North American Union to Replace USA? ("is this the plan?" alert!)

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:

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:

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:

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 enjoyed the civil conversation we've had and appreciate your clarity.

It takes two and that's why it didn't occur between me and Rokke.

I also have a feeling that the perspective in the original article is a tad bit alarmist. But we'll see.

Of course. If they aren't true then it is alarmist although these suspicions are nothing new so how alarmist is debatable. If they're true, even in part, then it is alarming not alarmist. It is something to consider and discussion is one method of accomplishing that. If you have spent a couple of days going over this thread then you must agree that it's something to consider.

There are perhaps three points here that are facts to consider and they may or may not have any relation to each other.

1. The CFR is interested in unrestricted travel and business between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.
2. The current push for amnesty will accomplish much towards that goal.
3. A lot of politicians who are currently working towards an amnesty belong to CFR.

The entire discussion revolves around whether there is any connection between those things. Some think there might be and want to explore that thought further. Others want solid proof "right now" or else anyone who discusses it is "a conspiracy nut." That is the essence of this thread as it stands IMO.

Prove your points? Read your mind? I didn't even know you were referring to a "Google toolbar" when you told me to Google words. It is your job to support your statements. No one else's.

No. As I indicated: there are over 800 posts on this thread. I suggested that for each comment made on a particular post wherein articles or links are made and/or referred, if you take issue with the statement made regarding that post, you should provide evidence to prove that your contradictions are factual and the posters' are false.

That is not mind-reading, nor proving the poster's point. It's you who take issue with their point but do not post anything but your own opinions in refutation to their points. The articles/links/excerpts are all on the thread (with comments at the time they are made), whether posted by me, TigersEye, hedgetrimmer, calcowgirl, or others.

And much to my relief, I see you've actually posted some supporting excerpts to discuss.

As indicated earlier, that's been done all along the thread, except for when you refuted my (and others') points or made demands that I report specifics to back up my earliest points, posted with links and/or excerpts. You, however, provide and offer nothing but your own opinion for your refutations. Even this post of yours continues with SOLELY your own opinions.

You posted the following excerpts..."Further streamline the secure movement of low-risk traffic across our shared borders." Now, what is the threat to our sovereignty if we streamline the secure movement of low risk traffic?

That paragraph was posted as an example of wording used in one document and one document only on the spp website. My point was merely to show that the website, itself, has dozens of pages from which to ensure and encourage ease of travel between the three countries. It does depend upon what the intent for "streamlining" means. In the Joint Statement, it was proferred thusly:

our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary. Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff [i.e., the perimeter of the entity now known as the "North American Community"] and an outer security perimeter [id.] within which [id.] the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe.

This one paragraph (which cannot be taken as an isolated statement of intent, there are others in the other documents which expand upon this idea), is yet another suggestion that there will be a strong line, if you will, drawn around the entity now known as the "North American Community" with an almost indistinguishable division within the three countries. The suggestion of which I speak is legitimate, in that the beginning sentence states the entity's "security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary," as if it were one organism, as if it has been melded into one country. Thus, the sovereignty of each country, Canada, the United States of America, and Mexico, has been removed.

Hong Kong is a separate entity which is allowing ease of travel for it's visitors. The suggestion above goes way beyond the idea of merely "ease of travel" for visitors whose intention is depart soon after their arrival.

"* Identify, develop, and deploy new technologies to advance our shared security goals and promote the legitimate flow of people and goods across our borders." Again...is this a bad thing?

See above comments and discussion, as this excerpt is part and parcel of the paragraph cited for illustration purposes at the spp.gov website.

The article excerpt in your post #321 includes this sentence..."First of all, it would require that U.S. citizens effectively surrender their citizenship in the independent constitutional republic founded in 1787." What a bunch of garbage. I'm not even going to ask support for that because it doesn't exist.

That's all well and good, however, I quoted this from that particular article: "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." That you dislike the article in question is irrelevant. That was not the point. The point was, that statement is specific AND accurate regarding what I have been addressing, and speaks directly to the Joint Statement. The author of that article wrote what he sees coming down the pike if there is a MELDING of the three countries into an entity called the "North American Union." I find his reasoning consistent with what American citizens would must/give up for that to be achieved, i.e., American sovereignty, its Constitution, and our Bill of Rights, upon any such melding or "union."

The report calls for a reconceptualization of the border as a "line of convergence rather than a line of defense." I personally have no idea what "a line of convergence" means, but then I don't know what most of what they come up with ever means. Do you know how they define that?

