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?
Bttt again. Thanks to all contributors. Informative, educational, interesting.
This is the url for spending and pork:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?sel=DOC&&item=&r_n=hr401.108&&&sid=cp108fShsa&&refer=&&&db_id=cp108&&hd_count=&
--$5,000,000 for the National Council of La Raza HOPE Fund, of which $500,000 is for technical assistance and fund management and $4,500,000 is for investments and financing as proposed by the House. The Senate did not propose funding for this program;
BQ and Czar, see post #1100.
But the U.S. doesn't have "ministers" in its government. Why do we keep seeing "foreign" words (global terms) in these documents?
It seems like I just keep finding goodies. If NAFTA was so good, I wonder why Mexico is 'borrowing" $300,760,000.
Look at the dates on this.
http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?Projectid=P098299&Type=Financial&theSitePK=40941&menuPK=64282135&pagePK=64330670&piPK=64302772
If you will click on overview at the top of this page, it states the reason for this loan. Can you believe "Mexico's lagging competitiveness"? LOLOLOL
Great find and logical question. From that website:
1. Key development issues and rationale for Bank involvement
While the Mexican economy has been improving throughout the last decade, it has not done so at the rates necessary to significantly generate jobs or reduce poverty. Real GDP per capita only grew at an annual rate of 1.2 percent between 1994 and 2004. [NAFTA BEGAN IN 1994] In contrast, GDP per capita grew at 3.3 percent in Chile, 7.7 percent in China, and 5.9 percent in the East Asia and Pacific region as a whole. Productivity growth has also been disappointing and [CHEAPER LABOR] In addition, comprehensive competitiveness measures from a variety of sources show that Mexico is lagging, especially relative to per capita income. All of these results point to an urgent need to upgrade competitiveness in Mexico if the country is going to successfully grow and compete with East Asia.
Aware of its predicament, the Government of Mexico (GOM) declared increasing country competitiveness to be a key priority of the Fox Administration in 2003 and created a Competitiveness Agenda in 2004. The World Bank has supported these efforts through the Mexico Country Partnership strategy which proposed a multi-year program of Analytic and Advisory Activities (AAA) in the area of competitiveness and trade for FY05-FY08 that could lead to programmatic and investment operations. The proposed Development Policy Loan (DPL) is an extension of those efforts.
This is going to be my last post tonight as I have had enough surprises. It seems like everything I haave tried has been rewarding to me. Try this site:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/MEXICOEXTN/0,,menuPK:338410~pagePK:141132~piPK:141105~theSitePK:338397,00.html
WASHINGTON, April 15, 2004 - The World Bank today announced a new Country Assistance Strategy in partnership with Mexico (CAS), which projects about $1.2 billion a year in new lending between July 2004 and June 2008, in order to support the development agenda of Mexico.
So Mexico is getting $1.2 billion a year from the world bank. In 4 years that will be $4.8 billion plus the $300 million.
While we are at it, lets not forget this
http://lugar.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=221484
$100 billion may have been lost to World Bank Corruption
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Witnesses testified before Sen. Dick Lugar Thursday that as much as $100 billion may have been lost to corruption in World Bank lending projects. The World Bank itself, Lugar said, has identified corruption as the single greatest obstacle to improving the lives of the world’s poor, one billion of whom live on less than one dollar a day.
excerpt....
I also would note that we did invite the President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn; the President of the Inter-American Development Bank, Enrique Iglesias; and the President of the African Development Bank, Omar Kabbaj; to testify before this Committee. They declined the invitation, citing the established practice of Bank officials not to testify before the legislatures of their numerous member countries. Their letters of regret will be included in the official record.
I don't recall anything ever being done about this $100 billion discrepancy.
Notice how the bankers think of themselves as immune from answering questions. We have heard the same this past week from William Jefferson who had $90 thousand cold cash in the freezer.
I just went to USAID's website to see what was there. I followed the "about" link, then went to the "Latin America and Caribbean" page. It hasn't been updated since 2005, but I ended up clicking on one of the links for a supposed 2005 conference "...of the Americas." It first said it was redirecting me to a .org website. Much to my surprise, I was redirected to a hard core pornography site. When I google the name of the .org website, it seems that is all it is--Porn! I just sent USAID a nasty email asking if my tax dollars are paying for that, too.
Great work!
Keep in mind that the US pays for at least half of the expenses of the world bank, so for the full 'black ops' costs for US taxpayer funding for mexico we must include what we declare in our house and senate, and then what the international agencies we fund throw in. Add to that the unrestricted control the USTR, the Treasury department, the EPA, the DOT and other agencies provinding "infrastructure development funds and "technical assistance" and other government bureaucracies which have contributed "foreign aid" that is off the books and you have a real financial taxpayer ripoff scandal and a huge hit on our domestic economy.
It looks like there are two "Secretariat" titles at the USAID,
one "Executive Secretariat" and one "GDA (Global Development) Secretariat".
Here's their organization chart:
http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/orgchart.html
Incredible, isn't it? I didn't know (or did I forget) about the World Bank corruption. Corruption seems to follow anything and everything global.
That's disgusting.
I think its the lack of accountability. In a way, it's taxation without representation.
Interesting.
I looked at the pdf file on that site; it's been recently updated: February 2006.
You're absolutely correct. That's the bulk of the problem.
Or it could be that Al Gore's words were true when he said "there is no controlling legal authority".
Look what else I found;
S.1446
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2006 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)
Now that we have the traitors in the Senate identified, it's time to start compiling a list of traitors in the House.
Does anyone know who sponsored the amendment adding the $5M for LaRaza?
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.