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?
I don't get what this means:
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2000/sept00/psrsept00.html
President Bush far from some sort of lackey to the Wall Street Journal's editorial page. He believed in steel tariffs (wrongly, in my opinion), promnised in the campain and follwed through on that promise despite opposition from the WSJ, Limbaugh, Hannity and every other conservative talk show host.
I agree President Bush is wrong as far as "jobs americans won't do" etc. But he is far from the open borders ideology of the WSJ.
BECAUSE the more they attack Bush the more the faithful rally to him(even on free republic) SO that he can pass legislation NO democrat could hope to get passed with a republican Congress.. and conservative base.. i.e. expanding the scope and breath of givernment.. a.k.a. BIG givernment republicans
Pretty smart eh!.. thats why..
Shuush many republicans STILL don't know about this gambit..
NAFTA was Reagan's idea and does include Canada.
Since no one else can come up with a rational answer to what's going on, this theory sounds plausible. Wouldn't be the first time We've had the wool pulled over our eyes.
Great idea !!! It's high time we take over both of those countries.
Many UN and NGO documents confirm the goals and plans of these tireless promoters of global governance in six areas:
* Using the rubric "Peace, Security and Disarmament," the UN wants to establish a UN standing army under the command of the UN Secretary-General, with the ultimate goal of disarming national armies. The UN reformers want to eradicate national sovereignty as a barrier to UN action and use the shibboleth "security of the people" to rationalize UN action inside sovereign countries (as in Kosovo). The plan is to transform sovereign countries into administrative units assigned to carry out UN policies. The UN even wants disarmament of personal guns, with the UN controlling the manufacture, sale, distribution and licensing of all firearms
. * In the area called "Eradication of Poverty," the UN wants debt cancellation for poor countries plus Western-financed social development. This means forcing the United States to turn over our wealth to UN bureaucrats to distribute to Third World dictators.
* Under the do-good caption "Human Rights," the UN plans to enforce its version of global human rights through UN treaties, each of which has its own international compliance commission. These include the UN treaties on the Rights of the Child, on Discrimination Against Women, on Civil and Political Rights, on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and on the International Criminal Court (ICC).
* The heading "Sustainable Development" is designed to facilitate total UN control of the environment. In addition to bootstrapping power to the globalists under the unratified Biodiversity Treaty and Kyoto (Global Warming) Protocol, the plan is to use the UN Trusteeship Council to control the "global commons," which is UN terminology for the atmosphere, outer space, non-territorial seas, and the related environment that supports human life.
* "Globalization to Achieve Equity, Justice and Diversity" is a catch-all phrase to achieve any other power-grabbing goal the UN and NGO bureaucrats may dream up in the future. They want the authority to equalize rich and poor economies and pretend that redistribution of wealth is equity.
* "Strengthening and Democratizing the United Nations" is doubletalk for wiping out all power and influence that the United States might ever exercise in the United Nations. This goal calls for eliminating the veto and permanent member status in the Security Council and giving the UN the power to tax so that it will no longer depend on nations' appropriating funds to pay their dues. UN bureaucrats are salivating over the prospect of passing the Tobin Tax, the brainstorm of James Tobin who lobbied for it during the Copenhagen Summit in 1995. This plan to tax all international financial transactions would funnel an extraordinary $1.5 trillion a year to the UN. Other targets of UN taxing plans include international airline tickets, sea-shipped freight, and ocean fishing.
* Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms has been calling for the United Nations to reform itself and reduce its bloated budgets. But the UN "reform" agenda, now headed by Maurice Strong, is certainly very different from what Senator Helms has in mind.
Now, let some doubters on here dispute what lays ahead for this country.
Do you have any idea what Clinton signed?
And did the embedding of the NGOs with our Federal and Local governments tie Bush's hands from undoing what Clinton has done?
Or at least, make it harder to undo?
HELLLOOOOOOOOO! Canada is, and has always been, a part of NAFTA.
Concerning the UN or CFR? Because the NGO is talked about in both.
He'd have a helluva lot of work to do with only two years left in his term (barring John Conyers).
Think about this; BushI, Bill Clinton, BushII, H. Clinton, BushIII (Jeb). If they've been working together, this allows for plenty of time to do their deeds.
Didn't clinton sign onto the ICC, and didn't Bush strike it when he came into office? If my last sentence is correct, Bush can strike that as well.
At your own peril.
I should have added - If all that was true, then it is too late to do anything anyway...
I still don't belive it
What do you have to say about my post # 188?
You guys seem to be reading much more into this than me. I'm no CFR fan by any measure but this article enters the tinfoil hat realm when it starts equating measures that are business and economic and security related to a drive to a common government (inferring a common constitution) for the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
There is nothing wrong with a free flow of people as long as they eventually go home and abide by U.S. law when they are here. And despite what the Buchananistas think, free trade is a good thing, just ask your $28 DVD player what it thinks about that issue.
It is not your research that is at flaw. It is the conclusion you reach from it.
Does this system have a plan to disarm citizens? Not the UN but, our own Gov.
The CFR is already in violation of our laws. Laws mean little today it seems.
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.