North American Union to Replace USA? ("is this the plan?" alert!)

HumanEventsOnline.com ^ | 5/19/2006 | Jerome R. Corsi

[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?

[calcowgirl]

Thanks. I've found lots of references to Corridors and Mobility and Trade, etc. but I haven't found the source of the specific capitalized phrase that is included in the California legislation. (federally designated "Trade Corridors of National Significance"). I'm thinking it might be buried in the pork-filled highway bill but I haven't puulled it up to look at it yet.

What goes around, comes around. I noticed on Page 6 of your link it takes you right back to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). LOL

[Rokke]

"I suspect that they have directions they want the world to go that citizens in the countries of the world may not want."

So do I. So does just about everyone I know. In just about every country I've ever traveled to. That happens to be a very common world-wide desire.

"I don't find the notion of wealthy or powerful men working on plans to direct future history for their own purposes."

I think you forgot to complete your thought here, so I'm going to refrain from responding until I have a better idea of what you are saying.

" I think it's tin foil hat time when it's assumed that a such a group, composed of those who can personally direct industry blocs with upper managerial power, meets regularly, the minutes are secret and the security is total."

People who believe that are people who rely on the writings of conspiracy theorists rather than reality to form their opinions. Among the thousands of the members of the CFR are active military officers (and not general and admirals) who have taken oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. These are not world power players. They are dedicated and fiercely loyal Americans. Yet some would like to believe they engage in "secret" meetings plotting to form a single New World Order. That isn't just tinfoil time. It is rubber room time.

[Rokke]

I'll be in Asia for the next week or so, so my timezone is 180 out from normal, but I will contribute as much as I can. It just might not be timely.

[mjolnir]

The book you cite takes off spectacularly, and then dies because she falls in love with some shlub, and doesn't have the deire to finish the thing because of the ups and downs of her infatuation. She is highly emotional, as you say

Yeah, What I saw at the Revolution does have a lot of good insights. The most impressive to me was her prediction that Edmund Morris would write an unflattering biography of Reagan because he wasn't the kind of guy who could "get" Reagan and was "immune to charm."

There are overly emotional people on both sides of this issue, Jason Riley and many others at the Wall Street Journal being among them... So maybe it's a Wall Street Journal thing.

[Rokke]

Don't leave the thread too soon. There is just the slightest chance of a factual discussion on this issue, and a military man like yourself will most likely have useful input on the CFR plot to overthrow you and the world.

[Rokke]

'This article came from Human Events -- hardly as library of radical lib articles. I believe every word of it."

So you actually believe this statement in the third sentence of article..."Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada." I just can't believe the Bush administration would try to do anything that sneaky and secret. The bastards.

When an article starts with information as patently wrong as this one, I know where the rest of the article belongs.

[Rokke]

"This is another endearing trait of the Party-Above-Principle Big Tent GOP/RNC loyalists, i.e., none of this can possibly be true because that would mean we are being sold out by our own government, and by the GOP leadership, headed by good ol' guess who?"

And a key trait of the anti-Bush America is doomed defeatists is that this story must be true because they read about it on the internet. "Damn the facts...full speed ahead!"

[Rokke]

"So Barry Goldwater was a neocon in 1964, huh? I guess, according to this, Ralph Nader would be more of a conservative than William F. Buckley, Frank Meyer, Hayek, Thomas Sowell and Rush Limbaugh. Obviously, that's absurd. Ralph Nader, like Pat Buchanan, are neither one of them conservatives in so far as either believes in centralized governance with respect to economic matters. Economic nationalism is a form of socialism practiced by the likes of Hugo Chavez, and the national government telling businesses who they may buy or sell to is a form of economic nationalism. As such, it is not only unconservative but as profoundly antithetical to America's principles as monarchism."

You win the prize for the most cogent, coherent and accurate post on this otherwise comical thread. I know your competition wasn't exactly fierce, but congratulations anyway.

[TigersEye]

Attorney General Rafael Macedo said ... "It's an area of high security, it's necessary that we have access to this, through a chip, which what's more is unremovable," Macedo told reporters.

Ha! That's what he thinks.

[Rokke]

"A method of keeping us quiet?"

Based on this thread alone, it obviously isn't working.

[Rokke]

"As one of Clinton's final acts didn't he give control over our inland waterways to the UN?"

Yes. Just the other day I saw a United Nations patrol boat in Wisconsin. They tried to make it look like a bass boat, but one of the guys in it was Chinese and the other looked Mexican, so I'm pretty sure they were from the UN. Probably CFR members too.

