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?
Try importing some Canadian lumber
You're entitled to your opinion, but can you offer an explanation for Bush ignoring the immigration problem?
Remember, I'm no CFR fan. I think they are very left leaning globalists. But Newt is a memeber of the CFR (I think) and I would be surprised if they are in violation of our laws. Can you give an example?
Evidently you have forgotten the message sent with Vince Fosters murder.. being; If "WE" can do THIS to the Asst. Attorney General of the United States(and get away with it), who are YOU?..
Why would such a large compiracy not have leaks?.. Vince Foster is the reason.. Also the Clintons murdered many many others too.. Foggy Bottom is not anything like a John Wayne Western.. where the good guys win.. Its like the PimP Wars on the streets..
Wow! I guess I should learn to speak Spainish, or is it Chinese, or convert to Muslem...so many decisions.
It does not matter what I think, as I am going to go about my business as before, the important question is, if you believe this, what are you going to do?
Unless it's a shared ideology, rather than an overt conspiracy.
Was there a groundswell of popular support for a North America free trade zone, or did the idea progress from the top down? Was the movement in favor of NAFTA a conspiracy or a shared ideology?
Shh. He's on a roll.
Clintons attempt at gun control
Remember when sKerry was running for president and he started talking about gun-control? Remember how we Americans reacted to that? What did sKerry do after he saw it wasn't gonna happen? He went Turkey hunting. Remember his photo-op?
I think they will keep trying to take our guns come hell or high water. It's our last line of defense against a dictatorship...and they know it.
"You are a total flake."
Either that or you don't know what you think you know.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2807/Title50.html
My post # 178 points out the law that has been broken.
Sure can.
Bush FOOLISHLY thought that Republicans would gain support among Hispanics if they were soft (an understatement) on illegal immigration.
I don't care for how he handled the issue up to this point either and I still don't.
I simply don't see the extrapolation that economic cooperation is tantamount to setting up some kind of "United Republic of North America".
Use some logic here:
1. The Canadians have issues within their own country because of the desire by Quebec for independence. In addition many in Canada hate feeling like they are just an monetary extension of the U.S. Why would they want to join us and make matters worse?
2. Outside of many in the Hispanic community how many people in the U.S. would go for this "sinister plan"? Certainly not conservatives, or the unions, or the blacks or middle America. You can try to claim that it can all be done against public will "with the stroke of a pen" but what would be gained vs lost by doing so?
3. Mexico wants to have it's cake and eat it too. They want to let the uneducated masses leave their country illegally but they want to hold onto power and natural resources to benefit themselves.
In short economic cooperation is arguably beneficial to all (unless your in a Union). Sharing of actual power on the other hand is not in the interest of any of these three nations.
That explains all of this nonsense that is going on with the president.
What was my conclusion? What post did I make one in?
What I'm doing now, spreading the word. Educating. I've told many friends and family about this. Before I did, they had never heard of it.
>>>Concerning the UN or CFR?
I don't know. I not clear about what he did. Nothing has been made clear. Following all those CFRs is like going through a maze with no map.
A.
How can he just rip the NGOs out of the governmental embedding? That has to be weened, no?
This may be why UMDNJ is under investigation now.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593821/posts
UMDNJ chief to press for change
I'm hoping this is the lynch pin.
Wasn't providing for abortions covered under the NGO in poor countries, and didn't Bush stop funding them?
Note to self
1. Do not respond to drug threads
2. Do not respond to "bash Bush" threads
3. Do not respond to conspiracy threads
Ok guys, you win. You are all correct, I am wrong.
I am going off to do a little work now, but you guys keep up the good work spreading the word. I am behind you all 100%...I am just going away for a little while, I will be back, I promise ....really...
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.