Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

North American Union to Replace USA? ("is this the plan?" alert!) ^ | 5/19/2006 | Jerome R. Corsi

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?

TOPICS: Canada; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Mexico; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; barkingmoonbats; blackhelicopters; bordersecurity; cfr; corsi; delusions; illegalimmigation; kookism; kooks; koolaid; moonbats; nafta; nau; northamerica; northamericanunion; nutcases; oneworldgovernment; partnership; prosperity; security; sovereignty; spp; supercorridor; tinfoil; treason
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,361-1,3801,381-1,4001,401-1,4201,421-1,427 last
To: JustPiper
I hear tell that Bush has a problem with our constitution?

In his own words:

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier."

[Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.(Governing Magazine 7/98)]

-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.

--, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it...." [Bush] said.

-- Business Week, July 30, 2001

1,421 posted on 06/20/2006 12:51:07 PM PDT by archy (I am General Tso. This is my Chief of Staff, Colonel Sanders....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1419 | View Replies]

To: archy

Well I read he said it was "a piece of crap" in plain language

1,422 posted on 06/21/2006 12:37:55 PM PDT by JustPiper ("I have one voice, one vote to make a difference.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1421 | View Replies]

To: Smartass; nicmarlo; calcowgirl; texastoo; JustPiper
Because of the illegal immigrant, we are all entering the hemisphere. There are now too many Mexicans in "America" and too many "Americans" in Mexico for any of us to avoid the New World: the united states of Americas.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ is the author of "Days of Obligation," about Mexico and California. This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

Bienvenidos a MexAmerica
1,423 posted on 06/24/2006 8:43:29 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1408 | View Replies]

To: Gvl_M3

Self ping for later reading.

1,424 posted on 05/24/2007 5:32:01 AM PDT by Gvl_M3 (Sometimes, you have to stand up for yourself, even if it doesn't look "Compassionate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies

BTTT ~~~

1,425 posted on 06/18/2007 7:42:56 PM PDT by Pepper777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pepper777


1,426 posted on 06/27/2007 1:39:34 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1425 | View Replies]

To: All

The security of this nation does not lie with “...our Air Force, Marines, Army, Navy and Coast Guard, in that order, and what there is of a Border Patrol and the Immigration Service and Airport Security.” It lies with the hope that the majority of the people who belong here own a reliable firearm, and care enough about upholding the Constitution to use it if necesarry. We haven’t had a secure nation since at least 1933, probably 1903(militia act), and in all likelyhood a long time before that! The paid military is only useful in preserving liberty if every single one of it’s members understands and upholds the constitution for the United States of America. But then again perhaps my defintion of “security” is flawed.

1,427 posted on 07/05/2007 8:56:33 PM PDT by Historiocality ("there are few problems which cannot be remedied with the suitable application of high explosives.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1426 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,361-1,3801,381-1,4001,401-1,4201,421-1,427 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson