Posted on 07/31/2006 3:05:40 PM PDT by Reagan Man
The hottest issue at the grass roots is illegal immigration and what our government is not doing to stop it. The question most frequently heard is, "Why doesn't the Bush administration get it?"
Maybe the Bush administration doesn't want to stop the invasion of illegal immigrants and plans to solve the problem by just declaring them all legal through amnesty and guest-worker proposals. Maybe the Bush administration is pursuing a globalist agenda. Consider this chronology.
On March 23, 2005, President Bush met at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, with Vicente Fox of Mexico and Paul Martin of Canada in what they called a summit. The three heads of state then drove to Baylor University in Waco, Texas, where they issued a press release announcing their signing of an agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
On May 17, 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations issued a 59-page document outlining a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter" to achieve "the freer flow of people within North America."
This document is full of language spelling out an "integrated" strategy to achieve an "open border for the movement of goods and people" within which "trade, capital, and people flow freely." The document calls for "a seamless North American market," allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access," "totalization" (the code word for putting illegal immigrants into the U.S. Social Security system), massive U.S. foreign aid, and even "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution."
Tying this document into the Bush-Fox-Martin March 23 Summit, the Council of Foreign Relations stated that the three men on that day "committed their governments" to the North American community goal, and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.
On June 9, 2005, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., held a friendly committee hearing that featured task force member Robert Pastor, a professor at American University and author of the 2001 book "Toward a North American Community" (Institute for International Economics, $28). He revealed further details of the plan for a "continental perimeter," including "an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure that includes new North American highways and high-speed rail corridors."
Pastor asserted that President Bush endorsed North American integration in the Guanajuato Proposal of February 16, 2001, in which Bush and Fox promised that "we will strive to consolidate a North American economic community." Bush followed up on April 22, 2001, by signing the Declaration of Quebec City in which he made a "commitment to hemispheric integration."
On June 27, 2005, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff attended a North American Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Ottawa at which he said, "We want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our borders." The White House issued a press release endorsing the Ottawa report and calling the meeting "an important first step in achieving the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership."
In July 2005, the White House let it be known that it is backing a coalition called Americans for Border and Economic Security organized by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie. Its purpose is to conduct a political-style campaign to sell the American people on a guest-worker program wrapped in a few border-security promises and financed by coalition members who each put up $50,000 to $250,000.
On March 31 President Bush met at Cancun, Mexico, for a spring frolic with Fox and the new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Their press release celebrated what they called the first anniversary of the partnership, and Bush demanded that Congress pass an immigration bill with a worker permit program.
On May 15 Bush made a nationally televised speech in which he enunciated the amazing non sequitur that we can't have border security unless we also have a "comprehensive" bill including legalization of illegal immigrants now in the United States and the admission of new so-called guest workers.
Thanks to the investigative work of Jerome R. Corsi, we have learned that the partnership's more than 20 working groups are already quietly operating in the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the U.S. Department of Commerce, which refuses to reveal the groups' members because, in the words of partnership spokeswoman Geri Word, the Bush administration does not want them "distracted by calls from the public."
Corsi discovered recently that the partnership issued a "Report to Leaders" on June 27, 2005, that shows the partnership's extensive interaction with government and business groups in the three countries.
On June 15, 2006, the partnership's North American Competitiveness Council, consisting of government officials and corporate chief executive officers from the three countries, met to "institutionalize the partnership and the North American Competitiveness Council, so that the work will continue through changes in administrations."
The Bush administration is using a series of press releases, without authority from Congress or the American people, to shift us into the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership with "a more open border for the movement of goods and people."
No, the trouble would be if she WAS right. FOrtunately, there is no chance she is.
Try finding an engineer or an electrician or a heavy equipment operator on the West coast of theUS that isn't working overtime.
:-)
You notice when asked for facts to back up his whine, he runs away. Reagan Man my ass. More like Reagan Woman.
Sure did.