Convergence is a matter of where they meet or come together, rather than that which marks the respective countries' sovereign boundaries. It's all in how one views what the line is there for: a line to defend and protect against outsiders crossing, or merely a transitional line for whomever to cross over.

I didn't know that was coming up. I'd like you to ping me on anything pertinent on that, if you don't mind.

I'll try to remember. I'm sure there will be more discussion on it. They are the bond initiatives that will be on the November ballot in California. My information comes from digging in and reading the actual legislation. As usual, the language for the ballot has been mandated by the legislature and has some highly misleading language. Hopefully, some tax groups or journalists will start providing some details long before the election.

As background, in January Schwarzenegger originally proposed $68 Billion in general obligation bonds that, after including federal and private funds, equated to a $222 Billion 10-year plan ($26 Billion in bonds for a total of $86 Billion in the first 5-year phase).

The supposedly "scaled-back" plan is $37 Billion in bonds for a total $116 Billion 5-year plan; it passed the legislature a couple weeks ago. Collectively, the projects include schools, highways, rail, port infrastructure, border infrastructure, and flood control/levees (not to mention the farmworker housing, infill development, and some other atrocious items). At one point, they had included some water projects along the Mexican border (I don't remember where those projects stand right now).

The federal funds are coming from some of these intermodal designations such as "corridors of national significance", or similar titles. Private funds are being pursued for toll-roads, with lots of foreign investors apparently clamoring to the table for licensing rights. They will be offered in a series of initiatives (Props 1A through 1E). Here is a snapshot of the $116 Billion plan ($37 Billion in borrowing):

Prop# Bill#     Description     Gen'l Oblig Bond   Total Inv Amt

1a    SCA 7     Prop 42 chg      n/a                n/a
1b    SB 1266   Transportation  $19.925 Billion    $86.8 Billion
1c    SB 1689   Housing         $ 2.850 Billion    $ 2.9 Billion
1d    AB 127    Schools         $10.416 Billion    $18.0 Billion
1e    AB 140    Flood Control   $ 4.090 Billion    $ 8.1 Billion

Oh, in case I forget to ever mention again, beware of Prop 1A (the "strengthening" of Prop 42 provisions). It actually facilitates some more internal borrowing and/or deferrals of prior borrowing.

Ooops. I just bothered to look at your homepage. I had assumed you were in California so I probably gave you a whole lot more info than you were looking for, lol. Oh well. I'll ping hedgetrimmer to get the bang for the buck! lol.

Calcowgirl...where do I start. Your problem is the same as Hedgetrimmers. You haven't read the document he wanted to discuss either.

I have no problem, Rokke. I never claimed nor implied I had read the whole thing (as of now, I've covered about 1/2 of it). Clearly I had not read it at that time. In fact, 100 posts after that I even asked you to confirm which report you were talking about and asked you for a link so I could download it, which you provided in post #544. Remember?

However, that is clearly irrelevant to what I said. I gave you two examples with links. Nimarlo gave you at least 4 others. Those content filled posts went ignored or dismissed, I am not sure which. There were also many content-filled posts in the first several hundred posts, before you entered the thread.

The "article" he posted in post #466 IS SIMPLY EXCERPTS OF THE SAME ARTICLE HE SAID HE WANTED TO DISCUSS. That he didn't even know that was all the proof I needed that he never read the original article in the first place.

Not excerpts, per se, but it was a summary of findings, yes. So what? Was it not worthy of discussion? Looking back, it probably would have been easier to start discussions of the CFR recommendations from that post instead of the 70-pager download from CFR. But as I mentioned in another post, my focus was not that CFR document. My interests are primarily in the transporation programs and their origins.

I pinged them everytime I mentioned them. If I didn't, it was a sincere oversight.

You are correct. You did. That was my oversight. Please accept my apology.

YES. Finally. Thank you. Let's begin.....For the sake of clarity I will put any quotes from the CFR document in bold, and yours in italics.

The security and well-being of its citizens are at the pinnacle of any government’s responsibilities.

You say the purpose of our government is the protection of individual right and private property. Jefferson would describe that as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see that any of those statements differ from each other significantly. Certainly protecting life and liberty could be described as providing security, or as you state it, protecting the individual's rights and private property. Jefferson adds pursuit of happiness and the CFR document adds well being. Frankly, I think your statement more closely parallels the CFR document than Jefferson's, but again, the differences do not seem that significant between any of them.

