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?
Yes. We have. Why do you think Reagan gave them amnesty in 1986. Do you really think this is a new problem. But your original statement slams Bush for not securing the border in a time of war. He joins a long and distinguished list of Presidents in that regard.
"What makes me mad is that, and I'll say it again, we weren't asked if we wanted to do this."
Do what?
Has there been any explanation?
Or merely the usual denials...
I believe the answer has been no answer. But we can check with Miss Kimberly for that.
Why don't you ping the moderators and ask them?
Sorry...I...I must have lost my head there for a minute.
I'm feeling much better now.
Now, hand me a torch and let's storm the castle and string up the traitor.
I wish I could find a picture of that guy who was arrested a couple weeks ago....LOL
This is all the back door into the UN. The Un wants a head count of all their peoples.
As usual, there will be big bucks and corruption in all this. Look at this article and see what Tom Ridge, the former head of Homeland Security is up to.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/01/business/Ports.php
Then go to http://www.daon.com
Daon is not an American company. So we will be putting American ID's in a foreign company. Anyway, Tom Ridge, is on the board of this company so it must be hunky-dory. Sarc.
If you have any facts to cite that are contra, and persuasive, I'm sure we would all appreciate seeing them. Since you choose to sneer at what has become a mountain of very disturbing evidence, perhaps you can put some of your own information forward that might relieve our concerns.
Got any?
I've got loads. Would you like to discuss the facts about the CFR or the document mentioned earlier in this thread called "Building a North American Community"?
Most amazing of all, these crapweasels actually think we're just going to sit still for this, while illegal aliens demonstrate in our cities and streets, and the Mexican invasion continues unabated.
By now, it should be clear we are unable to rely on Washington to live up to their obligations and solemn duty to protect and defend the United States. Oaths of office have either been forgotten or are considered trivial verbiage.
Minuteman was a good start. Now we need to expand and build that into something far stronger.
I agree that the fact that Teacher's Unions are against vouchers doesn't mean they are good--- I was being a little humorous (all right, very little). I do think given the general record of the unions, their opposition is a good sign, though, and that there are many other good reasons to buy into vouchers.
Mexico keeping its tariffs hurts Mexico; if that wasn't the case, it would simply keep raising its tariffs. Sure, Alexander Hamilton advocated tariffs to protect infant industries, but as Ronald Reagan noted, these infant idustries have a way of never growing up. The United States would be better off if it phased out all tariffs, regardless of what other nations do. As President Coolidge put it, "The business of the American people is America is business" not any particular business.
I agree with you that "new requirements placed on USA businesses, and jurisdiction of foreign courts or other quasi-governmental bodies is not a positive step" but Nafta constituted a net lessening of regulation upon American businesses by increasing their freedom to buy and sell where they wished to.
Hmmm. I'll take that as a no. I'm so surprised.
It's very clear the oaths of office taken were beyond insincere. Something far stronger....and set afire across the nation!
You tried to slam Jerome Corsi because he wrote an article stating that the CFR had developed a plan to integrate the US with Canada and Mexico. I posted another article to show he wasn't the only author to come to this conclusion.
When the United States lowers our own trade barriers, it pursues a free trade agenda. When another contry does so, it too pursues a free trade agenda.
No supranational law needed whatsoever. Why do you think Hong Kong was so proseprous as a British Protectorate? Why is it still so prosperous today? Not becuase of tariffs and duties. http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=HongKong
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the CFR? Have you ever been employed by the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, or the GWBush Administration for any purpose? Has your organization ever been granted money by the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, or the GWBush Administration?
The day after 9/11 it was secured. BY MEXICO! They closed the border until they thought it was safe to resume their invasion.
Thanks for that article.
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.