Maniacal right-wing Family Security Matters organization, which has ties to Cheney, Rumsfeld and Perle, carries screed that calls for Bush to declare martial law, become emperor of the planet, lifetime president, and ethnically cleanse Iraq by means of nuclear genocide

Prison Planet August 17, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

If you thought Stu Bykovsky's call for a new 9/11 was the lowest the Neo-Cons could sink, think again. A right-wing foundation with links to Dick Cheney has called for Bush to be made lifetime president, ruler of the world, and for Iraq to be ethnically cleansed of Arabs by means of a nuclear holocaust.

The Family Security Matters organization masquerades as an independent "think tank" yet was highly influential in President Bush's re-election in 2004 and has links to top Neo-Con ideologues.

The outfit poses as an advocacy group for a new breed of goose-stepping brownshirts - so-called "security moms," who are noted for their blind obedience to neo-conservatism as a result of believing every ounce of fearmongering that emanates from the Bush administration on the inevitability of mass casualty terror attacks.

"In late 2004, Media Matters for America discovered that the phone number listed on FSM's website actually belonged to the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a rabidly hardline foreign policy outfit run by former Reagan administration figure Frank Gaffney," reports Right Web .

The Center for Security Policy is an umbrella organization that includes the National Security Advisory Council, whose members hold senior positions within the Bush administration itself. Former and current members include Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams and the organization has also given awards to Donald Rumsfeld.

The FSM foundation itself also has ties to the Anti-Defamation League, the International Women's Forum, numerous nationwide television and print media outlets, and includes on its board of advisors Neo-Con radio host Laura Ingraham and former director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey.

Representatives of FSM also routinely appear as guests on Fox News and their website is a cesspool of anti-American fervor - acting as a cheerleader for the invasion of Iran, the warrantless wiretapping program ( opponents of which are labeled "traitors" ) and lauds the Patriot Act as "An irreplaceable tool utilized by our Secret Service to keep us safe."

In an August 3rd article, contributing editor and philosopher Philip Atkinson penned a feverish diatribe that calls for the end of democracy, for Bush to be made ruler of the world as Julius Caesar was made emperor of Rome, for Bush to be made lifetime President in the U.S., and for Iraq to be ethnically cleansed by means of nuclear genocide and re-populated with Americans.

The comments are so fundamentally sick and twisted that the reader must absorb the following passages in full to recognize the true depravity of what the Neo-Con fringe truly embrace.

After calling democracy 'the enemy of truth and justice', Atkinson openly calls for genocide and mass slaughter.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead.

Bush should be taking foreign policy tips from imperial dictator Julius Caesar, according to frustrated Neo-Cons.

He then cites Julius Caesar, the reviled dictator of the Roman Empire, as an example of how Bush should engage in rampant ethnic cleansing.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

Atkinson then concludes by stating such actions would allow Bush to declare martial law, become permanent President of the U.S. and eventually ruler of the entire world.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

The sheer abhorrence of the diatribe could lead many to think that this was some kind of attempt at black humor, a faux article written by a liberal intended as a parody to ridicule right-wingers, but it's not, it's real - this is what many of the Neo-Cons actually embrace.

To the kind of people who think like this, carrying out a 9/11 style attack is like a walk in the park.

Though FSM chose to delete the article from their website after it started to get bad press, the cache is still available and Atkinson's previous articles betray the fact that he is a real columnist and he really believes this crap!

This is the philosophy guiding the people that are in control of the world's pre-eminent superpower - in comparison, they make Hitler look like the tooth fairy.

The extreme fringe of the Neo-Con belief system is increasingly attracting more adherents as Bush, Cheney and their warmongering administration becomes increasingly unpopular in the U.S. and faces more opposition in attempting to complete their agenda.

The true horror of what that ultimate agenda entails is the price we as humanity will pay unless we stop these madmen and their goal - a 4th Reich of the elite, the slaughter of millions, and a global totalitarian dictatorship.

 

Shocking KSLA 12 news report confirms story we broke last year, Pastors to cite Romans 13 as reason for public to obey government orders, relinquish guns and be taken to camps during state of emergency Prison Planet August 16, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

A shocking KSLA news report has confirmed the story we first broke last year, that Clergy Response Teams are being trained by the federal government to "quell dissent" and pacify citizens to obey the government in the event of a declaration of martial law.

In May 2006, we exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.

A whistleblower who was secretly enrolled into the program told us that the feds were clandestinely recruiting religious leaders to help implement Homeland Security directives in anticipation of a a potential bio-terrorist attack, any natural disaster or a nationally declared emergency.