"At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the futures of Canada, Mexico, and the United States are shared as never before."

"That is because the certain individuals in OUR government decided that trade could be used to integrate these countries without the consent of the governed."

But it is "the governed" who provide both the supply and the demand of the trade equation. In other words, the actions of the government regarding trade would be irrelevant if the governed didn't jump right in and provide a market. And clearly H. Ross Perot campaigned actively against NAFTA in the 1992 elections. The "governed" decided to ignore his warnings and voted for a NAFTA advocate in the form of Clinton. Now, according to data listed on page 1, paragraph 3-4, almost 1/3 of US trade is with Mexico and Canada. Trade among the three countries has tripled in the last ten years, Canada and Mexico are our primary sources of imported oil, and 90% of our natural gas comes from Canada. Again, none of this would happen if there weren't American consumers (the governed) generating the demand.

"NAFTA did not originate from the people."

No international treaty or trade agreement ever does. And they never have.

"As a result, all three countries face a historic challenge: Do they continue on the path of cooperation in promoting more secure and more prosperous North American societies,"

"To claim that Americans have prospered from NAFTA is disingenuous."

It may be true that the citizens of Canada and Mexico have benefited more from NAFTA than US citizens. I honestly don't know, and this document doesn't say. I've already listed the stats on the oil and gas we get, but it could be argued that we would buy that without NAFTA.

"property owner have suffered from illegals trespassing, taxpayers have suffered mightily to pay for the housing, education, medical care and other expenses for the people who broke our laws and entered our country."

NAFTA did not include any provision legalizing illegal immigration. That was a problem long before NAFTA. And it could be argued that if we really did lose a significant number of jobs to Canada and Mexico, that would have actually reduced the number of people flowing into our country illegally. It clearly hasn't. However, the northern portion of Mexico has benefited greatly from provisions of NAFTA and that has greatly reduced immigration from that area of Mexico. Page 5, paragraph 1 of the CFR document says states in Northern Mexico have grown ten times faster than central and southern regions. Lack of opportunity in the central and southern regions is a key contributer to the illegal immigration and drug trafficking that makes its way into our country.

"Individuals wages are their property and the government shouldn't extort this money through taxes to pay for lawbreaking aliens to live in this country."

I think almost all our taxation is a form of extortion, and it is up to us to vote in representatives who will reduce it. That is our job as voters and if we don't, we pay (literally) for what we get. We have been paying for illegals for decades. Yet, it is rarely an election issue. When Californians voted to end funding of illegals' education, they were overturned by federal judges appointed by democrats elected to office by the people. Yet, for decades, Californians have continued to send democrats to the Senate and to a majority of their House seats. They've also voted consistently for the democrat Presidential candidate. Clearly, they aren't so concerned about the issue that they are willing to vote in leaders who will appoint conservative judges. Again, we live in a democracy. We choose our leaders. If our leaders fail us, it is up to us to vote them out. When we don't, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

"or do they pursue divergent and ultimately less secure and less prosperous courses?

"Oh, are the authors predicting the future here?

Yes. They are being presumptuous here. However, they support their presumption starting on page 3 under the title "What We Face". In short they highlight growing problems in security with the rising terrorist threat, increased competition in international trade, and the increasing problem of illegal immigration stemming from poverty in Mexico. They have a point.

"Do they claim that if the US doesn't merge with Mexico we will be less prosperous?"

That is a silly and fallacious argument that is certainly NOT being advocated in the CFR document. I'm not going to discuss it either.

"if important decisions are not pursued and implemented, the three countries may well find themselves on divergent paths.

"What important decisions? Open borders, integration of transportation systems, creating a customs union, creating the Amero to replace the dollar?"

Decisions regarding North American security, economic growth and economic development. That is what the rest of their recommendations involve. None of which include, by the way, open borders or the Amero. Better integration of transportation systems and combining customs efforts are already underway and play an important role in our security.

"Nowhere in this document was it suggested that the US take the Constitutional course. It would mean that the CITIZENS of Mexico would have to vote to become a territory of the US.

Where did that come from? Certainly not this document. Nothing I have read even hints of making Mexico a US territory.

"Why doesn't this document suggest the Constitutional solution? Can you tell us Rokke?"

You were doing so well and then you took a flying leap off the deep end. NOTHING in this document suggest making Mexico a US territory. Exactly opposite. So why would they talk about "a Constitutional solution"?

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.