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're saying that "conspiracy" is a made up word to describe a concept and not a actual practice in history, so that any highly secret, undocumented, and well secured regular meeting of high powered people cannot even be considered such, the most ridiculous motivation of them being more believable?
My goodness.
Yet this very common state of mind and motivation can't be assigned to those who have the power and means to actually do something about it?
I think you forgot to complete your thought here, so I'm going to refrain from responding until I have a better idea of what you are saying.
Yes, I left out a descriptor. And you can't get it from the context. What, you think I meant to say I don't find the notion credible?
who have taken oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
And that oath has not regularly been broken by the president, the high court and the majority of congress, not to mention most lower functionaries? So, being a member of CFR rates a presumption that these will uphold the oath?
You're saying that all of CFR are made up of those whom you think powerless?
No suprise, eh?
Because HE said:
I've delayed going to work as long as possible so it would need to be this evening or over the weekend.
145 posted on 05/19/2006 9:23:26 AM PDT by gondramB (He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)
I wrote a guest editorial on illegal immigration that appeared in a nearby metropolitan newspaper last Sunday. I received countless responses – every one of them in support of my (and your) position. And this morning the letter to the editor, in bold below, appeared.
We are all angry and frustrated about the continuing unprecedented crisis (capital C) at our southern border … and the multitude of proposals being offered to reward those criminals who have already been feeding off of the fruits of our labors, and placing our countrymen in danger, for many years … and the empty, contrived political rhetoric being offered by those in the highest offices of our government whose allegiance is now questionable at best. But the following response offers a just as angry, and even more personal, glimpse into the mind of an American patriot:
This is in response to [joanie-f’s] column of last week.
I could not have worded it any better if I had tried. After reading her column, I feel that I’m not alone in my feelings, and think it’s only a matter of time before Americans, from all walks of life, realize what is being thrust on us in the ever growing epidemic of illegal immigration.
Before you think that I’m anti-immigration, let me assure you that I’m not.
I’m a naturalized citizen, from a Communist country, and I went through all the required things I had to do, to become a citizen, and many that were not. Including serving six years in the military, learning to speak English in six months (I spoke two other languages, but not English), and assimilating myself into the American culture, as an American.
When I legally became an American, I didn’t give up my heritage, but I certainly don’t place my birth country before the USA, ever! I saw the “protests” that the illegals staged throughout the country.
What gall. I haven’t seen anything like it since the organized “rallies” that enabled Hitler to take over Germany and the Communists to take over Eastern Europe. “Protest” my foot! It was well-organized sedition, and should be treated as such!
Sending the National Guard to the border is like using a water pistol on a forest fire. A few army divisions would be better, for a start. I have some pictures that I took many years ago of a sealed border between two countries. They show what is really needed on our borders, both north and south.
Thanks, all, for the many recent pings to pertinent articles. I will read them all as soon as time permits.
Meanwhile, The American Crisis is worsening by the day, while our ‘leadership’ continues to turn a convenient blind eye, polishing their primping and posturing skills, and offering up meaningless, toothless, mirage ‘solutions’ to a cancer that threatens to eventually render our individual liberty and sovereignty extinct.
It would appear that the future of our republic rests on the shoulders of the American patriot. We are walking down a path … certainly not well-lit, nor well-traveled … that has not existed in our lifetimes, or those of our parents or grandparents. We must continue to keep the Founders’ vision primary in our focus, and always look to Him for guidance.
Back soon …
~ joanie....
and just think: No unions! /sarc
"Are you saying they are all involved in a plot to end America?"
Why would they retain their membership in an organization that has as its goal to weaken national sovereignty and push towards the establishment of a North American superstate? They are trying to implement this without going through normal legislative pathways. They have already established several extra-governmental decision making bodies that can make policy for the US in trade maters.
That is scary -- to me... and American and many here continue to slumber.
I couldn't agree more. Actually George H.W. Bush was shot down twice, and was awarded the Navy Cross for heroism.
Great letter. Thanks for posting it, Joanie. And I agree with you about the not well-lit, not well-traveled path.
No, not surprised, just more interested. I was looking for the source of the term ("Trade Corridors of National Significance") to see if there was more published on the master plan. From reading the link in Calpernia's post above, along with the Trans Texas Corridor and California's current actions, the plan seems to have been well coordinated.
I think I found the references to the federal plans in the federal highway bill, HR3 -- Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users' (SAFETEA-LU). Subtitle C seems to cover it, including a slew of questionable earmarks. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but it uses the terms "national and regional significance" and a predecessor bill used the term "national economic significance."