Other than specialty woods and products, you're not going to persuade anyone that 'wood', generally, is in a boom on this continent.
Yes I could, if I had the time. The housing boom in the last 3 years was more than impressive. They are not all steel framed homes, I can assure you.
THat is why markets are speculatory. And the speculation is often wrong.
I have to disagree. Whther one considers it having been for good or ill, Ronald Reagan promoted free markets at home and abroad; he never supported "fair trade" anymore than he supported "fair wages".
Is that why Bush appointed CFR member Condoleeza Rice to the State Department?
Mkt values are about information and emotion, nothing else. The more information the mkt -- by which I mean the participants in the mkt -- has, the less volatile and unpredictable it is.
Supply imbalance? If the mkt participants, as a group, are all aware of it, the price will go to 'clearing' levels nearly immediately. If not, things can (and almost always do) become very wild.
The cause of large bull or bear mkts is the lack of sufficient information available to the participants, plus whatever emotional factors come into play, which of course can be huge on occasion. Energy mkts, above all, are subject to the excess of emotion, never mind whether mkt information is completely or nearly so to the mkt participants.
Following her initial Hoover Institution affiliation, Rice went to Washington, D.C. to work on nuclear strategic planning at the Joint Chiefs of Staff as part of a Council on Foreign Relations fellowship. She came back to Stanford when the fellowship ended.
That was 1986. She is definitely a part of the illuminati.
That's simply NOT true. You're wrong.
Ronald Reagan was a big believer in free trade, as long as it was fair trade. And while Reagan wasn't a protectionist per se, many economists considered his administration to be the most "protectionist" Presidency since Herbert Hoover. Reagan signed off on special trade protection for Harley-Davidson, imposed quotas on steel imports, pressured Japan to restrict vehicle shipments to the United States, tightened limits on foreign textiles, accepted new barriers to imported sugar, raised duties on Canadian shakes and shingles. All in the name of fair trade.
In 1980 Reagan campaigned on creating a free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. Later that became NAFTA, which Reagan supported in principle. I think Reagan would have a different perception today of the poor results produced by NAFTA. Unlike Bush41, Clinton and Bush43, Reagan wasn't a hardcore globalist.
Here's two radio speeches to the nation on the issues of free and fair trade.
President Ronald Reagan, Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade, September 7th, 1985
President Ronald Reagan, Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade,April 25th, 1987
"We hope that through these negotiations we will be able to convince our trading partners to stop their unfair trading practices and open those markets that are now closed to American exports. We will take countermeasures only as a last resort, but our trading partners should not doubt our determination to see international trade conducted fairly with the same rules applicable to all. I'm committed to and will continue to fight for fair trade. American exporters and American workers deserve a fair shake abroad, and we intend to see they get it. Our objective will always be to make world trading partnerships freer and fairer for all."
President Ronald Reagan
I knew President Reagan had made some concessions to the protectionists, as all presidents have, but didn't realize President reagan had used the actual Naderite term "fair trade" which denotes the leveling of results at the expense of the fairness of process. The subsidizing other nations do of certain industries only hurts their economies, and it's too bad President Reagan was forced to do the same to ours. However, I still find don't believe that President Reagan believed in free but fair trade--- a free market in wages is incompatible with "fair" wages just as free and "fair" trade are incompatible. But thanks for the quote and links!
In 1993, before NAFTA passed, we exported $41.6 billion to Mexico and $100.4 billion to Canada. In 2005 we exported $120.3 billion to Mexico and $211.9 billion to Canada.
I know how inconvenient facts are to your position, but that doesn't look like a poor result to me.
Thanks for the post.
In 1993, before NAFTA passed, we had maybe 2 or 3 million illegals from Mexico. Today, there are approximately 20 million illegal Mexicans in the US.
I know how inconvenient facts are to your position, but that DOES look like poor results to me when a country exports 1/10 of their population.
Face it, NAFTA was and is a failure.
Send them back. Build a fence.
Are you advocating giving back their farmlands and conditions prior to NAFTA?
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.