Check out article and # 2 .
Posted on 03/08/2016 7:28:37 AM PST by xzins
A new CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force report, North America: Time for a New Focus, asserts that elevating and prioritizing the Canada-Mexico-U.S. relationship offers the best opportunity for strengthening the United States and its place in the world.
"It is time to put North America at the forefront of U.S. policy," the report says. "The development and implementation of a strategy for U.S. economic, energy, security, environmental, and societal cooperation with its two neighbors can strengthen the United States at home and enhance its influence abroad."
by David H. Petraeus, retired U.S. Army general and chairman of the KKR Global Institute, and Robert B. Zoellick, former president of the World Bank Group and chairman of Goldman Sachs's International Advisors, the Task Force is composed of a diverse and distinguished group of experts that includes former government officials, scholars, and others. The project is directed by CFR Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies Shannon K. O'Neil.
The Task Force proposes a comprehensive set of recommendations for deepening North American integration, concentrating on four pivotal areas—energy, economic competitiveness, security, and community. These include:
***Capitalizing on North America's promising energy outlook.***
The North American countries need a regional energy strategy to strengthen the continent's energy infrastructure, expand energy exports, support Mexico's historic reforms, improve safety, and encourage harmonized policies to promote energy conservation and reduce carbon emissions.
"For economic, environmental, and diplomatic reasons, the Task Force recommends that the U.S. government encourage increased energy connections with Canada and Mexico. The U.S. government should approve additional pipeline capacity, including the Keystone XL pipeline," the report says. "The Task Force also proposes that the United States end restrictions on energy exports, including oil and LNG (liquefied natural gas)."
***Bolstering economic competitiveness through the freer movement of goods and services across borders.***
Upgrading infrastructure and policies across borders would interconnect national economies securely and efficiently. Recognizing trilateral economic interests, the United States should also include Canada and Mexico in its negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and other free trade agreements.
"The United States' ability to compete in a dynamic and competitive world economy would be strengthened by enhanced economic ties with Canada and Mexico," the report explains. "The Task Force recommends working toward the free and unimpeded movement of goods and services across North America's common borders."
***Strengthening security through a unified continental strategy and "continuous border innovation."***
While working toward the goal of a unified security strategy for North America, the United States and Canada should support Mexican efforts to strengthen the democratic rule of law, dismantle criminal networks, contribute to the development of resilient and cohesive communities, and reduce arms smuggling and drug consumption.
"The United States should shift from border-centric security toward a strategy of combining perimeter protection with security in depth through the use of intelligence, risk assessment, shared capabilities, and joint actions throughout the region," the report says.
***Fostering a North American community through comprehensive immigration reform, workforce development, and the creation of a mobility accord to facilitate the movement of workers.***
The U.S. Congress should pass comprehensive immigration reforms. To better aid the movement of North American workers, the three countries should also create a North American Mobility Accord, expand visas for skilled workers, streamline recognition of professional credentials, and develop a regional educational innovation strategy.
"The Task Force strongly recommends the passage of comprehensive federal immigration reform that secures U.S. borders, prevents illegal entry, provides visas on the basis of economic need, invites talented and skilled people to settle in the United States, and offers a pathway to legalization for undocumented immigrants now in the United States," the report says.
He had many of the right credentials: Argued the Heller case, favors tax reform and abolition of the IRS, at least talks the right game on immigration, etc. Says he will appoint Constitutional judges.
Then he voted for TPP, further empowering and enabling Obama and his agenda, particularly on immigration visa vis how it's negotiated with TPP "partners".
Then after that he voted for the Corker bill, standing the treaty provision of the US Constitution on its head and empowering Obama to in turn empower Iran with its nuke program. If he ever offered a straight answer why, it never got around to me.
Then the story emerged about his, uh, birth and citizenship status...
Aw, geez...
Sorry, I know we're supposed to be nice about all this stuff these days but I just don't understand the groupthink. How do I say this politely... I question the NBC status of anyone, any candidate for President, if they've had to renounce citizenship to any other country, and I'm not interested in how any judge here or there rationalizes it.
All of which adds up for me to "No, I don't think so..." and also makes me inclined to at least hear out anything put before me having to do with continued foreign invasion and anything else that wasn't as it appeared six months ago.
