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?
I've addressed it several times, but I'll do it again. The reason NAFTA is not a simpler and more transparent treaty is in large part because of the attacks on it by anti-free traders of the right.
This was John Fonte's appraisal. I agreed with it:
The National Security Strategy rightly promotes free trade as an important foreign policy tool of the United States. It is important that both the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) remain instruments to liberalize trade among nations and not expand into areas properly left to democratic decision-making. As the American Enterprise Institute’s Claude Barfield has warned, the WTO needs
to ensure that its judicial bodies do not indulge in ‘legislating new rights and obligations through judicial interpretation’ that weaken democratic sovereignty
and has recommended measures to ‘rein in’ the WTO’s judges.
Do you think that is a bad idea? Or would you prefer the opposite. A world of seperate, nation-states that did not integrate on any political or economic level.
Here is one item you posted that was a quote. It clearly does not relate to the topic, but is a just a standard disclaimer.
"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."
Now we argued over whether the CFR is affiliated with the US Government. Clearly government employees and politicians who are members of the CFR have an affiliation with them. Clearly many many employees of the government are members of the CFR. So can they really say they have no affiliation with the government? I don't think so.
Another poster asked you if the CFR has no position on creating the North American Community, why don't you see a CFR member producing a paper with the opposite opinion? Why is it that when you kick open a globalist beehive, a zillion cfr members come buzzing out?
It's usually a correct assumption that if something is on the level and is inherently "good," transparency will be exist, regardless of any presupposed and/or assumed objections. Conversely, lack of transparency is a good indication the opposite exists, regardless of the excuse given for the lack of transparency.
Though this isn't a war, your warning is appreciated.
I merely stated my thoughts about his off topic vitriolics.
Do you know why I posted that quote? Would you like to review why I posted this quote that "clearly does not relate to the topic"? Because in your post #521 you said..."The CFR is a globalist secret organization that makes policy recommendations and is comprised of many members of the US Government" Of course you offered zero support, and you certainly didn't offer any evidence from the document you supposedly want to discuss point by point. So I took a DIRECT QUOTE from the document WE ARE DISCUSSING (or at least one of us is) and offered specific evidence supporting my statement that you are wrong.
Now you say a quote from the document you want to discuss point by point is "off topic"? What topic ARE you discussing?
"So can they really say they have no affiliation with the government? I don't think so"
Back to this point? OK. Then I guess you accept the CFR is also affiliated with the NFL, the NBA, Disneyland and Sesame Street.
"Another poster asked you if the CFR has no position on creating the North American Community, why don't you see a CFR member producing a paper with the opposite opinion?"
Maybe there is no interest in isolationism outside of Pat Buchanan. They also haven't sponsored committees on Anti-Zionism and the benefits of slavery.
Who is advocating integrating with corrupt socialist and communist governments? What is your evidence that this country has been or wants to be? Or for that matter that CFR wants that to happen?
"Integration means that the socialists and communists have just as much say as a free man."
You have a really bad habit of just throwing out rhetorical statements without offering any evidence to support them. In the ever fading hope that this conversation can ever be focused on the topic at hand, could you offer any evidence that this document recommends we integrate with communists or socialists?
No, wherever government is involved, transparency tends to be a struggle, whther were talking about tax cuts, administrations, senators, treaties, bills, whatever.
The more the US has to bow to anti trade forces like unions in particular industries to liberalize trade, the more complicated the trade deal becomes, the more oversight becomes needed, the harder it gets to attain the transparency that would exist if anti trade "nationalists" fought for sovereignty rather than against trade.
Now, like I said, you can be against aspects of NAFTA and still be for free markets i.e. not a socialist so long as you believe in free trade in principle rather than "fair" trade. Which are you?
I don't believe in selling out America, or Americans, to "make deals" or "keep deals" to ensure free trade goals/ideals. Whatever deals are made, the interest of Americans must come first.
If America isn't worried about the health of American companies and manufacturing (all the way down to the small business enterprise), surely you don't think that Mexico, or Canada, or China will.
If the end result of "free trade" means what is now ongoing, exporting good jobs and importing cheap labor, I'm against "free trade."
If the end result of "free trade" means that the achievers' wealth is spread around to the poor, I'm against "free trade," as that is no different than socialistic goals.
your Post 728 just helped you lose any credibility you may have had. I know you're not that naive so I'll assume you are driven by an agenda I would be sick to be any part of.
