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?
Interesting thread. Thanks to all contributors.
And they can place it in the fiction section so all the Occam's Razor advocates can immediately declare that obviously that means it must be true.
So Barry Goldwater was a neocon in 1964, huh? I guess, according to this, Ralph Nader would be more of a conservative than William F. Buckley, Frank Meyer, Hayek, Thomas Sowell and Rush Limbaugh.
Obviously, that's absurd. Ralph Nader, like Pat Buchanan, are neither one of them conservatives in so far as either believes in centralized governance with respect to economic matters. Economic nationalism is a form of socialism practiced by the likes of Hugo Chavez, and the national government telling businesses who they may buy or sell to is a form of economic nationalism. As such, it is not only unconservative but as profoundly antithetical to America's principles as monarchism.
What about it? It's over 4000 members range from actors to former Presidents to active military generals, to leading conservative commentators. Are you saying they are all involved in a plot to end America?
I would love to. Point by point and page by page. All claims and accusations must be supported by factual, contextual references from the document.
Bill Buckley is a member of CFR.
Under the terms of its constitution, UNESCO was entrusted with the task of "ensuring the preservation and protection of the world heritage of works of art and monuments of historic or scientific interest."
First of all, that in no way gives them "control" over the site. It does mean that the UN has an interest in protecting things of significance around the world. But note that in Afghanistan, during the rule of the Taliban, it made no difference and the Taliban were still completely free to destroy all kinds of ancient Buddhist artifacts, much to the dismay of the rest of the world.
Heck, Americans have an interest in preserving lots of sites in the ME, Europe and China. That doesn't mean we control them.
For that matter, I have wondered at times if it was a good idea myself. I decided it wasn't eventually.
A method of keeping us quiet?
I knew about this one, it was announced right after the Dubai issue.
BINGO!
Oh, you got us there. Conspiracy Kooks R Us.
We have a President who has managed, during economic prosperity, to drive his approval ratings to Nixonian levels.
Not content with his unpopularity, he is hell bent on enraging his base by giving 12 million illegals Green Cards to have permanent residence in the US.
I have yet to see a plausible explanation for this. What is motivating him (and the RINO Senators)?. Neither marginal improvement among Hispanic voters nor support from business interests can make up for losing the conservative base.
If you have an explanation, please discuss. If you don't have a plausible conventional explanation, then don't chide us for by neccessity venturing somewhat afield.
As one of Clinton's final acts didn't he give control over our inland waterways to the UN?
$64,000 question, if one of us could figure that one out we would probably hold the key to the Whitehouse.
Me, I am just a conspiracy kook, so how am I to know? I am waiting for Rokke (no conspiracy kook he) to explain it, using simple language that I can understand.
We have soooooooo been sold down the proverbial river the last 20 years.
Just like Clinton getting NAFTA through. I have noticed that trend for some time now. Someone should have done a study by now.
I just searched under keywords 'immigrant' and 'immigrants,' found several articles/threads for the time period you referred to. Maybe those were used instead of 'immigration?'
that's a possibility.
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.