is asked what is a demonstratively stupid question, like, “Did you invade Iraq to make your Dad proud of you?”, or, “Did you lie when you said that intelligence indicated Saddam was trying to obtain WND?” he generally answers it like that: “No. Next question.”
“Is this a prelude to a NAU?” If the NAU were a conspiracy theory like the Bush administration had a hand in 9/11, Bush would have dismissed it out of hand. That would have been the “yes” answer.
“Are you planning a NAFTA superhighway?” If such an idea was ridiculous, that would be where the first “No” belongs.
“Do you believe all these theories about a possible erosion of national identity, etc?” If there were absolutely no danger of such, this is where the second “No” belonged.
Instead of one yes and two no’s, Bush said this:
“We represent three great nations. We each respect each other’s sovereignty. You know, there are some who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples. I just believe they’re wrong. I believe it’s in our interest to trade; I believe it’s in our interest to dialogue; I believe it’s in our interest to work out common problems for the good of our people.
“And I’m amused by some of the speculation, some of the old you can call them political scare tactics. If you’ve been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn’t exist. That’s just the way some people operate. I’m here representing my nation. I feel strongly that the United States is a force for good, and I feel strongly that by working with our neighbors we can a stronger force for good.
“So I appreciate that question. I’m amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and what some are trying to say takes place. It’s quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about.”
To quote the Bard, “Methinks he doth protest too much.”
About twenty-six hundred years before Shakespeare, King Solomon proved he was the wisest man who ever lived when he wrote: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.” (Proverbs 28:1)
If it were the ‘righteous truth’ that unification were a conspiracy, the ‘bold as a lion’ reply would have been either yes or no.
Read Bush’s reply to the question again. I’ve read it over and over, and searched the news for amplification, but I can’t find a direct answer in there anywhere.
Bush administration underlings have denied it directly, but when the guy who swore the oath to defend the Constitution had his chance, he ridiculed the question, BUT without answering it.
Let me say that I am not much on conspiracy theory. Most conspiracy theories collapse on closer examination of three main points; motive, secrecy, and logic.
For example, the theory that the Bush administration staged 9/11 so he could start a war. The motive is non-existent. The war had already started two years earlier, and US forces were already engaging terrorists in combat.
For there to be a government conspiracy to murder 3000 Americans, hundreds of officials would have to be involved and NONE of them could break silence.
Clinton couldn’t keep a tryst with Monica Lewinsky in the White House bathroom a secret. And Bush administration ‘secrets’ are leaked to the New York Times faster than they can print the headlines.
If one member of the conspiracy broke silence, he could cut an immunity deal, go on the talk show circuit, write a book, and be as rich as Midas and as famous as Elvis.
That conspiracy fails the logic test on every level.
Then, there is the ‘Money Trust’ conspiracy. Apply the same test. The motive is the accumulation of wealth and power. The accumulation of wealth and power is ample protection against somebody being bribed into spilling the beans.
The historical evidence lines up, and it is not only logical, it is the only explanation that fits.
So, what about the SPP ‘conspiracy theory?’ How does it do when the tests are applied?
The theory is that the Bush administration, together with the governments of Canada and Mexico, are conspiring to create a North American Union along the lines of the European Union, complete with the introduction of a new, North American currency to replace the dollar.
Let’s look at the motive. First, Mexico’s. Would integration with America be a good thing? (Seems silly to ask, doesn’t it?)
Since Mexico’s population is streaming across the US border as fast as they can get here, with the active help of the Mexican government, one can assume that Mexico’s national interests would be served.
Now, to Canada’s. Canada is fiercely independent when it comes to the United States, but Canada is also completely dependent on the United States for everything from defense to trade.
And Canada loves collectivism. One of the UN’s biggest supporters, Canada has played a role in every global peace-keeping operation and every UN collective effort.
Canada could not afford to be left out of such a union without suffering dire social and economic consequences. Canada’s only other choice would be to seek membership in the EU, (and the NAU is lots closer.)
Now to the US motive. The US is under attack from all directions, and in all possible forms. Although it is the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, it has two main vulnerabilities. Its borders with Mexico and Canada, and the US dollar.
Unification with Canada and Mexico would effectively amount to annexing both countries, sealing the border problem without damaging trade between them.
The dollar is subject to international manipulation by nations like Iran and Venezuela, and vulnerable to other oil-producing states like Saudi Arabia. Major oil-producing nations demand payment for oil exclusively in US dollars.
If you don’t have dollars, you can’t import oil, so major world economies hold huge reserves of US dollars, which maintains the dollar’s value on the international market.
If the oil-producing nations switched to euros, the value of the dollar as an international currency would drop like a stone, and the US economy that depends on it would fall just as quickly.
Only two weeks ago, China was threatening to drop its US currency holdings. Economists and political analysts termed such a move, “the nuclear option,” before China backed down.
A new currency, backed by the collective wealth of Canada, the US and Mexico, would eliminate the dollar’s current vulnerability.
So all three nations have good, compelling and even, noble motives for backing a move toward full integration.
Now, as to secrecy. The SPP is hardly a secret. Thousands of people went to Montebello to protest it. But when asked directly, Bush sidestepped the question.
The SPP is relying on hiding in plain sight, since one can’t hide the construction of a road spanning the country from Mexico to Canada without somebody noticing.
There are at least a dozen versions of the aims and goals of the SPP out there, and only one of them can be true. Bush dodged the question by calling attention to all of them at once as ‘scare tactics’.
Its the old Zippo lighter trick. The best place to hide a Zippo lighter is on a coffee table with fifty identical Zippo lighters. Yours becomes invisible, right there in plain sight.
Now to the logic of unification between the US, Canada, and Mexico.
As it stands right now, the US stands on the precipice, surrounded by enemies, vulnerable to attack from within and without, one of the most hated nations on the face of the earth.
Unification brings with it Canada’s friendly relationship with the European Union, Mexico’s relationship with Latin America, as well as Mexico’s and Canada’s vast oil reserves, estimated to be enough to meet US needs for centuries.
Logical? You bet. But is it true? What do you think? I’d like to know.
Let’s kick it around in the forums.