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?
Indeed, Bush enacted steel tariffs, in a craven attempt to purchase swing state electoral votes. He is also for ethanol subsidies, in another free trade WSJ apostasy. Overall, Bush hews to WSJ free trade/open borders to the extent that political expediency allows. Bush' s border gestures such as the National Guard deployment are analogous to the steel tariff, that is a minor transgression providing political cover to an overall theme of WSJesque free trade/open borders.
I'm not going to play your childish game of semantics. If you want to play word games grab a scrabble board and go find a friend.
I said this several months ago.
Not me. I'm just stirring up trouble so folks have sumpin to have fun with on a Friday afternoon.
You asking me questions in reference to my questions is not answering my questions.
(now say that 5x fast!)
I'm not sure NGO monies have stopped funding abortions.
This CDC report was made to support the funding. They are still included in the 28 initiatives of Healthy People 2010.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm4847.pdf <--Note: CDC
Achievements in Public Health, 1900–1999 <--Note: Report on ACHIEVEMENTS
Note: Small Excerpt on the highlights of this report:
During the 20th century, the hallmark of family planning in the United States has been the ability to achieve desired birth spacing and family size (Figure 1). Fertility
decreased as couples chose to have fewer children; concurrently, child mortality declined, people moved from farms to cities, and the age at marriage increased (1 ).
(snip)
In 1912, the modern birth-control movement began. Margaret Sanger (see box), a public health nurse concerned about the adverse health effects of frequent childbirth, miscarriages, and abortion, initiated efforts to circulate information about and provide access to contraception (9 ). In 1916, Sanger challenged the laws that suppressed the distribution of birth control information by opening in Brooklyn, New York, the first family planning clinic. The police closed her clinic, but the court challenges that followed established a legal precedent that allowed physicians to provide advice on contraception for health reasons. During the 1920s and 1930s, Sanger continued to.....
(snip)
Small excerpt of date chart:
1970
Family Planning Services and Population Research Act creates Title X of the Public
Health Service Act
1972
Medicaid funding for family planning services authorized
1973
Supreme Court (Roe vs. Wade) legalizes abortion
You said my conclusions were wrong. What were my conclusions?
You came on here and attacked me. I'm asking why.
Bush is suffering much more politically by ignoring the immigration problem than he would be if he was doing something about it. He let his poll numbers fall to Nixonian levels before finally jumping onto a no-lose political issue --and even then, only half-heartedly.
Even more importantly, how can Bush's immigration policy be explained in light of his "war on terror"? Certainly, Bush's heart is in fighting radical Islam. So how can this same man ignore millions of unscreened aliens flooding across our southern border?
Regarding the political unification of North America, economic cooperation would be the first step in political unification, as in the EU. The EU has changed from a free trade bloc into a political entity. For example, the EU is trying to hinge Poland's entry into the EU on Poland decriminalizing abortion.
One world government may be a pipe dream, but so was the Third Reich. Pipe dreams can have real world consequences.
Craven? Sure, if you're jaded enough to not see that President Bush is someone who says what he means, means what he says and stands on principle. President Bush does largely agree with the Wall Street Journal on free trade, as does virtually every conservative. He also differs with them on borders-- thus the National Guard providing support.
A cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Based on your words and that definition, you appear to be a cynic with regard to President Bush.
The government would remain a USA constitutional government. Maybe we can repeal the 17th amendment while we're at it to give the states back some of their local power. This might entice some of the Mexican states that might otherwise think that they will be lost in the "inside the Beltway" silo of Washington DC. We would also need to make a one-time exemption to allow all foreign-born citizens at the time of ratification to be eligible to become President.
On the plus side, all illegal Mexicans in the USA would automatically become citizens by virtue of Mexico joining the Union. If we want to build a wall, we can do it at the new USA/Guatamalan border.
-PJ
Here is the entire memorandum.
Memorandum January 22, 2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Restoration of the Mexico City Policy
The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 1984 required nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. This policy was in effect until it was rescinded on January 22, 1993.
It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad. It is therefore my belief that the Mexico City Policy should be restored. Accordingly, I hereby rescind the "Memorandum for the Acting Administrator of the Agency for International Development, Subject: AID Family Planning Grants/Mexico City Policy," dated January 22, 1993, and I direct the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to reinstate in full all of the requirements of the Mexico City Policy in effect on January 19, 1993.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Is that what you meant? It shows where NGO's cannot use American taxpayer dollars to provide abortions.
Coleus is better with the history of the prolife monies.
But, I'm wondering if this:
>>It shows where NGO's cannot use American taxpayer dollars to provide abortions.<<<
is the wording. Many of the businesses that launder monies to the NGOS do it through 'Foundations'. The NGOs also receive monies from international entities.
So, maybe that moots the 'American taxpayer dollar' reference.
I don't see how Bush would be fooled by that. He's anti-abortion and I would think he has people keeping an eye out for such a bait-n-switch.
One would need be far gone into Bushbotiasm to have seen Bush's speech on Monday and conclude Bush was a straight shooter.
Cynical about a politician?? You've got me there. I plead guilty.
That was exactly my point in watching what becomes of the UMDNJ investigation.
If we are doing serious clean up....then that should result in real arrests and a stop to the laundering at that source.
And note, the post I made showing the Merrill Lynch/UMDNJ/Praxis Project links TO illegal immigration.
But, if UMDNJ gets swept under the rug, we are all in BIG trouble.
http://www.green-umbrella.net/
It talks about USAID, and UNFPA.
I read that thread and I agree, if swept under the rug, we're all in big trouble.
I see too much money involved for it to go away. But then again, I thought Able Danger would destroy many political careers.
There's nothing "hidden" about it. We're going to lower our standard of living to "even things out" with Mexico with the hopes that collectively, some generation down the road, we can all pull ourselves back up to the standards we once enjoyed.
I hope it succeeds, but only our great-grandchildren will know for sure. In the meantime, hand over what you own for the collective "good".
First of all you are very reasonable and very polite (not my strong suit). I thank you for your approach.
I cannot disagree with you on his inaction on the border issue!!
Where we obviously do disagree is the issue of economic cooperaton. I simply don't have a problem with free trade.
Besides...If I don't have Juan making my burrito how the hell am I gonna live? :o)
Looks like green-umbrella.net likes the Pleistocene Park theory.
BTW, UNFPA is extreme with population control. Look at this link.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1586697/posts?page=22#22
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.