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?
You are right. Rubin was Sec. of Treasury at the timeof the bail out. Benston resigned right before this happened and I think some people in the valley thought he was aware. His name was linked with the bailout but may have been speculation.
CONCEALING THE TRUE FACTS ABOUT MEXICO AND THE IMF (Senate - November 15, 1995)
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, for months, the Clinton administration and the Mexican Government have told Congress and the American people that the President's $20 billion bailout of Mexico was a success. But the administration and the Mexican Government have been concealing the true facts from the Congress and, more importantly, from the American people. It is wrong and it is outrageous. Particularly in this time of budget austerity when we are having such incredible battles over how to balance the budget and deciding what programs will be cut. I think it is incredible at this point in our history that we are watching tens of billions of dollars go down a sinkhole and do nothing about it.
For almost a year, I have warned that the Clinton bailout of Mexico was doomed to failure. Over the last few weeks, it has become clear that the President's Mexican mirage is evaporating. Truth, unfortunately, is not pleasant at times, so there are those who seek to look the other way. But the truth is finally coming into focus.
The Clinton administration and the Mexican Government can no longer conceal the real facts. We know that record numbers of Mexicans are out of work, that Mexican interest rates are soaring and that Mexico is reeling under increasing social and political unrest.
Before the Mexican peso was devalued last December, it traded at 3.44 against the dollar. On December 22, after the devaluation, the peso was trading at 4.8. Then it went up to 6, and then 7. Yesterday, the peso closed at 7.81. That is a historic low closing rate. Never before has it closed at such a rate--7.81 pesos to the dollar. This morning, it opened at 7.9. That is shocking. That is unbelievable. The peso is in free fall without Mexican Government intervention.
Indeed, Mr. President, let me suggest that the only people who are making money are the currency speculators. They know that the Mexican central bank will intervene, and so as the peso is devalued, as it becomes worth less and approaches the 8 mark and 8.1 and 8.2, the money speculators begin to buy it up because they know at some point the central bank will move in and they can sell for a handsome profit. They are making their profit, while the Mexican Government is chewing up billions of dollars.
How much longer will we have to wait before we recognize that this program has been a failure? If the Mexican bailout was a success, would interest rates have climbed from 20 percent to over 60 percent? That is exactly what has taken place during this period of time. No economy can survive such crushing interest rates--60 percent. Yet when the Mexican President came to the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, indeed, the President of the United States, said that the proof that the program was working was Mexico's `pre-payment' of some of their debt. In reality Mexico flipped the $1.3 billion remainder of their loan, rolled it over, and could not pay it in spite of their so-called early payment of $700 million.
Since February, the United States and the IMF have poured over $23 billion into Mexico. The Mexican Government has used American taxpayer dollars to pay off private investors. The administration should not continue to throw good money after bad.
Last week, I offered a Sense-of-the-Senate resolution calling for the public release of an important document, a document prepared by the International Monetary Fund. This report is known as the Whittome Report. The Whittome Report examined the International Monetary Fund's monitoring and response to the Mexican peso crisis. According to news accounts, the IMF's own report concluded that the International Monetary Fund had distorted its reporting on Mexico to placate political pressure from the Mexican Government.
I suggest that the American people have a right to see that report. Why is the Treasury Department hiding that report? Secretary Rubin has classified it on `national security' grounds.
This report talks about the International Monetary Fund's failure. Why should it be classified so that the American people cannot know what is taking place with money that we have invested with the IMF, with money we have sent down to Mexico. It is American taxpayers' dollars. That report should be declassified.
The Treasury Department's classification on national security grounds is hokum. What nonsense. This report has been made available to 178 other countries that are members of the IMF.
So here we have a report that has been widely circulated and is being held on the arbitrary, obviously sham, excuse that its release would jeopardize national security. It is our taxpayers who are providing the bulk of the funding for this bailout package, a package which is failing. This package is producing record unemployment in Mexico, record high interest rates, and has sent the peso to a record low. This bailout jeopardizes Americans' financial interests.