And your post clearly demonstrates the typical credibility of those who latch on to conspiracy theories as some sort of unquestioned truth. You offer no evidence, supporting facts, or even really explain what you are talking about. Instead, you toss out a bland rhetorical statement and assume that suffices as anything more than further proof of the weak analytical abilities of people inclined to believe conspiracy theories.
This is what you wrote......
Who is advocating integrating with corrupt socialist and communist governments? What is your evidence that this country has been or wants to be? Or for that matter that CFR wants that to happen?
when you typed this did you have a straight face?
You have a choice here. You can either answer the questions I posted with supporting evidence, or you can continue to drag the credibility of conspiracy theorists even lower than it already is.
Hmmmm....let me guess which option you will choose....
March 23, 2005
Joint Statement by President Bush, President Fox, and Prime Minister MartinSecurity and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPPNA)
We, the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, have met in Texas to announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
Over the past decade, our three nations have taken important steps to expand economic opportunity for our people and to create the most vibrant and dynamic trade relationship in the world. Since September 11 2001, we have also taken significant new steps to address the threat of terrorism and to enhance the security of our people.
But much still remains to be done. In a rapidly changing world, we must develop new avenues of cooperation that will make our open societies safer and more secure, our businesses more competitive, and our economies more resilient.
Our Partnership will accomplish these objectives through a trilateral effort to increase the security, prosperity, and quality of life of our citizens. This work will be based on the principle that our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary, and will reflect our shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic values and institutions. It will also help consolidate our efforts within a North American framework, to meet security and economic challenges, and promote the full potential of our people, by reducing regional disparities and increasing opportunities for all.
Our Partnership is committed to achieving outstanding results in order to enhance the security and well-being of our people. The Partnership is trilateral in concept; while allowing any two countries to move forward on an issue, it will create a path for the third to join later.
Advancing our Common Security
We will establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our shared borders. As part of our efforts, we will:
• Implement common border security and bio-protection strategies;
• Enhance critical infrastructure protection, and implement a common approach to emergency response;
• Implement improvements in aviation and maritime security, combat transnational threats, and enhance intelligence partnerships; and
• Implement a border facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve the legitimate flow of people and cargo across our shared borders.
Advancing our Common Prosperity
We will work to enhance North American competitiveness and improve the quality of life of our people. Among other things, we will:
• Improve productivity through regulatory cooperation to generate growth, while maintaining high standards for health and safety;
• Promote sectoral collaboration in energy, transportation, financial services, technology, and other areas to facilitate business; and invest in our people;
• Reduce the costs of trade through the efficient movement of goods and people; and
• Enhance the preservation of our environment, create a safer and more reliable food supply while facilitating agricultural trade, and protect our people from disease.
Next Steps
We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals. They will outline concrete steps that our governments can take to meet these goals, and set dates that will ensure the continuous achievement of results.
Within 90 days, ministers will present their initial report after which, the working parties will submit six-monthly reports. Because the Partnership will be an ongoing process of cooperation, new items will be added to the work agenda by mutual agreement as circumstances warrant.
Through this Partnership, we will ensure that North America remains the most economically dynamic region in the world and a secure home for our people in this and future generations.
Nic, what part of that statement do you think is a bad idea?
He also managed you use the aptly applied Sisyphus in a post earlier in the thread. Accusing him of being naive or stupid is absurd.
Disagree and offer factual support or risk having people read your posts without a straight face. The quality of the arguments against his position are laughably shallow.
What is especially funny to me personally is that the concept of "affiliation" is used so broadly. Let me give you an example.
The Rotary Club. Did you know that in my personal town, nearly every business owner, politician, musician, artist, educator and janitor is represented there? They come up with all kinds of plans for my town, they spin ideas off each other willy-nilly. I've never seen an agenda for the organization, but I have seen reports and suggestions to city government.
In the end, the CFR is the Rotary Club on steroids. Smart, talented, best in their field, and yes Patriotic, people of all stripes get together to come up with ideas. It is a think tank. The best and brightest know the best way to learn is to discuss things outside of the echo chamber. The CFR offers exactly that.
Does it affect policy? Of course. But not in a secret, hidden agenda kind of way. It affects policy the same way discussing politics with your neighbor does, or with a liberal professor, or on a FR thread.
It all comes down to the nuts and bolts.
Ideas are generalities, and always sound so.....good. The devil is in the details.
I agree. So what are they in this case? You must have posted that article for a reason. Which parts of it do you find disagreeable?
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.