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

HumanEventsOnline.com ^ | 5/19/2006 | Jerome R. Corsi

[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?

[hedgetrimmer]

BTW,

snark·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snärk)
adj. Slang snark·i·er, snark·i·est
Irritable or short-tempered; irascible.

What is snarky? You said:
Accusing another poster of getting special privileges because of who he knows and or his arm-length affiliations.

You have a very loose use of the concept of "Snarky" lol

[nicmarlo]

I still have family in CA and so am interested in what is going on out there (besides the fact that I grew up in So. Cal. and spent the bulk of my life there, as well, for close to 25 years). Thanks for the information.

[hedgetrimmer]

That he didn't even know that was all the proof I needed that he never read the original article in the first place.

If you had read it yourself, you might recognized the first three sentences.

[William Terrell]

I gave you your list. These are thing that are going on now, like I said. There are more things, but these should be enough. What do you want?

And one more thing. I am an ex Marine, pulled a tour of duty in a combat zone, have been in several firefights, have been wounded therein. Don't tell me who in the armed forces I can respect or disrespect, puppy. I paid the price.

[hedgetrimmer]

The "article" he posted in post #466 IS SIMPLY EXCERPTS OF THE SAME ARTICLE HE SAID HE WANTED TO DISCUSS.

I posted the additional article in #443. You posted #466.

The article in #443 states
Three former high-ranking government officials from Canada, Mexico, and the United States are calling for a North American economic and security community by 2010


They make policy recommendations to articulate a long-term vision for North America

In the spring, the Task Force will release its complete report, which will assess the results of the Texas summit and reflect the views of the full membership

The full membership view of the CFR is that the three countries should be unconstitutionally merged.

This is an official article/press release from the patriots at the CFR.

[Paul Ross]

Right. Canada's Mulroney, Mexico's Salinas, and the USA's Bush 41 came up with the original treaty - and Bubba Clinton got the thing through a reluctant Congress. Clinton and Rubin bailed Mexico out of bankruptcy with $ 40 billion, and we were told that NAFTA would put Mexico on the road to prosperity. Instead it just put Mexico on the road north.

Dead-on historical perspective.

Economic marriage between the USA and Canada made economic sense, but hitching the American economy to a corrupt third-world narco-state like Mexico was simply stupid. It also had the effect of destroying Mexican agriculture which could not compete in a free market with efficient American agribusinesses - so the peasants facing starvation head al norte.

Bump. Good analysis.

[hedgetrimmer]

Thanks for the analysis.

More stuff for your files:

TRANSPORTATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY: A VISION FOR INTEGRATION

Building on the spirit of cooperation and the accomplishments of our past meetings in Tampa and Santiago, we, the Ministers responsible for Transportation in the Americas, have met in New Orleans in order to solidify our commitment to developing an integrated Western Hemisphere transportation system that supports the vision for increased economic and social development, trade, tourism, and cooperation among the countries of the region in the 21st century, and the equitable participation and sharing of benefits among member states from such integrated transportation systems.

5. Best Practices Report on Transportation Infrastructure Financing: Request that a report be jointly prepared by the IDB and World Bank on best practices and innovative mechanisms for financing the development, enhancement, and maintenance of transportation infrastructure in the Western Hemisphere and in particular smaller economies, examining the full range of public-private partnerships and the experiences of countries, regional transportation institutions, and multilateral financial organizations

[hedgetrimmer]

NOTHING in this document suggest making Mexico a US territory

DING DING DING

There is only ONE Constitutional option and that is to allow the Mexican people to VOTE to become a US territory. The CFR does not take the CONSTITUTIONAL option for merging the two countries. You have made my point for me! Thank you!

[nicmarlo]

I'm sorry hedgetrimmer, but I'm not following this line of thought.

If, as we agree, the goal is to merge/meld the three individual, sovereign, countries into one entity which has no separate soveregnty, that is already against the US Constitution. The entity now known as the "North American Union" (NAU) certainly does not and will not be bound by the United States Constitution. That document is being thrown overboard.

By the time the "melding" is complete, or nearly so, the United States Constitution would have already been trampled. What would be the point to "revive" the U.S. Constitution and proceed with such a farce of actually looking to it as at that juncture? The US Constitution will have already been laid by the wayside, as it does not now control either Canada or Mexico.

[hedgetrimmer]

If, as we agree, the goal is to merge/meld the three individual, sovereign, countries into one entity which has no separate soveregnty, that is already against the US Constitution.

Yes we agree. It would be unconstitutional to create a north american union, as the union would be a supranational entity over the United States.

But the point is, theoretically Mexico could be annexed as a territory and become part of the United States if there was the will on both sides to do it. But the first step is that Mexico must become a territory. That is clearly not the goal for the globalist CFR. There goal is clearly to make the 3 countries "member states" of a supranational union.

[mjolnir]

In the spring, the Task Force will release its complete report, which will assess the results of the Texas summit and reflect the views of the full membership The full membership view of the CFR is that the three countries should be unconstitutionally merged.

I think you've made a mistake here. The CFR's members have many various and (inevitably)conflicting views, but the CFR itself doesn't hold any policy positions. The "full membership" in

In the spring, the Task Force will release its complete report, which will assess the results of the Texas summit and reflect the views of the full membership.

referred to here is the full membership of the TASK FORCE, NOT the CFR

That I may disagree with William Weld and even think it might have been a good thing Jesse Helms blocked him from becoming Ambassador to Mexico doesn't mean I have to think of him as being unpatriotic. The fact is, he did about as good a job as anyone could expect someone to do governing a far left state like Massachusetts till Mitt Rommney came along and did it better.