I'm about to say more, but again, I don't want disrespect the rules of the house.
Public sector or private sector, I, as an American citizen, resent the machinations of elites trying to reengineer the world I live in without any authorization from or accountability to the people whose lives they intend to transform, who in this case happen to be We the People of the United States of America.
The fact that Heidi Cruz invokes "higher living standards for the poorest among us" by resort to "private institutions and free markets" is just a disguise to cloak the naked will to power elitist plans and projects entail. All this is is pretty, politically-correct camouflage for objectively evil intentions. But this little speech probably makes Heidi feel really good about herself -- she is so virtuous, so "caring," you see....
Whether conservatives or progressives, such elitists seek to undermine and destroy the liberty and sovereignty of We the People.
As a member of We the People, who ordained and established the Constitution of the United States for the benefit of ourselves and our posterity, not only do I resent the fact that said elitists have such plans and designs on my sovereign liberty, but I will resist and oppose them and their projects and plans tooth and nail.
Ours is a government of, by, and for the people. We are not beholding to a cabal of self-appointed elite intellectuals, understood by themselves as our "betters," who regard We the People as too unenlightened and stupid to run our own lives. Therefore, as they reason, WE must let THEM run our lives for us: They are our betters. In their own minds, they are the chosen ones to correct God's shoddy workmanship, in His act of creation.
No thank you. I vastly prefer the Framers' model of social organization.
Dear Jeff, it seems you may be susceptible to "magic words," to the charms of artful speech....
JMHO FWIW
No. I am a Trump oppnent.
I assume you have decided it is more expedient to simply "take me out" with an ad hominem attack designed to totally undermine my credibility as a witness.
Nonsense. I ask that you be objective in research in support of your partisanship.
So having set up your strawman, you ran with it.
My suspicion is Ted would approve of tactics like that.
Will you vouchsafe that Ted Cruz is not some kind of Trojan horse for the Council on Foreign Relations? His record on illegal immigration/path to citizenship is pretty squishy, inchoate....
No, I'll refer you to my comparison of Cruz' plan to Trump's. At the time, my preferred candidate was Gilmore, but given your posting, I don't expect you to study it carefully.
So, I stand corrected by you, and acknowledge that Heidi Cruz is not a lawyer. She is a banker.
No, she's an analyist and investment strategy manager for a bank. Quite different really.
And according to the public record, she is working to turn the United States of America into a mere component of some kind of facsimile of the European Union.
That is false. Heidi Cruz took exception in writing to that CFR report. The words "North American Union" do not occur in the report. But there is a paragraph you should note:
Check out article and # 2 .
Does CNN have the next debate ?
Send the. All this information with a couple of suggested questions related to it
IOW do their work for them. Moderators are always asking for input!
Betty, there you go again...and it is IMHO, completely out of character, at least over the 15+ years I have known you, for you to lob such innuendo and attacks at me.
In my post I replied with factual info about the source of the attack on Heidi Cruz. In doing so I did not attack you, or anyone else on this board. I simply made plain that the origination of this attack on Mrs. Cruz was a GOP establishment candidate in 2012 who wanted to find anything he could to defeat Cruz.
And he failed.
The people of Texas did not buy it in the Primary of 2012. They did not buy it in the general election of 2012. They did not buy it in this year’s Texas primary election. And I do not buy it now.
I have plainly stated that I will vote for Donald Trump should he win the nomination. I have given the reasons why, and particularly in my latest:
The Donald Trump Phenomenon Part II
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3406733/posts
...explained why I think he could be a great President if he proceeds to win the nomination.
You see, we do not have to attack each other, or attack other candidates who have, despite whatever blemishes they may have (and we all have them...and they all have them) but who nonetheless stood strong for this nation and its constitution.
When we start to hurl such innuendo at one another, like when referring to me saying, “it seems you may be susceptible to “magic words,” to the charms of artful speech....” We poisons the well.
Betty, I am not giving in to “magic words<” or to the “charms of artful speech.” You know better than that.
such accusations can easily drive people who have been, and ought to remain allies in the fight against the far more insidious evil we face, to anger and a war of words amongst ourselves. Such conditions certainly will not serve our united efforts to stop the Obama legacy and a furtherance of his disastrous policies.