What do we have? We have secrecy from the Treasury Department claiming that release of this report would jeopardize the security of our country, hiding under the pretext of national security grounds.
Mr. President, 178 countries, many of which may be allied against the interests of the United States, have copies of this report, but the American people do not. And this Senator is not permitted to disclose the contents of that report? That is just simply wrong. It is obvious that this administration is attempting to hide the debacle and the fact that we should never have entered into this absolutely shameful relationship.
What we see taking place today is the currency speculators making billions of dollars of profit. Last evening, the Mexican central bank moved in to support the peso; otherwise, it would have closed over 8. And I have to tell you, as long as they are going to continue to do this, the money speculators will ride that rollercoaster up and down. They will continue to make their fortunes.
We are not helping the Mexican people. We are not helping their economy. We are not helping to create job stability. As a matter of fact, the programs that we have insisted upon are creating economic hardship for Mexico. It is just simply wrong, and it is unconscionable.
I do not believe that we should put one more U.S. dollar into this sinkhole. Let us use the money, if we have an opportunity to save that $7 billion-plus that has not already been wasted, to reduce the budget deficit. Let us use it to fund programs that reasonable people may say, yes, we want to fund but we do not have sufficient money. If we are talking about providing students with an opportunity to get a better education, let us use the money for that program. If we are talking in terms of reducing the Medicare burden, then let us see to it that we make that money available in that area. If we are talking about not having sufficient funds to carry out some of the needs because of budget constraints in the Medicaid Program in years to come, let us use that $7 billion-plus instead of putting good money after bad and making rich people and speculators richer at the expense of the taxpayers.
But let us not hide the truth. Why should the Secretary of the Treasury classify this report and keep it from the American people? I ask the Secretary, `What do you have to hide, Mr. Secretary?' One hundred and seventy-eight foreign countries have this report. Some of them put little, if any, money into the IMF, a pittance. The United States of America and the taxpayers have poured in billions. And yet this report is classified on so-called national security grounds? Mr. Secretary, you are telling the people they do not have a right to see what has taken place?
I have not read the report, and I have not read it for good reason, because otherwise I would probably want to come down on the floor of the Senate and expose the sham that took place. We all know it is a sham that took place. The administration does not want people to see that the IMF has mishandled and bungled what took place down in Mexico. Indeed, the program that we have imposed on the Mexican people not only robs the American taxpayers, it will not help the Mexican people.
We continue blindly along as if the emperor had no clothes and we are afraid to say it. Somehow we are afraid, like the fable about the emperor having no clothes. It took some little boy to say what was wrong. Here they did not want us to have the facts because they do not want people to begin to say, `How could you continue this incredible fiasco?"
Mr. President, let me end on this--the Congress of the United States is reluctant to pull the plug in terms of financing for Mexico because they are justly afraid that President Clinton will turn around and say, `Aha, you are responsible for the failure of the Mexican rescue bailout package.' That is exactly what would take place but that is wrong. President Clinton knows it and the American people know it too.
But there is no reason for this Congress not to insist at least that the truth be made public. My colleagues, Senators and Congressmen should be demanding the release of this Whittome Report. It should not be left to Senator D'Amato. It should not be left to any one person. This should be something that we want, that we demand. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
So, Mr. President, I am going to continue to call this to the attention of my colleagues in the Congress. They have a duty to step forward and say, `Yes, we want this information. The Congress and the American people are entitled to it and they should have it.' For the Secretary of the Treasury to say on national security grounds he cannot make this information available, is something that is absolutely, totally unreasonable, and not sustainable.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Here is "I told you so".LOL
http://www.buchanan.org/pa-95-0102.html
I recall some of the "early" repayments by Mexico. What a joke.
Bentsen, and then Rubin.
New boss, same as the old boss.