(Article continues below)

---

---

The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to "obey the government" when martial law is declared.

It was related to the Pastors that quarantines, martial law and forced relocation were a problem for state authorities when enforcing federal mandates due to the "cowboy mentality" of citizens standing up for their property and second amendment rights as well as farmers defending their crops and livestock from seizure.

It was stressed that the Pastors needed to preach subservience to the authorities ahead of time in preparation for the round-ups and to make it clear to the congregation that "this is for their own good."

Pastors were told that they would be backed up by law enforcement in controlling uncooperative individuals and that they would even lead SWAT teams in attempting to quell resistance.

Though some doubted the accuracy of this report at the time due to its fundamentally disturbing implications, the story has now been confirmed by a KSLA 12 news report , in which participating clergy and officials admit to the existence of the program.

Watch the video.

The report entertains the scenario of martial law as depicted in the movie The Siege and states that "quelling dissent would be critical."

Dr. Durell Tuberville serves as chaplain for the Shreveport Fire Department and the Caddo Sheriff's Office. Tuberville said of the clergy team's mission, "the primary thing that we say to anybody is, 'let's cooperate and get this thing over with and then we'll settle the differences once the crisis is over.'"

Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. "In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they're helping to diffuse that situation," assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.

For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13. Dr. Tuberville elaborated, "because the government's established by the Lord, you know. And, that's what we believe in the Christian faith. That's what's stated in the scripture."

Screenshot from the KSLA 12 news article that accompanies the video report ( http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=6937987 ).

So there you have it - Homeland Security are working with local police departments and religious leaders to prepare for the declaration of martial law and in particular developing techniques they will employ during the crisis to "quell dissent."

Phony Christian leaders are brainwashing their congregations to accept the premise that the totalitarian police state is "of the Lord" and that they should get on their knees and lick jackboots while the round-ups take place as citizens are processed into quarantine zones and detention camps by the National Guard and U.S. troops returning from Iraq.

The precedent for mass gun confiscation and martial law in times of a real or manufactured emergency was set during Hurricane Katrina, when police and National Guard patrols forced home owners - even in areas unaffected by the hurricane - to hand over their legally owned firearms at gunpoint .

This is a clear precursor for the imminent declaration of a state of emergency, a scenario that President Bush codified in his recent Presidential Decision Directive of May 9th , which states in the event of a "catastrophic event" the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

The scope of the program is so secretive that even Homeland Security Committee member and Congressman Peter DeFazio

The following review appeared first in the Summer 2006 issue of “The Mises Review.” Gordon is a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute.

 

By David Gordon

“Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe” by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. Crown Forum, 2006. 223 pgs.

Thomas DiLorenzo calls attention to a vital fact that demolishes the popular view that one of Lincoln’s primary motives for opposing secession in 1861 was his distaste for slavery. Precisely the opposite was the case. It is well known that, in an effort to promote compromise, a constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress that forever forbade interference with slavery in states where it already existed. Lincoln referred to the proposal, the Corwin Amendment, in his First Inaugural, stating that he was not opposed to the amendment, since it merely made explicit the existing constitutional arrangement regarding slavery. Of course, Lincoln was here characteristically mendacious; nothing in the constitution prior to the amendment prohibited amendments to end slavery.

So much is well established, but DiLorenzo adds a surprising touch. Far from viewing the Corwin Amendment with grudging consent, Lincoln was in fact its behind-the-scenes promoter. “As soon as he was elected, but before his inauguration, Lincoln ‘instructed Seward to introduce [the amendment] in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield.’ … In addition, Lincoln instructed Seward to get through Congress a law that would make the various ‘personal liberty laws’ that existed in some Northern states illegal. (Such state laws nullified the Federal Fugitive Slave Act, which required Northerners to apprehend runaway slaves)” (p. 54, quoting Dorothy Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals).

Extension of slavery was of course an entirely different matter, and here Lincoln refused all compromise. Here we confront a paradox. If Lincoln thought it more important to preserve the union than oppose slavery, why was he unwilling to compromise over slavery in the territories? If he thought slavery’s extension was too high a price to pay to preserve the union, why was he willing permanently to entrench slavery wherever it already existed? It is hard to detect a moral difference between slavery in the states and the territories.

