Posted on 05/19/2006 6:56:03 AM PDT by Dark Skies
President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.
Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada, setting the stage for North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.
President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.
The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:
At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.
What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:
In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.
To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.
The perspective of the CFR report allows us to see President Bush's speech to the nation as nothing more than public relations posturing and window dressing. No wonder President Vincente Fox called President Bush in a panic after the speech. How could the President go back on his word to Mexico by actually securing our border? Not to worry, President Bush reassured President Fox. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past.
The North American Union plan, which Vincente Fox has every reason to presume President Bush is still following, calls for the only border to be around the North American Union -- not between any of these countries. Or, as the CFR report stated:
The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.
Discovering connections like this between the CFR recommendations and Bush administration policy gives credence to the argument that President Bush favors amnesty and open borders, as he originally said. Moreover, President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," as he has also said in response to a reporter's question during the March 2005 meeting with President Fox.
Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won't do. If a fence is going to be built on our border with Mexico, evidently the Minuteman Project is going to have to build the fence themselves. Will President Bush protect America's sovereignty, or is this too a job the Minuteman Project will have to do for him?
Did you read all of the post you're referring to? Hedgetrimmer was arguing that the Task Force Document represented the collective opinion of the CFR because he made an honest mistake and incorrectly read and then misquoted it. I specifically corrected that misquote and showed where it said that the report represented the TASK FORCE's conclusion, NOT the CFR's.
It's often hard to distinguish between the transnational progressivism of CFR members and a more moderate "liberal internationalism" and sometimes it's even hard to distinguish between those two and foreign policy "realism", since all three have something in common in that they each tend to deny American exceptionalism.
However, the fact that the membership of the CFR tends to be leftist seems to me obvious, although I don't have the personal experience with any of them (to my knowledge) that Calcow Girl and Rokke do. But you have to remmber that the CFR having a nefarious group agenda would require that people like William F. Buckley have been in on it, and I've never heard him or any other conservative member of it claim there was such a conspiracy.
My motto is to never attribute to malice what I can to incompetence. In one sense, a woman like Secretary Albright could never be accused of incompetence, since she's very bright, knowledgable and on a good day when pigs are flying, can leg press 400 pounds. But in another sense, she is incrdibly incompetent, since she continually develops defective policy proposals, many of them based on the defective premise that the world will be better of if America is less powerful.
My impression is that many, perhaps most of the members of the CFR operate from the same premise. This is not because they get together and in some general meeting agree to accept it. Rather, people who disagree with the idea of American exceptionalism tend to constitute the majority of the graduates for schools of International Relations, and since the CFR is composed of experts in that field, many fo its members will also disagree with American exceptionalism.
But that doesn't mean that everything produced by CFR reflects its opinion. As I said before, that would mean agreeing with Samuel Hungtington, who I presume you think has some good ideas and isn't an elitest internationalist. The Fletcher School doesn't hold collective positions on issues. Why should we assume the CFR emmbers are lying when they say the CFR does not? You can't find something that says "this is the CFR's position on X" by the CFR because it doesn't exist.
The problem with any aspects of leftism within the membership of the CFR cannot be addressed in and of itself. Yes, it exists, but the CFR is if anything more intellectually diverse than many schools of international relations. The answer to that problem lies in ameliorating the leftism of the universities, not that of institutions that require products of the universities.
Sorry, I wasn't bothering about that specific.
I was spring boarding off your comment to try and emphasize that on the whole, in general,
CFR IS DEVOTED, UTTERLY DEVOTED TO A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT.
They may quibble about details and methods from time to time . . . but their goals are essentially the same. I think that's all I was trying to say.
I understand, but look, the Harvard Law School doesn't have a position on the Constitutionality of the Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton decisions even though many, probably most of its members are against it. Not every organization holds official positions, and the CFR is one of those that does not. And the CFR does not greatly influence the foreign policy establishment by any means--- rather, it tends to reflects the conventional wisdom of that establishment.
It should not be equated with, say the Open Society which is devoted to borderless government, drug legalization, Peter Singer style euthanasia laws and the rest. And neither should be elevated into some sort fo boogeyman that is somehow supposed to able to control someone more powerful than than the full complement of eithers' membership, George W. Bush.
Sorry, I meant to say "the Harvard Law School doesn't have a position on the Constitutionality of the Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton decisions even though many, probably most of its members are FOR them."
Do you have a source for this quote?
I understand your point and how it is logical from your perspective and probably that of many others.
I still do not trust the CFR at all. As far as I'm concerned it is extremely dangerous and peopled by folks who are plenty Machiavellian and evil in their goals.
It IS one of the international political forces very committed to a global government; facilitating the networking of same and the putting forth of ever more details and refinements toward the global government.
I don't know if everyone is a satanic ritual baby sacrificer; global government fanatic or not. Probably not. But they are all, to greater or lesser degree working for, contributing toward the global dictator and his government. That much, to me, is inescapable.
"Many organizations involved in the move toward the world government included details of their goals buried in various in-house publications that I had charge of in the Univ Special Collections Dept 1965-1969."
Do you remember this?
