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?
During the decades long Cold War, the Eastern Bloc countries of the Soviet Communist Empire... which included Cuba ... could have used border infiltration as a means to sabotage the U.S.
During the Reagan years we were actively opposing Communism in Nicaragua and there was a shooting war in that country between the Communists and "our side".
We have even been at war with Terrorism especially from the fall of the Iranian Shah onward (Carter), but even before if you count our strong support of Israel against her violent enemies. It's just that it took us far too long to realize that it was a war, not random acts or a law enforcement problem.
So I don't look at this as a "Declared War" issue regarding American Presidents and Congress not securing the border. I look at it as our nation under persistent threat through all those Presidencies and Congresses but none of them secured the border.
Now we have these who say the reason Bush (what happened to Congress?) didn't secure it had to have been because he is secretly planning to do away with the United States as a soverign nation (so why didn't other President's secure it?). Involving CFR, and we have to learn about it from Phyllis Schafley (but it's secret don't you know). She is a Buchananite. 2 + 2 equals 4, and that ain't no conspiracy theory.
She has done some good things in her career, but she has always supported Buchanan and some of them thar folks can be very far out and very destructive kooks.
I don't doubt that, but you didn't answer my question. Have you read the whole document? If you say "no" I will simply state that we can resume this discussion once you've had a chance to read it. That's it.
It almost would be if you didn't have to go back and some people are.We are at war and my granddaughter and the man she fell in love with are going back.
Whew.
Thanks, and I agree.
Thanks yourself. What a thread! I won't bother elaborating. No need.
It not only implies it it directly states it.
I stand by my replies. You won't even state your question.
How did you manage to answer it several times then?
Blind, stupid luck.
Mmmm hmmm. ; )
I think that's from the CFR about page:
http://www.cfr.org/about/washington/congressional.html
The Council’s Congressional Staff Roundtable Series provides a near-weekly forum for discussion of essential issues under the Council tradition of no attribution. It assembles key staff from relevant congressional committees and foreign-policy staffers who work for individual members of Congress in a neutral setting to discuss international topics. Roundtables engage congressional staff from both political parties in the House and Senate in sustained discussion of major issues in U.S. foreign policy, ranging from U.S.-China relations to American evangelicals and U.S. Middle East policy. The roundtables focus on links between domestic and international factors, the relationship between economics and security, new dimensions of international relations, and changing conceptions of U.S. interests in an evolving international order.
We are at war.We are at war and my Granddaughter is going back to fight in a war.
Yes, I believe I acknowledged the fact that we are at war.
Godspeed to your granddaughter.
Thanks for that. I wish yours was a common courtesy.
Ah, but if someone hires members disproportionate to the labor pool for such positions, might you not infer a trend? BTW, are you a member?
I'm not sure what you mean. If I wanted to hire the most qualified people for a position, I would seek the people with the best qualifications. Often, those people have been recognized in a variety of ways. (Who's Who in America, honorary degrees, memberships to various boards and councils etc). High achievers tend to accumulate awards and recognition. That is a plus, not a minus when you are looking for the best person for a job.
"BTW, are you a member?"
Nope. I'm barely able to maintain a FreeRepublic membership.
When you say NAFTA was sold as a way to STOP illegal immigration, you're saying that it was sold as a way to completely eliminate illegal immigration, and that's what I'm saying is too strong.
I can see arguments against NAFTA but I don't see how using the word "minister" could be one of them.
I can see arguments against NAFTA but I don't see how using the word "minister" could be one of them.
I never learned any of this in school. What about you? I don't have a clue as to why these words are used but they are used by the UN types.
The Secretariat
The Council of Ministers of the Commission is supported by a Secretariat, whose staff is drawn equally from the three NAALC countries. It includes labor economists, labor lawyers and other professionals with wide experience in labor affairs in the region. They work in the three official languages of the NAALC English, French and Spanish in a unique multinational institution devoted to advancing labor rights and labor standards as an integral part of expanding trade relations.
Located in Washington, D.C., the Secretariat also undertakes labor-related research and public information, and assists the member countries with their cooperative activities.
Go to www. naalc.org
I don't necessarily agree with the premise of this article but it stirred plenty of debate (over 6,000 views and over 600 comments so far). So I guess your point about it not helping anyone is debatable.
And just a tip on debating. Your post contains no argument and immediately moves to personal insult. I don't know you, but I'll bet you prefer to aim higher than that.
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.