DiLorenzo readily resolves the paradox. Lincoln opposed extension of slavery because this would interfere with the prospects of white workers. Lincoln, following his mentor Henry Clay, favored a nationalist economic program of which high tariffs, a national bank, and governmentally financed “internal improvements” were key elements. This program, he thought, would promote not only the interests of the wealthy industrial and financial powers he always faithfully served but would benefit white labor as well. Blacks, in his opinion, would be better off outside the United States; and, throughout his life, Lincoln supported schemes for repatriation of blacks to Africa and elsewhere. If blacks left the country, they could not compete with whites, the primary objects of Lincoln’s concern. (Lincoln, by the way, did not see this program as in any way in contradiction to his professed belief that all men are created equal. Blacks, he thought, have human rights but not political rights.)

DiLorenzo’s interpretation of Lincoln resolves our paradox, and he finds additional support for it in the views of a leading abolitionist, none other than the great libertarian theorist Lysander Spooner. To Spooner, the primary motive of Lincoln and the war party was to preserve and consolidate Northern control of the Southern economy. The Southern states could not be allowed to evade the tariff, a key element of the mercantilist American system that Lincoln favored. “He wrote that the war ‘erupted for a purely pecuniary consideration,’ and not for any moral reason. He labeled the economic lifeblood of the Republican Party, Northern bankers, manufacturers, and railroad corporations, ‘lenders of blood money’ … To Spooner the Northern financiers of the war who had lent money to the Lincoln government did so not for ‘any love of liberty or justice,’ but for the control of [Southern] markets’ through ‘tariff extortion.’ … Spooner interpreted the crushing of the Southern secessionists … as suggesting that Southerners should ‘Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we have arranged for you, and you can have your peace’” (pp. 57-59).

But the theory of Spooner and DiLorenzo faces an objection. Even if the abolition of slavery was not uppermost in Lincoln’s mind when the war began, did he not eventually issue the Emancipation Proclamation? Was Lincoln at that point not a sincere opponent of slavery? To this objection, Spooner replied with a sharp rejoinder. The Republicans did not end slavery ‘as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only as a ‘war measure,’ he [Spooner] wrote, using the exact words … that Lincoln himself used in the Emancipation Proclamation” (p. 59).

DiLorenzo, like Spooner, makes skilled use of quotations from Lincoln to support his analysis of Lincoln’s policies. “In his first inaugural address Lincoln shockingly threw down the gauntlet over the tariff issue, literally threatening the invasion of any state that failed to collect the newly doubled tariff … ‘ here needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the national authority.’ What was he [Lincoln] talking about? What might ignite bloodshed and violence? Failure to collect the tariff, that’s what … he further stated that it was his duty ‘to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion…’ In other words, Pay Up or Die” (p. 126).

Lincoln for once spoke with complete truth. He did indeed resort to any means necessary, however brutal, to crush the Southern secessionists. The result of Lincoln’s aggressive prosecution of the war was “the killing of one out of four males of military age while maiming for life more than double that number” (p. 2 .

Lincoln turned aside all opposition to his ruthless conduct of the war, and he did not hesitate to act against judges who insisted on the rule of law. “In October 1861 Lincoln ordered the District of Columbia provost marshal to place armed sentries around the home of a Washington, D.C. circuit court judge and place him under house arrest … the judge had carried out his constitutional duty to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a young man being detained by the provost marshal, allowing the man to have due process … By placing the judge under house arrest Lincoln prevented him from attending the hearing in the case” (pp. 94-95).

But what is a lowly circuit court judge, compared with the Chief Justice of the United States? Lincoln ordered an arrest warrant prepared for the aged Roger Taney, who had ruled that Lincoln had no authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The warrant was fortunately never served, and Taney escaped imprisonment. Some have doubted the story, but DiLorenzo finds confirmation in several sources, including the memoirs of Benjamin Curtis, no friend of Taney’s. When he served on the Supreme Court, Curtis wrote a strongly worded dissent from Taney’s opinion in the Dred Scott case. “Nevertheless, in his memoirs he praises the propriety of Justice Taney in upholding the Constitution by opposing Lincoln’s unilateral suspension of habeas corpus. He refers to the arrest warrant for the chief justice, accusing him of treason, as a ‘great crime’” (p. 94).

By his insistence upon the unpalatable truth about Lincoln, DiLorenzo defies the acolytes of what he aptly terms the “Lincoln cult.” The “Lincolnite Totalitarians” find in Lincoln a precedent for their own assaults on liberty. Harry Jaffa, often a target in these pages, is Lincoln’s foremost academic defender. Jaffa, a disciple of Leo Strauss, views Lincoln as the principal exponent of the Declaration of Independence. How can Jaffa think this, given Lincoln’s brutal policies of suppression? In large part, the answer lies in the fact that Jaffa has his own agenda: “in my [DiLorenzo’s] 2002 debate with Jaffa … he declared at one point that 9/11 proved that ‘we need a strong central government.’ It was not just a coincidence that he made this declaration in the context of a debate over Lincoln’s legacy” (p. 14).

