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?
Conspiracy is a real word, but it can often be applied to the phony make believe that gets pieced together by conspiracy theorists. They take a few loose facts, and tie them together to create an alternate reality. Kind of like what you are doing when you describe "any highly secret, undocumented, and well secured regular meeting of high powered people." If you are talking about the CFR, you have created a situation that doesn't exist. Then you ask if it is more believable for them to be engaging in your fantasy or making fishsticks. Since neither are true, it doesn't really matter which is more believable. If you believe either, you are still wrong.
Sure. They have it too. They also only have one vote. George Soros is a billionaire who dedicated a large part of his assets to defeat George Bush. Average American voters overruled him. That is why we live in a democracy.
"What, you think I meant to say I don't find the notion credible?"
I have no idea what you were going to say...and based on this latest input, I have even less of an idea.
"So, being a member of CFR rates a presumption that these will uphold the oath?"
Being a member of the United States military rates the presumption that they will uphold the oath. Don't you dare let your fantasy world trash the members of our armed forces. They don't have the luxury of living outside of the real world.
OK. It is evening. I'm ready.
Because the organization doesn't. You've accepted a lie. And based on the rest of your post, you've apparently accepted many lies. Support them with facts if you can.
Please please please tell me you knew I was kidding.
LOL. Well I guess I don't need to ask you if you've read the CFR document we were going to discuss. This "other" article is excerpts from the very same document. You haven't even read it have you?
You believe what you like. If I'm wrong, the world goes on unmolested. If you're wrong, we're screwed. I'd rather have cynical assumptions and be prepared instead of gullible assumptions and be unpleasantly surprised.
I'd much rather be wrong my way than yours.
This is juuuuust a little bit alarmist.
President Bush took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
A North American Union? Maybe someday in the distant future but President Bush will be doing no such thing.
Agreed. It was a really stupid move initiated by a terrible President who had no idea how to use American and NATO strengths in a crisis. But as you imply, going into places like Bosnia was not at all what NATO was established to do. It was established to create a common defense against the spread of Soviet Communism in the West. In that role, it was used extremely effectively.
Come on now, let's not bring reality into this :)
The way I see it now the leadership in both parties are taking us toward a United nation as stated above derived from U.S. Canada, and Mexico. I however do not see the two current parties as we know them today as being any form of the solution to stop this. It's going to take a voter revolution at the polls and either the DEM or the GOP is gonna have to go.
Nothing else explains Bush's failure to secure the southern border in time of war. Nothing.
No. I know you are wrong.
"That's as close as you can get, unless you tell me specifically what goes on in those meetings."
What meetings? You mean those super classified meetings that nobody knows about? Those meetings...that somehow you know about? I deal in facts. I want you to show me your evidence that those meetings take place. Then we'll discuss it.
When, in history, has our southern border ever been secured? Second question...have we ever been at war before?
The big boys got together and decided this would solve Latin America's instability problems, prevent communism from rearing its ugly head again, etc. America needed more workers to shore up Social Security, business loves cheap labor. What's not to like? That they took great pains not to clue in the general dumb public until it was in their words, too late to send the many millions back, tells us they knew perfectly well what the reaction would be. How does it feel to be considered a nation of dopes? Members of both parties are involved with this. (See Clinton and The Third Way.)
They held meetings about this after the Berlin Wall came down, not immediately, but soon enough. Those meetings at ritzy spas, attended by big business, govt. leaders. One was held in California, maybe Hilton Head Island, NC, too. Anyway, the one in California starts with a 'B'. Clinton went to at least one of those. This is why we had NAFTA and CAFTA shoved down our throats. The War on Terror put a crimp in things, but we can chew gum and tap dance at the same time, so globalization/One hemisphere was and has been pursued full tilt despite the danger of terrorists slipping over the leaky southern border.
It is blindly utopian, and some thought Bush's dream of democracy for Iraq was blindly utopian, but guess what...we're over there fighting a war.
We haven't had millions of Mexicans pouring over the border before now. Why is this a good thing? Cheap labor, forecasts of a dwindling US labor supply...Social Security going broke. Come on. What makes me mad is that, and I'll say it again, we weren't asked if we wanted to do this. And the fact that we weren't, shows they already knew what US voters would say. A resounding NO. There should have been an honest dialogue about this at least three years ago...or back when NAFTA was first proposed.
It's Bilderburg, of course.
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.