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?
That's because it isn't.
Would you like to debate the document you listed in post 748 instead of the CFR document you originally wanted to discuss? At least you've obviously read the one you posted.
Then stop throwing out statements you can't support. Your arguments become even more irrelevant.
I assume you do know how to read? Encouragement of migration is plainly spelled out. Focusing on the borders of the North American Union is plainly spelled out. Reducing focus on internal borders, i.e., Canada/USA and USA/Mexico, is plainly spelled out. Encouraging interdependence and/or assimilation between and among Canada/USA and USA/Mexico is also within the texts. Interdependence, btw, takes away from Independence, a necessary ingredient to sovereignty.
If you're too lazy to find the words by reading, get google, type in the words "migration", "border", "dependent", and "assimilate" and you'll find those terms. If you need help with reading comprehension, there are online helps for that.
We are already subsidizing Mexico, directly. We subsidzie that country again through the illegals who send money into their country, which equals their GDP, I believe, 20% is the the figure I last saw.
The problem with "free trade" is that human beings are prone to do what's best for themselves and do not operate out of doing what's best or right for others, in the here and now, or in the long term. True free trade would require that the governments would live up to the goals set. If a country is corrupt, only a fool would believe it would become less corrupt as more and more money is funneled into its own economy.
The free market should be the preferred method of trade; I dislike striking "deals" with the devil.
Well, I've got to hand it to you. That quality of logic is at least as consistent as the rest of the CFR bashers on this thread who can't support their arguments. So let me get this straight. The only people who can effectively debate the objectives, mindsets and goals of the CFR and its members are people who neither belong to the CFR or even know anyone in the CFR. Obviously, I should also avoid discussing issues related to being a male, Christianity, and monogamy. The reason I didn't post I have a family member in the CFR is because that fact is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the discussion, which was SUPPOSED to be a point by point discussion of a single CFR document. As it has become OBVIOUSLY apparent that no CFR basher on this thread is capable of debating anything, nevermind a single CFR document, I could be the President and founder of CFR and it wouldn't matter to this thread.
Those were my thoughts.
Now you are predicting the future to support your otherwise unsupportable points. Why am I not surprised.
You are actually serious. I can't believe it.
Then you will have no trouble refering to each one specifically. Please do. They are your arguments. Support them. Or don't make them.
But the United States is not corrupt. That's why lowering trade barriers inevitably helps the United States more than countries like Mexico. Surely you don't want less and less money funneled into the United States?
The documents are all posted on this thread; why even one of them you inquired about why I posted it.
But Mexico is corrupt. And it should be a wealthy nation. It's elitists, however, consumes and squanders the monies. They're not the kind I would ever trust to enter into a partnership.
Thanks for the pings Carolyn. Sorry I'm slow to respond!
The documents do not support your points. If they did, you would provide specific references that did. They don't, so you can't. That is entirely transparent.
But they do. And thanks for making sure that at least others will now go look for them and read it for themselves, unlike you.
I agree that after decades of PRI rule, Mexico's government is corrupt. But why punish the United States for the government of Mexico's fecklessness? Setting up trade barriers hurts the American economy as a whole.
How is our country not being punished by outsourcing good jobs and importing cheap labor?
Manufacturing closes, and other outsourcing, has caused job losses. This hurts the American worker.
Importing cheap labor has depressed wages. This also hurts the American worker.
Maybe large corporations are reaping the rewards for outsourcing and the importation of cheap labor, but the average American is not.
That's amusing. I can't even get people on this thread to support their own arguments, but you think they are going to try to find support for yours.
I have no doubt that your relation and the others you have met are good, loyal, Americans who want to preserve our sovereignty. I also personally know several current members, with whom I worked for many years, that I would put in that category. None of that proves anything nor does it make one's argument better than the other.
I will note that were also many names on that membership list that clearly do not fit the category above; Dan Rather comes to mind, as did Richard Barnet. Also in this category would be those from the Open Society Intstitute, the hundreds of liberal professors listed, influential journalists, not to mention the leftist politicians who are members. The UN wing of the CFR seems to have been much more effective in advancing their leftist agenda than those members you and I may know.
What I find disturbing is that reports like these are written by a group that has clearly been influential in developing and getting policy implemented over the past several decades, but so many here would prefer to label and mock those asking questions than to actually discuss what is being proposed.
Is that what it has come to? Groups of elitists and Government pushing through substantive changes that effect this great nation, yet the "little people" shall not be provided explananation nor be allowed to ask questions or provide input?
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.