Richard Brodie says:

Let’s get our definition straight:

trea·ty (n) – a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.

Is the SPP an agreement between two or more states in reference to commerce? Yes. It is an agreement between three states regarding matters of international trade, among other things. And I don’t know how much more formal you can get than having dozens of trilateral groups that have been working, albeit clandestinely, for nearly two years now, fleshing out this grandiose agreement by establishing every parameter necessary to coordinate all aspects of (an illusive) North American joint Security (peace) and Prosperity (commerce).

So the SPP most certainly is a treaty, even if there is not some “goddamn piece of paper� (to borrow a phrase from Mr. Bush) that says “Treaty� at the top and has some signatures at the bottom. One could say that it is a de facto treaty, if not a de jure one, about which the vast majority of the American people have been kept in total ignorance.

The SPP is an executive coup … totally without the requisite Congressional approval … let alone discussion with the American people.

Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution states:

“He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur�

Until very recently, I doubt that two thirds of them had ever even heard of it, let alone been asked their opinion by the Oval Office! Not only has our Imperial Leader failed to obtain the Consent of the Senate, he has deemed their Advice not even worthy of seeking! The man is a total failure at honoring his oath of office to uphold the Constitution. He is the equivalent of the arrogant and stupid little leaders who presided over the demise of the Roman Empire – the only difference being that while they welcomed in the Visigoths, he welcomes in the Hispanic hordes. The fate of Valens would be too good for him.

And as to discussing such a profoundly significant initiative with the people, I challenge you to find a single reference to the SPP in any of his public speeches. Less than 3 months ago in his State of the Union address he said: “We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway�. The largest such endeavor, and the one having the most profound potential for radically changing the fundamental nature of this country, is the SPP. But he refrains from mentioning it by name anywhere in his speech!

If it is such a great thing why is he trying to hide it? I’ll tell you why. He’s afraid most of us wouldn’t think it was such a hot idea, and so he wants to get it going with as much mommentum as possible, so that when the people finally discover what he’s been up to it will be a fait accompli.

In the State of the Union speech, the word “securityâ€? is mentioned ten times, twice with a capital S when talking about Social Security, and eight times when talking about Iraq. The word “prosperityâ€? is mentioned once in a very general and platitudinous context. And the word “partnersâ€? is mentioned once in connection with North Korea. But never do these three words come together to finally lift the veil of secrecy from the darkened eyes of the citizenry and let the vast majority of them learn for the first time of the existence and nature of the truly “large endeavorâ€? that is well “underwayâ€? – one whose consequences will reverberate into our nations future long after his Iraq fiasco is relegated to the same dustbin of history as Vietnam.