Another influential admirer of Lincoln shared Jaffa’s centralizing goals. Frank Meyer, an editor of National Review, criticized Lincoln for his centralizing policies, warmongering, and repression of civil liberties. William F. Buckley disagreed, as usual without any arguments supporting his own position. Rather than respond to the obvious truths to which Meyer had called attention, Buckley airily remarked that some people “have a thing” about Lincoln.

DiLorenzo maintains that Buckley adopted this view because Lincoln’s policies were a precedent for the statist and belligerent Cold War policies he favored. As usual, Murray Rothbard saw to the heart of the issue. Rothbard “quoted Buckley … ‘we have got to accept Big Government for the duration [of the cold war] — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged … except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores’ … The founder of National Review was a ‘totalitarian socialist,’ Rothbard wrote, ‘and what is more admits it’” (pp. 151-52).

Equally as bad, if not worse, is another Lincoln totalitarian whom DiLorenzo discusses in a chapter aptly called “Making Cannon Fodder.” Walter Berns, in Making Patriots, seeks a means to inspire America’s youth to be willing to sacrifice their lives in war at the state’s behest. “To inspire ‘patriotism’ in the nation’s youth, a national poet must mesmerize them in a cause, says Berns … Fortunately, Berns informs us, such a national poet is at hand. That person is Abraham Lincoln, whom he describes as ‘statesman, poet, and … the martyred Christ of democracy’s passion play’” (pp. 144-45). Worship of Lincoln is the linchpin of the “civil religion” that Berns favors.

Supporters of Lincoln are of course not confined to those, like Jaffa and Buckley, who claim to be conservatives. Eric Foner, a leading academic defender of Lincoln, “was such an apologist for Soviet communism that he opposed the breakup of the Soviet Union and, naturally invoked the Lincoln legend as the reason for his opposition.” He urged Mikhail Gorbachev to deal with Soviet secession movements “in the same brutal manner that Lincoln dealt with the Southern secessionists” (pp. 153-54).

DiLorenzo’s well-argued and forcefully written book shows that the struggle against the “Lincoln cult” is a vital part of the case for liberty. The book is fittingly dedicated to the memory of Mel Bradford, who paid a heavy price for his devastating analysis of Lincoln, in A Better Guide Than Reason and numerous other books and essays. Ronald Reagan had Bradford under consideration to head the National Endowment for the Humanities, but a coalition of neoconservatives and leftists launched a smear campaign against him. The campaign stressed Bradford’s opposition to Lincoln and unfortunately succeeded in derailing the nomination. Bradford would have very much enjoyed DiLorenzo’s excellent book.

If the Corwin Amendment had been adopted, what would have happened had a national consensus developed that slavery should be abolished? To accomplish this, two amendments would have been required: one to repeal the Corwin Amendment and another to abolish slavery.

See on this the important book of Lerone Bennett, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream and my review in The Mises Review, Winter 2000.

See on Berns my review of Making Patriots in The Mises Review, Fall 2001.

 

From 8:30 A.M. until 12:30 P.M. on August 13, I participated in a Washington, D.C. conference sponsored by the Hudson Institute concerning "The Montebello Summit and the Future of North America".

The Hudson Institute conference dealt with the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and the North American Union (NAU). The only speaker who made the case against the integration of North America (undermining the status of America as an independent Constitutional republic) was Dr John Fonte. Other speakers included Dr. Barbara Kotschwar of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Dr. Robert Pastor of American University, Daniel Schwanen of the Center for International Governance and Innovation, Sidney Weintrab of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Jaime Daremblum of the Hudson Institute, former Democrat Congressman James R. Jones, Greg Anderson of the University of Alberta, Christopher Sands of the Hudson Institute, and Ken Weinstein of the Hudson Institute.

ECONOMIC INTEGRATION IS A KEY GOAL

In a paper entitled "Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosperity Partnership", Professor Anderson and Mr. Sands made some of the following points: " The SPP process is the vehicle for the discussion of future arrangements for economic integration to create a single market for goods and services in North America…The design of the SPP is innovative, eschewing the more traditional diplomatic and trade negotiation models in favor of talks among civil service professionals and subject matter experts within each government. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States."