[Rokke]

Ping me next time you use my name in a post. If you want an answer look at the favorability rating of all the individual Senators and Congressmen in their own districts. You know...the people who actually vote for them. You hate John McCain? He's got over a 70% approval rating among those actually allowed to vote for him. Do you think he cares what you think if you can't vote for him? Some conspiracy isn't it? It's called representing your voters.

[TigersEye]

Bush's Pro-U.N. Foreign Policy

[Rokke]

Hedgetrimmer, you asked GondramB early in the thread whether he would like to go over the CFR document point by point (I quote..."Do you want to go through the document point by point?"). He responded three minutes after you posted the question that he would. I responded a couple hours later that I would as well. Several hours later you've been actively posting away on FreeRepublic, but you have yet to respond to either my or GondramB's affirmative response to your reasonable question. Was your question sincere, or not?

If not, would ANYONE care to discuss the article in question that seems to be the foundation of so many conspiracies.

[TigersEye]

Ed Meese: Reagan Would Still Oppose Law of the Sea Treaty

The actual title of the treaty is “the United Nation’s Convention on the Law of the Sea.” As its name suggests, it gives to the United Nations, through its subordinate organizations established in the treaty, unprecedented economic powers and expansive authority over the commercial and maritime interests of the nations of the world.

(snip)

How did such an idea get started? It began in the 1970s, when Socialism was still raging and considered by some elitists as “the wave of the future.” The United Nations still wore the mantle of hope. Jimmy Carter claimed that the world’s energy supplies would be diminished in just 20 years. Time spent in our cars waiting for rationed gas gave some the sense that perhaps the world’s resources should be subject to greater regulation.

(snip)

Proponents of this giant step toward world-level bureaucracy probably could not imagine that the new American president, Ronald Reagan, could reject the treaty and fire the people responsible for negotiating it. But he did. LOST was the creature of a negotiation process dominated by the Soviet bloc and the “non-aligned movement.” It placed its hope on the United Nations bureaucracy. And it was out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world. Time has proven President Reagan right.

[RoadTest]

""That's a Satanic lie."
Saying "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary" is a Satanic lie?!?!? Have you ever heard of NORAD? How about NATO? How about the countless mutual defense efforts we've participated with the Canadians in. All a "Satanic lie"? So much for your credibility on this issue.
With regard to prosperity, do you have any idea how much our economies thrive on each other? Obviously not. I'd comment again on your credibility, but there was barely enough to trample on in the first place."

You're talking like a Mexican or, even worse, George W. Bush. Haven't you ever heard of "The United States of America"? It is the free, creative, prosperous nation that all these other nations that you say we are dependent on are flocking to get into because their countries stink!

NORAD? NATO? NAFTA? UN? You could remove every one of them from the face of the earth and you would still have what we have now: The United States supplying the prosperity and the security of the world as best it can ALONE!

Dilute it with these other inconsequential entities and you will have diluted freedom, security and prosperity. That's what I see our administration doing.

Are you a troll?

[Dark Skies]

Where did this information come from?

Oddly enough, this piece was written by Jerome R. Corsi, author of Unfit for Command, and it was published in Human Events.

I hope it isn't true (it is indeed the stuff of nightmares) but it was at least quite thought provoking.

[nicmarlo]

bump

[mjolnir]

The Skull & Bones and CFR people are hellions seeking to see how many they can take to Hell with them. They don't give a rap for anything but power that massages their egos - same thing as Kim Il Sung.

George H.W. Bush volunteered for the Navy after war broke out and at 18 became the Navy's youngest commissioned pilot, serving from 1942 to 1945. George H.W. Bush flew on 58 missions and was shot down once. In the Philipines, his squadron suffered 50 percent pilot casualties of its pilots.

And yet if I read you correctly you’re stating that George H.W. Bush is just like Kim Il Sung.

George H.W. Bush is a good and decent man, as is his son and namesake. He devoted his life to this country and stopping evil men like Kim Il Sung from imposing their will on us and the world. He deserves our gratitude.

[mjolnir]

Thanks, but this whole deal is so upside down, it's making my head spin! If an American conservative forum like Free Republic doesn't support capitalism in one of the biggest boom times this or any other nation has ever known, who will (of course, to be fair, most probably still do)?

I can understand socialists like this annoying group http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/coffee/ being favoring government control of markets.

But I can't understand it here.

Jerome Corsi did a good job helping the Swift vets, obviously. But I haven't noticed John O'Neill, who I thought came off very impressively in his mission to shed light on Senator Kerry helping Corsi out in this latest crusade. I wonder why not?