Subtitle C--Mobility and Efficiency
Sec. 1301. Projects of national and regional significance.
Sec. 1302. National corridor infrastructure improvement program.
Sec. 1303. Coordinated border infrastructure program.
Sec. 1304. High priority corridors on the National Highway System.
Sec. 1305. Truck parking facilities.
Sec. 1306. Freight intermodal distribution pilot grant program.
Sec. 1307. Deployment of magnetic levitation transportation projects.
Sec. 1308. Delta region transportation development program.
Sec. 1309. Extension of public transit vehicle exemption from axle weight restrictions.
Sec. 1310. Interstate oasis program.
It should have scared everyone.
There were lots of articles posted here at FR. I think the keywords were usually "Law of the Sea" or "LOST".
Kim, I offered you a reasonable explanation and information, both in FReepmail and on forum... but you don't accept it. The site has the keyword 'aliens' at the top of the comments page and that is the most common keyword used for immigration threads.
If you believe your keyword 'immigration' has been removed, then you could take that up with the moderators.
Thank you so much.....I really do appreciate your willingness to help me! At first I thought that maybe I just wasn't being clear in my explanation of the problem, hence the persistence, but I've got it ALL figured out now! Thanks again!
Are you suggesting that NAFTA was equivalent to market based free trade principles and that anyone who is critical of it is against capitalism? From what I have seen of NAFTA, it has lots of government regulation and intervention (3 governments, to be exact) in everything from controlling trade, labor, the environment and monetary policies. IMO, these treaties that supercede United States law will be the demise of our nation.
I saw the “protests” that the illegals staged throughout the country.Most excellent letter!! Thanks so much for your letter which prompted this response, joanie! His analogy is very similar to what I've been telling folks, too: sending an unarmed National Guard is like Zell likened to Kerry's stance: arming our military with SPITBALLS!! He captures my sentiment quite well. God bless you and your family joanie.What gall. I haven’t seen anything like it since the organized “rallies” that enabled Hitler to take over Germany and the Communists to take over Eastern Europe. “Protest” my foot! It was well-organized sedition, and should be treated as such!
Sending the National Guard to the border is like using a water pistol on a forest fire.
And which constitution do we adapt for this boondoggle union? Mexico's or Canada's....I'm sure our U.S. Constitution would not even be considered because it would give the serfs too much freedom (especially a right to bear arms and free speech).
Not at all, Calcowgirl. But your point, which is plainly a conservative one--- that NAFTA does not represent actual free trade because it is not FREE enough is exactly the opposite of those such as Nader and Buchanan who say Nafta does not represent free trade because it is not FAIR enough.
The latter are trying to institute what Thomas Sowell calls "Cosmic Justice"--- justice that is based on fairness of results rather than process.
But as I'm sure you know, the government regulation and intervention controlling trade, labor, the environment was largely a sop to anti-free trade socialist forces within the United States in particular such as the unions, Democrats and the environmentalist lobby. The AFL-CIO in particluar protested that NAFTA needed to make Mexico have "adequate protection for labor rights, worker health and safety or the environment".
I agree that the more regulation NAFTA includes, the more complex it is, the less it should be considered a genuine free trade agreement. But giving in unions, Democrats, etc. on some of these issues is sometimes needed to increase freedom of trade.
I think of this as analogous to the partial privatization of Social Security or the idea of introducing school vouchers. Both would bring the United States more in line with its free market principles, but neither are ideal and in the short term would represent an expansion of governemnt's size if not its power. But I think both are eminently justified, as proven by the opposition of Teacher's unions.
Forcing other nations to raise their taxes, creating supranational authorities-- all of this in so far as it occurs constitutes EU style economic harmonization-- what John Fonte calls transnational progressivism--- rather than freeing up the creative and productive power of international economic competition, which is what real free trade agreements do.
So, anyway, the extent I take any issue with your criticisms of NAFTA at all are only in degree. To me, your criticisms are eminently conservative, unlike those of Dobbs, Buchanan and Nader, who are against free trade in principle. But Buchanan and Dobbs (unlike you) give those who favor EU style supranational harmonization because it enables the latter to falsely present themselves as representing the free trade side against the economic isolationists.
We need to push free trade, push supranational laws that supercede the Constitution out of any free trade agreements, and be on the look out for treaties like the Law of the Sea treaty http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-12-04.html that trump our sovereignty.
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.