DECISION-MAKING BY TECHNOCRATS UNDERCUTS CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

"The SPP is the successor to two previous efforts that had stalled or expired prior to 2005. First, a set of trilateral working groups established in the NAFTA to look at harmonizing standards and eliminating differences in regulation…The design of the SPP is creative in handling asymmetry by attempting a less political, technocratic negotiation process; however, this has raised issues of transparency and accountability that threaten the future of the SPP process."

SECRECY IS DESIGNED TO EXCLUDE POPULAR OPPOSITION

The authors acknowledge that "the process must be made more transparent to answer legitimate citizen concerns about potential outcomes". They go on to admit that "The design of the SPP is flawed by the exclusion of Congress from the process ".

"POLITICIZATION" IS GOOD – – – CONTROL BY UNACCOUNTABLE BUREAUCRATS IS BAD

The authors oppose politicization (which is another word for accountability to American citizens) saying "The design of the SPP made it difficult to include special interest input without politicizing the negotiations…the inclusion of some interest groups and not others resulted in a further erosion of confidence in the SPP process".

MANIPULATION OF CONGRESS AND THE PEOPLE IS THE SPP STRATEGY

The authors observed that "The United States (i.e. George W. Bush) faces three important challenges in designing and conducting negotiations under the SPP: managing the asymmetry with smaller neighbors, managing Congress , which has a constitutional role on trade and must be persuaded to fund security measures; and the [sic] managing the pressures from special interests ".

U.S. SURRENDERS ITS ADVANTAGES

According to the authors, in order to persuade Canada and Mexico to fully cooperate with the Bush administration, it is important for the U.S. to be "structuring negotiations in such a way that the U.S. advantages are minimized, treating negotiators for Canada and Mexico as equals and partners and avoiding any explicit resort to its advantages of size…The United States has tried to overcome the defensive instincts of its neighbors by structuring negotiations in such a way that the U.S. advantages are minimized…Incentives for cooperation rise in the presence of expectations about benefits from future cooperation".

The authors also admit that "In the context of North America, and of deepening continental integration, the management of Congressional relations presents significant challenges for U.S. negotiators ".

AN INCREMENTAL MARCH TO THE NAU

Just as today's European Union began 50 years ago with the creation of the European Iron and Coal Community, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement negotiations in the 1980s were a first step on the path toward a North American Union (NAU). These were preceded by the Trade Act of 1974, which created the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations.

It is pointed out in the paper that "Perhaps the most important feature of the SPP design is that it is neither intended to produce a treaty nor an executive agreement like the NAFTA that would require congressional ratification or the passage of implementing legislation in the United States ."

CONGRESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT COULD UNDERCUT CONTROL BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

"The SPP was designed to function within existing administrative authority of the executive branch. Rules and standards could be set, law enforcement and national security prerogatives pursued, all within the broad parameters of constitutional authority or prior congressional authorization… With presidential and cabinet-level political support, the dozens of objectives outlined under each of the 20 SPP working groups would proceed on the basis of trilateral consultation at the staff-level within respective government agencies already responsible for those policy areas.

Shifting the substantive work of the SPP to the staff level

, much as the NAFTA working groups had done, would ostensibly depoliticize the policy work being done by leaving it in the hands of technical experts. Technocratic negotiations would reduce the power-politics dimension of the talks".

It is asserted that "while shifting responsibility for agenda items to the staff-level could potentially de-politicize work on small issues, it also effectively removed it from the kind of public accountability normally associated with U.S. trade negotiations".

It is also observed in the paper that "Another intervening factor that altered perceptions of the SPP between Waco and Cancun came in May of 2005 when the Council on Foreign Relations in the United Sates released its Independent Task Force Report No. 53, Building a North American Community". This report "recommended the establishment of a customs union and common security perimeter by 2010 ".

The authors point out that "The U.S. Congress has no formal role in the SPP. As criticism of the lack of transparency and public accountability of the SPP negotiations has grown, congressional interest and concern about the SPP has also grown. There is now a handful of Members of Congress (concentrated, for now, in the House of Representatives) publicly opposed to proceeding with the SPP, and determined to convene investigations and oversight into the content of the talks. Congressional hostility represents the biggest threat to the continuation of the SPP after Montebello, and after the end of the Bush administration".

( Editor's note: The SPP was started when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister of Canada, Carlos Salinas was President of Mexico, and George H.W. Bush was President of the United States. Each of these three men was advanced in his political career by the support of David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations.)