Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

North American Union to Replace USA? ("is this the plan?" alert!)
HumanEventsOnline.com ^ | 5/19/2006 | Jerome R. Corsi

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?


TOPICS: Canada; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Mexico; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; barkingmoonbats; blackhelicopters; bordersecurity; cfr; corsi; delusions; illegalimmigation; kookism; kooks; koolaid; moonbats; nafta; nau; northamerica; northamericanunion; nutcases; oneworldgovernment; partnership; prosperity; security; sovereignty; spp; supercorridor; tinfoil; treason
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540 ... 1,421-1,427 next last
To: Rokke
That terrible President promised that there would be "no U.S. troops in Kosovo/Serbia (whatever) a year from now." That was what? ten years ago? He hasn't even been President for nearly five and a half years. The worst of it is that national sovereignty is meaningless. The precedent was set that NATO troops can be used to quell internal disputes.
501 posted on 05/21/2006 6:48:29 PM PDT by TigersEye (Principle over party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Hedgetrimmer, what you posted in post #443 is nothing more than a series of excerpts from the CFR document I've been begging you (or anyone) to discuss. I know you didn't read the original CFR document, but did you actually read what you posted in #443? Or are you actually posting support for the CFR document that half the people in this thread believes is a "secret" plan to turn dissolve the sovereignty of this country?
502 posted on 05/21/2006 6:49:07 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: texastoo

Good catch!


503 posted on 05/21/2006 6:49:35 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
"I've got loads."

Well, we know what "loads" you've got, but we're interested in just the facts.

We can review them whenever you're ready.

504 posted on 05/21/2006 6:49:36 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
It's going to take a voter revolution at the polls and either the DEM or the GOP is gonna have to go.

Or both.

505 posted on 05/21/2006 6:50:35 PM PDT by TigersEye (Principle over party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the CFR?"

Nope.

"Have you ever been employed by the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, or the GWBush Administration for any purpose?"

I've served in the military under all of them, so they have all been my ultimate boss.

"Has your organization ever been granted money by the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, or the GWBush Administration?"

The military? Yes. Although not much during the Clinton Administration.

Now, answer a question for me...is this what you consider a factual discussion of the CFR document titled, "Building a North American Community"?

506 posted on 05/21/2006 6:53:23 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
"The day after 9/11 it was secured. BY MEXICO!"

Wrong. Mexico has never sealed our Southern border. Not even for a day.

507 posted on 05/21/2006 6:54:37 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: reg45

Yeah, and the Trilateral Commission.


508 posted on 05/21/2006 6:55:13 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: mjolnir
When the United States lowers our own trade barriers, it pursues a free trade agenda

Yes it does. And it is an anti- free enterprise agenda, free enterprise being the system that empowers the INDIVIDUAL and guarantees the protection of INDIVDIUAL RIGHTS.

Do any of the phrases in capitals mean anything to you?
509 posted on 05/21/2006 6:56:07 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

How did the panel that developed this plan get chosen? Is it a secret?


510 posted on 05/21/2006 6:57:01 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
"The demographic change the "free traders" inspired didn't actually start to happen until after the 1986 amnesty."

The Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986 provided a blanket amnesty for almost 3 million illegal aliens in this country. That would equate to "millions" of illegals who poured over our border before 1986.

511 posted on 05/21/2006 7:02:57 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Why do you think Reagan gave them amnesty in 1986

The act he signed was supposed to STOP illegal immigration. But because it had no enforcement, it didn't. It was to give amnesty only to 1 million, but congress changed that and gave amnesty to 3 million and allowed for chain immigration. Why do you think he signed the act? Why did congress take the teeth out of it? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice......
512 posted on 05/21/2006 7:04:50 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

I concurr.


513 posted on 05/21/2006 7:05:17 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
"That terrible President promised that there would be "no U.S. troops in Kosovo/Serbia (whatever) a year from now." That was what? ten years ago? He hasn't even been President for nearly five and a half years. The worst of it is that national sovereignty is meaningless. The precedent was set that NATO troops can be used to quell internal disputes."

Yes. And as I've already said...it was a stupid decision. Do you know how many American troops we have there now (and why)? Would you care to guess?

514 posted on 05/21/2006 7:06:10 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: hershey
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.

In light of your other posts I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. The two situations seem like apples and oranges to me for the most part. I don't think we went to war in Iraq to bring them democracy. I think we'll have to wait and see if democracy really takes root and survives there as well. It is a somewhat utopian hope but we toppled Hussein and terrorists moved into the vacuum so we needed to hang in and support some kind of stability there. If forced to fight off barbarians while the locals struggle to get on their feet it only makes sense to encourage a form of government that we feel has stability giving properties.

On the other hand; there is no crisis of those proportions in North America so the need to unite Canada, the U.S. and Mexico in a borderless economic/security cooperative doesn't exist.

Let's hope the crocodiles of denial are right and the CFR is just a club for cigar officianados or recipe swappers. A real attempt to create a borderless union of the three will result in warfare and chaos that will awe the most stalwart Arab feudalist.

515 posted on 05/21/2006 7:06:56 PM PDT by TigersEye (Principle over party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: Czar
"We can review them whenever you're ready."

Pick a topic related to something in this thread. I'll throw one out for you...The CFR is a secret organization that makes policy recommendations to the US Government. Do you believe that is a fact?

516 posted on 05/21/2006 7:09:13 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
I have no interest in guessing how many are there now.
If you think you have a reason why then let's hear it.
517 posted on 05/21/2006 7:10:05 PM PDT by TigersEye (Principle over party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
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.

Name one.

518 posted on 05/21/2006 7:13:00 PM PDT by TigersEye (Principle over party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: texastoo

Nafta was not created to stop illegal immigration, and was not sold as doing so.

The ministeries you're talking about are simply members of the executive branches of the countries involved such as Elaine Chao.

Some treaties, such as the Law of the Sea treaty I mentioned, are threats to our soverignty-- some are not.

Politicians are people just like you or me. They do not constitute a separate class of NWO members bent only on seeking power.

What you call "being a free trader" is just part of being a conservative. Was President Reagan a socialist? Was the protectionist economist Frederick List a conservative?


519 posted on 05/21/2006 7:14:58 PM PDT by mjolnir ("All great change in America begins at the dinner table.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
"How did the panel that developed this plan get chosen? Is it a secret?"

First, let me say this is a positive development. We're starting a dialog on the document you wanted to discuss. Now, my answer based on factual data taken from the document itself... No. The document lists each member of the panel (page V) and explains how and why panel members were chosen several times in its opening pages.

520 posted on 05/21/2006 7:18:10 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540 ... 1,421-1,427 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson