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?
Well that explains some of the confusion. I don't have a Google toolbar. I didn't even know one existed. When I Google something I go to the Google site and type in keywords. Now I understand what you were saying, and you understand what I was thinking. I was only taking you out of context because you were refering to a specific function of Google, and not the site in general.
See how that works? You state specifics and your whole point becomes so much clearer. Now. Because you are aware that I don't have a Google toolbar, and because you know exactly where the statements in your posted articles are that support your points in the first place, could you please direct me to those statements in an alternate way. Like cut and paste, or reference a line number. It very well could be that once you do that, I will understand the points you are making far better.
"Since it is you who claims how clever you are"
I do?
This is NOT conspiarcy theroy. The info is out there. This adminstration is hell bent on the destruction of America! Get your head out of the sand!
They play off of each other rather well. In fact the battle is really between those two ideological entities over the carcass of the once great Republic. Neither is particularly concerned with the people. The people are little more than cordwood fuel for either system.
May I sincerely ask why you believe that to be true?
Sure. One need only look at your next statement to show that some are doing a lot of truth-twisting (see next).
"What was that cute little reference to Sisyphus again?"
What would you call an effort to get someone to engage in a discussion they initiated, only to have them dodge to some other topic everytime you get close to getting a real discussion going?
Nice try. That was clearly not the reference. It was mocking anyone who took this article under consideration (see below for exact interchange--emphasis added). The article has been supported with article after article, link after link, yet all you can seem to add are opinion and unsupported statements that it is "fantasy" by "people who make things up."
---
Pukin: Please tell me there are not FReepers actually believing and defending this madness? I noticed you on this thread, and expected to see a lot of comments on how Corsi has jumped the shark, but if people here are believing this crap (or are Democrats pretending to do so to discredit the forum) then we really have a lot of work to do.
"then we really have a lot of work to do."
Ever hear of Sisyphus? It really fits here.
And you think I've somehow twisted the truth when I ask what you would call an effort to engage someone in a discussion they asked for but keep dodging???
Your original use of the Sisyphus comment that I found offensive was applied to a completely different issue (See Post #805)
I'm dealing with people who think directing someone to Google is supporting their own false claims.
Sorry, I'm with nic on this one. You keep dismissing stuff without apparently reading it or even acknowledging it. Why should he have to go back and repeat the same thing?
I haven't dismissed a damn thing. Nicmarlo has adamantly refused to support a SINGLE ONE of his statements with any specific evidence. NOT ONE. Instead, he tells me to search a 70 page document myself to figure out what twisted point he's trying to make. That this thread is full of people who are absolutely incapable of supporting their own points with specifics is a fundamental clue why those same people are so willing to use such damning evidence as book titles to build their conspiracies in the first place. If you think Nic's points are so solid, why don't you provide the evidence for him. I searched for the word "migration" in the last article he posted and it doesn't even exist in the article.
To goad the discussion into disintegrating into a discussion on whether or not the Sisyphus reference was an insult or not is, frankly, silly.
In post #735 Nic posted a Joint statement by the three North American leaders regarding the SPPNA. Here are all my comments regarding that article...
Post #736 (The very next post mind you) "Nic, what part of that statement do you think is a bad idea?"
Post #739 "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?
Post #744 "Why not? Both efforts were seeking solutions to the same problem. If you went to several different doctors seeking opinions about a medical condition, would you be concerned if they all agreed with each other. It really doesn't take a Harvard PhD to come up with a list of viable solutions to the problems we are encountering with both trade and security in North America. And none of the initiatives listed in either source are very specific (as you've pointed out). Yet both sources represent the efforts of representatives from all three of the countries involved. It isn't that surprising that there is a broad degree of consensus between the two."
Then Hedgetrimmer posts two links to books on Amazon of all places! Did you click on the links? I did. They were nothing but book ads. Later, in post #748 he posts an entire essay not even published by the CFR. My response...in post 762 "Would you like to debate the document you listed in post 748 instead of the CFR document you originally wanted to discuss? At least you've obviously read the one you posted." His response....nothing.
See, what I've just done there is supported my points with specific evidence. I realize that is a completely foreign concept to many on this thread, but it is a pretty good way of proving your point. And it really isn't that hard. In this case, I have refuted your absolutely false and unsupported claim that I "keep dismissing stuff without apparently reading it or even acknowledging it." Now you try. Back up your claim that I "keep dismissing stuff without apparently reading it or even acknowledging it".
If you have not noticed the distinction made on this thread between free markets and "Free Trade" that is where a lot of confusion lies. It is a natural consequence of our intended Constitutionally protected liberty to engage in free market principles.
But "Free Trade" is not simply a principle of economics, as 'free market' philosophy is, it is an ideology that must be supported through a structural form of governance. It is not possible to have two structural forms of governance simultaneously. The principles of individual liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness are at odds with the corporate "Free Trade" goals of maximized profits, maximized trade and maximized use of "human capital" as the government sees it.
The original intent was for the fedgov to protect Americans so that they could do business in the manner in which they chose. "Free Trade," as the term has come to mean through NAFTA et al, is government designed business. Not too far from communism at all.
My suspicion is that if you don't agree with it or ask for evidence to support it, you will get no credit for having read it.
Further streamline the secure movement of low-risk traffic across our shared borders* Develop and implement a border facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve the legitimate flow of people and cargo at ports of entry within North America.
* Identify, develop, and deploy new technologies to advance our shared security goals and promote the legitimate flow of people and goods across our borders.
A couple links and excerpts I have posted are found at #321 (i.e., The new architecture would include a free trade zone protected by a common security perimeter, within which goods, people, and capital would move freely across what had once been firmly established international borders) and #644 (i.e., Conclusions of the U.S.-Mexico Migration Panel), and #655 (i.e., Pastor calls for replacement of the dollar with "Amero" [Pastor is an integral cog in this wheel; he is an integral member of the CFR who proposes the creation of a North American Community; therefore, anything he suggests should not be outright dismissed]. Additionally, #680 (i.e., although they "claim" they "must maintain respect for each other's national sovereignty," it appears that's not really what they MEAN. For example, that statement contradicts Mexico's actions...).
The SPECIFIC information is on this entire thread concerning MIGRATION, BIOMETRIC CARDS, faux claims to assured "sovereignty" of the respective countries (which is NEGATED by the very words "interdependence" and/or "dependence" upon or between Canada, Mexico, and/or USA), BORDERS (which has been heavily emphasized, in the discussed literature, on the outer perimeter of the entity now known as the "North American Community" (i.e., what was once only known as the sovereign and independent countries of Canada, United States of America, and Mexico, respectively), and a de-emphasis on the respective INNER borders of Canada/USA and USA/Mexico).
This is only scratching the surface of what has been posted on this thread. I simply will not spend the hours of time necessary to repost what has been posted. Many paragraphs have the pertinent ideas/words/goals/plans highlighted, underlined, italicized. This thread has been growing by the day. I won't play the game of whack a mole with you. Nor will I engage in an effort in futility of reposting posts on yet another post. The above examples illustrate well enough that the material referred to, or excerpts thereof, PLAINLY exists on this thread, and where it is not, links are provided directly to the source.
I suggest YOU go back through the over 800 posts on this thread and for each comment that was made on that particular post wherein articles and or links are made and/or referred, if YOU take issue with the statement made, you provide the evidence required to prove that your contradictions are factual and the posters' are false.
Otherwise, all you are doing is stating your contradictory opinion sans evidence in refutation to another poster's article which gave rise to the original comments of same.
You do your arguments no favors by being snarky.
Do you believe that you can be an honest spokesman for Free Republic, or even conservatism even though you are a member? Or should you be considered an unreliable source for related discussions?
It seems to me that arguing arms-length affiliations mean one can't be a spokesman for that pov is as ridiculous as only trusting what Palestinians have to say about Israelis.
It is hardly "pie in the sky theory stuff" as your own comments (which I will quote in a moment) attest to. The fedgov is neck-deep in education and its engineering of business through volumes of regulations, tax funded bailouts and international agreements and treaties should be plain enough.
We can damn FDR or LBJ all we want, but their choices (and the choices of those generations in electing them) have consequences that have left us in the situation we are in today.
Right there is where you give tacit admission that you don't believe it is "pie in the sky theory stuff." The fedgov has been busy since long before FDR meddling in things the Constitution gives them no authority to touch. You can take the Rokke approach and reply something like "show me exactly where the fedgov wrote and signed a document saying "we are meddling in business against the Constitution" and dismiss the whole idea with that strawman if you like.
So how do you propose we create "free markets" today without help from the fedgov?
That is the point of having individual liberty and freedom. No one needs to create a free market a free market will exist whereever a producer and a consumer agree to do business with each other.
And just because the fed gov has a vested interest in max profits, max trade and max use of human capital as they see it—does that mean that we are required to participate?
Firstly I would complain that the fedgov has no business or authority to have any vested interest in those things. It is simply supposed to keep the peace so that individuals can do what they do.
Ultimately no one has to participate at all. Most people want to produce and, at some level, have to consume. If the government sets up regulations backed by law that govern how you produce and how you consume you pretty much have to participate if you want to do either.
For example; you cannot grow tobacco unless you have the right permit and grow it where the fedgov says you can. The American Spirit Tobacco Co. tried that. They wanted to have American Indians grow some of their tobacco on Indian land in the west and market it as such which would have benefited a struggling tribal economy and the company. The fedgov said "no dice." That's not my idea of a free market.
Does Rokke do his arguments any favor that way because his posts have been arrogant, condescending and snarky the whole thread through.
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.