Not exactly.
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?
How is reducing the freedom to buy and sell goods supposed to be an expansion of freedom? How does economic protectionism protect individual rights?
It doesn't. It does the opposite.
HOW were they chosen? I don't see any anti-illegal immigration authorities on the panel, do you?
Irrelevant. The original point made was "We haven't had millions of Mexicans pouring over the border before now." That is false.
Some will sit still for it and many in the GOP welcome it. Until that reality is faced and dealt with there will be no change in the GOP. Being enablers to the GOP by giving in to the leaderships every election cycle of the Democratic Boogieman thankfully is starting to wear thin on a lot of people. I'm not saying vote DEM I'm saying if ones running are part of the problem seek an Independent candidate. At least that will show some dissent.
Oaths of office mean nothing to those who hold nothing sacred including our Constitution. As for being a Conservative party the GOP died in 1996. It's been a long funeral too. The Minutemen are a good way to begin to move on.
Not exactly.
If a third party comes up into power the DEMs and GOP will merge. The new party will take Conservatives from the two plus Independents just as it was when the GOP was formed.
Tigerseye, you brought up the topic of our troops in Kosovo. Now you don't want to talk about it? We have under 1900 troops in Kosovo. Their duties include a lot of listening and monitoring of terrorist operations in the region. Terrorist operations conducted by the same clowns we're tracking all over the world.
Lincoln
I see your meaning. One party will remain in name. I think the Dem Party is far closer to disintegrating but it might be best, from the conservative POV, if they were the party to remain in name. They would carry the baggage of past association. That's something no one could plan I expect.
Talking about it and playing children's guessing games are two different things. Thanks for giving a straight answer to my question.
OK. Now lets build on that effort. Anyone can make a statement. The key is to support that statement with factual evidence. Since you failed to support your statement I will refute it with a direct quote from the document we are discussing.(Caps theirs)
"THE COUNCIL TAKES NO INSTITUTIONAL POSITION ON POLICY ISSUES AND HAS NO AFFILIATION WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. ALL STATEMENTS OF FACT AND EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION CONTAINED IN ITS PUBLICATIONS ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR OR AUTHORS."
That is found on page one of the document.
ROTFLOLPIMP Holy smokes! You had to go clear back to Lincoln and a civil war where securing the borders would have been meaningless. You had better go back to sniping at everybody because your "substantive" answers are rendering me incapable of typing from the spasms of laughter. Hoo weeeeee!
This discussion would be a lot easier if you would actually read the document you wanted to discuss. As I already pointed out to you, the document spells out what criteria was used to chose the participants. Would you like me to copy all the pages here? I will.
I'm almost afraid to ask this, but are you saying the bar graphs you posted that show 7 million illegal immigrants entered this country during the 60's, 70's and 80's don't actually show that millions of illegals poured over our border before now?
You asked for one President. I gave you one. You want more. How about Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Wilson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Bush I, Clinton, Reagan, Bush II, and there are more.
How's your laughter now? Do you realize how pathetic you are making yourself appear?
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.
How about Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Wilson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Bush I, Clinton, Reagan, Bush II, and there are more.
There actually were wars during a few of those Presidencies. LOL
T. Roosevelt - Close the borders while he charged up San Juan hill? lol
Wilson - Close the border during WWI? hee
Eisenhower - Close the border during the Korean War? Bwaaaaa!
Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon - Close the border to keep the N. Vietnamese from overrunning us? Aieeeeeeeeeeee!
Reagan - huh?
Clinton - huh wha?
Bush I - We did close the border with Kuwait. /sarcasm (for those in Rio Linda or Rokke's World)
Are you citing the document on the CFR site that is available for $15 dollars or is there another source? I, for one, would be interested in reading it but it is not worth $15 dollars to me.
IMO, "Free trade" as being promoted (NAFTA, CAFTA, etc) is far from synonomous with conservative principles. It is also far from synonomous with "free enterprise."
They also only have one vote.
Not if they have undue influence over those who make the policy and law. Maybe, maybe not. How do you know? Tell me what goes on in the meetings.
Ok, you don't know what I was going to say. That's acceptable to me.
Yes, indeed, members of the armed forces. The vast majority are faithful, honest and honorable. But that would depend on the man, not the uniform or an oath.
Your faith in men in the face of great temptation and great power is charming. But no thanks.
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.