Why should [the 1995 Whittome Report] be classified so that the American people cannot know what is taking place with money that we have invested with the IMF, with money we have sent down to Mexico. It is American taxpayers' dollars. That report should be declassified.We continue blindly along as if the emperor had no clothes and we are afraid to say it. Somehow we are afraid, like the fable about the emperor having no clothes. It took some little boy to say what was wrong. Here they did not want us to have the facts because they do not want people to begin to say, `How could you continue this incredible fiasco?"
11 years later, and we're still pouring billions, unaccounted for, down a sinkhole.
U.S. exporters, too, will discover that the peso devaluation has wiped out any benefit from NAFTA's reductions of Mexico's 10 percent tariff on U.S. imports. Our ballyhooed trade surplus, a big talking point for NAFTA, is about to become yet another bleeding trade deficit.Another loser, big-time, is the American taxpayer.
After NAFTA, Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen set up a $6 billion fund for Mexico to sue to protect the peso. Now, Mexico has been authorized to spend the $6 billion - and Treasury is cobbling together an even bigger bailout.
FAST TRACK--TOO EARLY FOR AN OBITUARY -- HON. RON PAUL (Extension of Remarks - November 13, 1997)
---
HON. RON PAUL
in the House of Representatives
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1997
- Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, is fact track dead? Hardly. This 25-year-old process is ingrained in the political process and will not soon disappear. The imperial presidency is alive and well as Congress continues the process of acceding power to the executive branch through such processes as the line item veto, administrative law, War Powers Act, Executive orders, and trade negotiations. The attempt at devolution, which is now ongoing, does little to attach the ever growing power of the Presidency. As Congress--and especially the House--reneges on its responsibility under the concept of separation of powers, the people suffer by loosing their most important conduit to the Federal Government.
- Members opposed fast track for various reasons, some sensible, some less so. Serious proponents consistently stated their support came from their convictions regarding free trade. However, political deals, threats and pressure from financial supporters influenced less serious supporters. This process is nothing new, but in the recent efforts to pass fast track, record offers to persuade Members of Congress to change their vote were made on both sides of the debate. The President and the congressional leaders had a lot to offer and the unions and environmentalists were not bashful about their use of intimidation.
- In spite of the blatant politics of it all, there were among us principled free traders, true believers in U.S. sovereignty, serious concerns for domestic labor, and environmental laws and dedicated populist protectionists.
- And then there were the laissez-faire capitalists, individual liberty, U.S. sovereignty and low tariff proponents, positions held by a scant few. The supporters of fast track cavalierly dismissed all thoughtful opposition. The delivery of power to the Presidency argument was said to be bogus; the treaty versus agreement argument was argued to be nothing more than designed by those wanting to hide behind the Constitution and those concerned about NAFTA boards, world trade organizations, or the multilateral agreement on investments were all just conspiracy nuts the same group of individuals who are concerned about who is flying the unmarked black helicopters around the country. So much for serious debate.
- A few points worth noting:
- First, most members of the coalition, who pushed fast track, have in the past, promoted war under the U.N. banner, bailouts by the IMF, foreign aid, corporate welfare, secret centralized banking, and World Bank loans? Is there any wonder that a populist backlash, from Nadar to Buchanan, blossomed and actually won this round?
- Second, the chief corporate supporters of the fast track process who claimed to be defenders of freedom and free trade have essentially no record of ever promoting free market economics or any organization dedicated to capitalism and sound money. They are all experts in understanding the corporate welfare state and are promoters of the Export/Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, foreign aid, the military industrial complex, fractional reserve banking, public housing, all types of government guaranteed loans and much more. So why this sudden loyalty to freedom of trade and low tariff taxes? This is a question worth pondering. Could it possibly be that fast track, NAFTA and the WTO have nothing to do with real free trade? Could it be that corporate America is ensconced in a modern-day corporatism that see fast track as a vehicle toward a managed trade system that serves the powerful at the expense of the weak? Certainly the ready willingness to grant exemptions to various industries and commodities during the negotiations suggests less than a principled effort to promote free and unhampered trade.
- Third, this current debate has entirely ignored the nature of modern-day protectism. Already, in recent years, sanctions have been applied through international governmental bodies 61 times. These originate from complaints from industries that claim they are being subject to unfare competition from those who are selling their products at a lower price. Currently, there are still pending 27 proposals for more sanctions.
- Fourth, since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods Agreement, trade has been manipulated by the various countries through competitive currency devaluations. This is ongoing and is currently driving the bailout in Southeast Asia, just as was done 2 years ago in Mexico. All this currency and IMF activity is to promote trade in one direction or another and to bail out the powerful special interests who invested in countries when the times were good but want help once the markets turned against them.
- There is no reason why free trade agreements can't be drawn up much more simply and in a bilateral fashion with Congress fully participating. Low tariffs and free trade with any country can be accomplished with an agreement less than one page in length. This whole debate ignores the fact that countries that impose high tariffs on their people suffer much more so than the countries hoping to export products to them.
- This whole debate on fast track was designed to obscure the definition and process of real freedom in trade. Fortunately further casual endorsement of this process, first started by Richard Nixon, was met with a setback, temporary as it may be, in the inexorable march toward the NWO and the one world government.
Bump!
Secrets of the IMF
Robert Novak. Chicago Sun - Times. Chicago, Ill.: Apr 23, 1998. pg. 29
Will the masters of global finance at the International Monetary Fund be required to disclose their secrets in order to qualify for the $18 billion demanded from U.S. taxpayers to bail out international lenders to bankrupt Asian countries?
Congress is being challenged to screw up its courage enough to defy big business, the farm lobby, banking interests and the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board by insisting that the IMF open its books. In particular demand is the suppressed Whittome Report that is alleged to recount U.S. Treasury prior knowledge of - and silence about - the 1994 Mexican financial crisis.
"It is simply ridiculous that an international financial bureaucracy demands a degree of secrecy accorded the CIA," Jack Kemp told his former House Republican colleagues in a letter Wednesday. Kemp holds no office but recently has won important support for IMF disclosure from two old friends in the House, Speaker Newt Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey.
The $18 billion package for the IMF rolled through the Senate last month, with Republican rhetoric (Majority Leader Trent Lott proposed the removal of IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus, calling him "a socialist from France") not matched by action. Overwhelming approval was voted by House Appropriations and Banking Committees. Nevertheless, House GOP leaders are seeking to delay floor action until Sept. 1. By then, demands for secret documents could achieve critical mass.
Spine-stiffening by Gingrich and Armey contrasts with their supine rank-and-file members, who are pressured by farm and business interests that have been convinced their prosperity will collapse if the IMF is deprived of more funds for Asia. The always foreboding Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has threatened dire consequences if Congress does not act. The usually sensible Defense Secretary William Cohen has even gone to the point of warning that a delayed bailout could trigger war on the Korean peninsula.
(snip)
You're doing great research, calcowgirl!
if you say so. they way things are right now, we are surely headed in that direction. Our elected officials (most of them) are headed toward the goal of no U.S.
I think it's pretty fair to say there was a news blockout on this.
I searched all of the major nationwide newspapers for "Whittome" and "IMF". I found only three articles relative to the Mexico report. The WSJ wrote one article in 1995 reiterating D'Amato's concerns. Novak's 1998 article (from which I posted) was published in the Chicago Sun-Times, the Houston Chronicle and The Augusta Chronicle (Nothing from the NYT, the WaPost, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, etc.). And, in 1997, the UK's Financial Times published a letter to the editor mentioning the Whittome report and defending the IMF against criticism published in a prior article (The letter was an IMF director from the , office of internal audit and inspection).
(The letter was from an IMF director in the office of internal audit and inspection).
You all are simply amazingly good!
I have no problem with the United States of North America.
No one said that the original 13 colonies could not receive more states into the union.
As are you, texastoo, and a whole bunch of others that have made this a most informative thread.
Bitter medicine to swallow. And it continues with "our guys" supposedly in charge.
But don't forget to send your donation to the Party-Above-Principle Big Tent GOP/RNC...
More Washington mischief.
I think you're right; my quick google search last night came up with nothing.
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.