On top of all of that, Betty, IMHO, it is simply beneath you.
I will not reply back in kind.
God’s blessings on you and yours...and His blessings on us all as we each seek to preserve our Republic.
How about? Nancy was a policy advisor for Ronald. Will Heidi have that kind of respect from you?
Only if you tie the other information in first.
State one or two synopsis facts derived from the articles and then your question.
Yep. Wonder where to send it?
Google debate contact with network. It should pop up
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4545958/trump1991
Looks like FB Twitter and email ICONS at bottom of page
Good for you. And I will take you at your word because I'm talking to a perfect stranger on the Internet and have nothing to lose.
Now, if you were running for President...
There's an easy way to learn enough that it won't seem so strange.
Now, if you were running for President...
I'd much rather teach one, thank you.
Let's get this straight, Jeff. I am NOT "attacking" you. And I am NOT using "innuendo": I am speaking plainly, forthrightly, directly, saying what I mean and meaning what I say.
Stop trying to lay a "guilt trip" on me (or "guilt trap") -- to the effect "I have known you for 15+ years, and have never seen you act so uncharacteristically" and, by implication, also meanly. Oh betty, how you have changed! Jeepers, I better get back into line! I better come to my senses!!!
What I want to know is, where are you getting all your information about this noble man, Ted Cruz, and his saintly wife, the banker??? (Who may be lining up future business for Goldman Sachs from this North American Union deal which you deny is even a deal in the first place? It's just a friendly gathering of like-minded, selfless, totally disinterested people from the governments and private business sectors of three countries, just by mere happenstance having a late-night bull session together just to pass the time? Who just happen to have a publicist on stand-by?)
Jeepers, Jeff -- do you think I was born yesterday???
Come to think of it, were you by any chance born yesterday???
I never intended to offend you, Jeff. I just wish you'd open your eyes and see what's actually going on, in contradistinction to what you'd like to see going on. All around you.
We the People are being royally snookered by a man who, if elected president, would be the first foreign-born, dual citizen to occupy the Oval Office. (Thanks to my dear brother xzins for pointing this out.)
Not only that, but foreign born to a Mexican father and American mother, on Canadian soil -- making him a one-man band for the would-be North American Union that is already being facilitated by Barack Obama, with no resistance from Congress, notwithstanding both houses are in GOP hands.
The de facto policy is: No borders, unlimited immigration, and the total eradication of the nation's immigration and naturalization laws. Not to mention the implosion of historic American culture, and the Constitution itself.
And you're singing in the Obama/Cruz/Wall Street/Business Roundtable/NAM choir???
Pul-eeze, Jeff -- WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!
I was trying to make a broader point. Should have worded it differently, i guess.
If you run for President I’ll visit the link. :-)
I did my “homework” and globalism sucks for the American constitutional Republic and our people.
It's easy to attack...to say people are somehow deluded, being charmed, or following a pied piper.
It would be easy to throw those right back in your face...no matter what excuses you give. That's where such dialog leads.
But I have no intention of doing so because first it is not my disposition, and second, quite frankly after all of these years, I simply do not believe that about you.
If you honestly believe that such straight, direct, accusations of me are true, then clearly, you do not know me as well as I thought.
As it is...my point stands.
If we alienate the very people whose support we are gong to need in the general, we risk not serving the overall goal of tunring our country around.
I will not go there. <> I will gladly vote for Trump if he is the nominee. Despite whatever warts...and I have clearly stated why. You see Betty, I am VERY awake, and smelling those roses.
I would hope that the inverse of that would also hold.
With that...I think we've made our respective positions prteety clear.
I'd say so, Jeff.
p.s.: Before anybody picks me off for yet another careless mistake, Ted Cruz's father was Cuban, not Mexican. But the analogy would be: If the European Union can accommodate Greece (basket case that it is), then I think the North American Union would be able to accommodate Cuba, and other Hispanic outposts within the North American orbit (e..g., Puerto Rico).
Jeff, you continue to misread me, if you think I'm giving "excuses."
I have nothing to make excuses for; since I said what I meant, and meant what I said. And I continue to stand by 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.