Goldwater's 1964 Acceptance Speech
The following is the text of Barry Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president. Provided by the Arizona Historical Foundation
Excerpt*****
I can see and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole world of Europe unified and free, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world. This is a goal far, far more meaningful than a moon shot.
It's a truly inspiring goal for all free men to set for themselves during the latter half of the twentieth century. I can also see - and all free men must thrill to - the events of this Atlantic civilization joined by its great ocean highway to the United States. What a destiny, what a destiny can be ours to stand as a great central pillar linking Europe, the Americans and the venerable and vital peoples and cultures of the Pacific. I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system, a system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm
This speech is a conservative mixture of what I don't know. Most people thought of Goldwater as the conservative of the conservatives until much later in life when he showed liberal tendancies.
To me, this speech spelled out the one world order in 1964. Just change the wording from the Atlantic civilization, to the One World Order, to the New World Order, to globalization.
I saw Goldwater as much more of a corrupt puppet master influenced globalist--and all the more so as he aged. I'd have voted for him if I'd been old enough. But I still did not trust him. I've learned since that he was also more corrupt than I had guessed.
Sigh.
Sometimes, in my MORE paranoid moments,
I even wonder if Rush and O'Reilly are sleeper conservatives building up a mass of conservatives to trust them . . . only to swing at a critical time in support of the globalists. I pray not.
But the globalists are that Machiavellian.
He has been replaced by John McCain, another globalist.
I believe the globalists have been clear with their intentions for years. I agree with you that they have been patient but vigorous in getting their goals accepted. Their aim was for the 21st century and this is the reason for the naming of Agenda 21, IMO.
I wondered more about Sean Hannity.
You're probably right about Agenda 21.
And McChurian.
I see Hannity as very authentic. I actually tink O'Rielly is, too. But I could see Bill O bending to comply with the globalists before I could see Hannity doing it. And, actually, I think both of them have enough personal integrity to resist such.
I think Hannity has enough faith in God to do so. Bill might.
It was very disturbing to see Murdoch help Shrillery with more excessive funding for her political goals.
I think Fox will still be a source for more conservative views than the rest of the MSM--for some time to come. We shall see what happens after Martial Law is declared.
But, it is probably highly doubtful that Murdoch could have amassed his media empire without puppet master approval or help--at least acquiesence.
They exist to influence! Sure, they don't meet the definition of lobbyists, attempting to influence legislation, but their goal is to shape the debate and public opinion thereby influencing the foreign policy agenda that will set the basis for subsequent legislation. They target leaders in all groups of government, industry and society to "educate" them and thereby influence their opinions.
I know wikipedia and about.com aren't the best resources, but here is their description:
Formally established in 1921, it is one of the most powerful private organizations with influence on U.S. foreign policy. It has about 4,000 members, including former national security officers, professors, former CIA members, elected politicians, and media figures. The council is not a formal institution within U.S. policy making.
They are quick to say they don't "influence policy", but their own documents say otherwise. As an example, below is an excerpt from the President's message included in their last annual report. Influencing opinion in all circles is the name of the game.
Simultaneously, we want to increase the time, energy, and resources we commit to a broader set of activities targeted to nontraditional constituencies, such as state and local officials, religious leaders, educators and students, and members and leaders of a broad range of nongovernmental organizations. Many of these individuals and groups are not normally associated with foreign policy, but their voices and support are critical to the policy choices our government makes and will make in the future. We are actively planning various workshops, seminars, and mini-conferences targeted to different groups of leaders whom we hope to engage more meaningfully in the national foreign policy debate.We are also looking at what more we can do internationally. The influential Task Force on North America is one model, for which the Council joined with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. We anticipate future Task Forces that involve institutions and individuals from abroad.
"My goal is to work as hard as humanly possible to keep California growing, and to improve our quality of life,
to protect our values, and to prepare our people for a global future."
- Arnold Schwarzenegger, February 2006
lol! The only thing I find on google is your posts!
I'm not challenging it; it is similar to other things he's said.
I was trying to collect various quotes, with sources.
I never "studied" Goldwater. But, it does seem to fit the playbill of a NWO.
Do you think the members of those faculties have very different agendas and beliefs than those of the CFR? Of course not. This hearkens back to the leftist envy of right wing think tanks like Hoover and Heritage. Why weren't the left-liberal think tanks like Brookings more visibly powerful? Well, the reason is that Heritage challenges the prevailing conventional wisdom and Brookings (and Foreign Affairs). If the CFR and all its members disappeared, I don't think the foreign policy debates in America would be markedly changed, but if Heritage disappeared, conservatives would suffer a huge loss.
I think you're underestimating the extent to which the the foreign policy establishment leans to the left without the help of the CFR. I mean, was in the bookstore some time back, looking at Foreign Policy, published By the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace. It had an article by Ted Rall in it--- Ted Rall, the guy who had made all those pathetically bigoted cartoons of Condi! Now, you may not like President Bush or Condi, as I do. But TED RALL! I mean, come on--- he makes Boondocks seem like Shakespeare! My point is that complaining about the influence of CFR members is like complaining about the influence of Dan Rather. He's a symptom, not a sickness.
Which he brings me back to John Fonte. Nothing to add, except that I think he's very sharp on this stuff
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.