Sure, the membership of the CFR tends to run to the left; so does the membership of the Brookings Institution. That's because academia tends to run to the left. The views of the former (or the latter) seem not secret at all to me. If I want to read them, I can read Foreign Affairs, whose articles I usually disagree with. If I'm curious about the views of a individual member like, say, Richard Haas, I can catch him on tv going on about the virtues of Joseph Wilson and how the Bush administration lacks nuance. None of that makes them unpatriotic to me. One of the things I like about Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager and Larry Elder among other conservative spokesmen is that they accuse people of being patriotic only when they directly express ill will to American citizens and prospects, as Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and other assorted moonbats have done. Even Ann Coulter's book Treason was by and large NOT accusing the left of treason, Alger Hiss aside; her point was the more subtle one that the policies of the likes of Jimmy Carter had the same effect in practice as those of someone who wanted to weaken America-- a very similar point to the one Orwell made about pacifists.

William F. Buckley, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Bill Casey, Dick Cheney, Stephen Hadley, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Francis Fukuyama have all been members of the CFR. None of them are leftists, nor do they all agree with one another all the time. Samuel P. Huntington published the "Clash of Civilizations" article in “Foreign Affairs”--- that can’t be remotely described as a left wing or even neo-con essay.

[mjolnir]

AGGGHH! I meant to say, One of the things I like about Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager and Larry Elder among other conservative spokesmen is that they accuse people of being unpatriotic only when they directly express ill will to American citizens and prospects, as Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and other assorted moonbats have done.

[Paul Ross]

By the time the "melding" is complete, or nearly so, the United States Constitution would have already been trampled. What would be the point to "revive" the U.S. Constitution and proceed with such a farce of actually looking to it as at that juncture? The US Constitution will have already been laid by the wayside, as it does not now control either Canada or Mexico.

Think how much Constitutional erosion has already occurred with Supreme Court neglect or blessing. Particularly frightening is the sovereignty abdications already encompassed in the "Agreements" which are given the full force of Federal law...but were never passed by a Senate two-thirds majority as required of treaties... This runs the gamut from such things as FDR's GATT agreements, all the way up to NAFTA, CAFTA, and the proposed FTAA. All of which are intended to be passed as "agreements" rather than treaties...as if those euphemistic name-changes...change their fundamental character...or the Constitutional requirements for passage. And NAFTA was the basis for the creation of the WTO and its courts, and CAFTA for tribunals...which by the terms of the agreements...are placed outside the jurisdiction and hence above the Supreme Court.

[nicmarlo]

theoretically Mexico could be annexed as a territory and become part of the United States if there was the will on both sides to do it. But the first step is that Mexico must become a territory. That is clearly not the goal for the globalist CFR.

I agree, theoretically Mexico, or any country, could be annexed as a territory, if both sides were willing to do so (though I am ignorant as to the procedures and specific requirements/amendments to the Constitution necessary).

Their goal is clearly to make the 3 countries "member states" of a supranational union.

This is how I envision the goal, as it is more than alluded to in the several specific documents aforementioned (Joint Statement, CFR's "Building a North American Community," and the "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America").

[nicmarlo]

as if those euphemistic name-changes...change their fundamental character...or the Constitutional requirements for passage. And NAFTA was the basis for the creation of the WTO and its courts, and CAFTA for tribunals...which by the terms of the agreements...are placed outside the jurisdiction and hence above the Supreme Court.

That is the heart of the matter, actually. The "euphemistic name-changes" do not change the fundamental character. It is merely an attempted slight of hand upon an ignorant populace so as to make the pill better to swallow or accept, or to invoke ridicule against those who refuse to swallow or accept that pill (as evidenced by this thread). The lack of transparency within these documents exists because the authors (representative committee members) of these very documents intentionally use "euphemistic name-changes" to enable them to only allude to the desired goals.

[pollyannaish]

Just wanted to say thanks for including me in this conversation. Unfortunately, now that I am not falling down tired, and therefore have the potential to be more articulate...I have to do real work.

I will continue to follow this thread, but didn't want to seem to be abandoning my position that the original story is a bit tinfoily and overly alarmist. It is only that I do not currently have the time to pursue this with due diligence and therefore would not contribute effectively to the discussion therein.

I hope to participate again on this topic at some future date. Of course, if you can figure out a way to make money by Freeping...; )

I hope you have a terrific day.

[evad]

I am an ex Marine, pulled a tour of duty in a combat zone, have been in several firefights, have been wounded therein.

Wish I had something in my background that significant. If I did I would post it on my profle. Unfortunately I don't so...it isn't.

[hedgetrimmer]

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

Citizens are responsible for their security and their well-being, NOT the government. The government is responsible to step out of the way so citizens can do this. The government protects the rights of citzens to be self governing individual. Protecting life and liberty is not the same as providing security.

No international treaty or trade agreement ever does.

Then they are invalid. Government of the people by the people for the people. Surely you've heard that one. Security:
Freedom from risk or danger; safety.
Freedom from doubt, anxiety, or fear; confidence.

You want the government to protect you from these things?
Just how would they do that?


American consumers (the governed)

Please don't get consumers mixed up with citizens. Illegal aliens are consumers. Giving consumers political authority is giving illegal aliens political authority in this country. Consumers have an effect on markets, but CITIZENS must control the government.

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.

What is the "less prosperous" course?

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

Why do we have a problem with security? We have attacked the terrorists on their own ground. This is a silly and fallacious argument.

increased competition in international trade

Oh they don't like the increased competititon in international trade? I thought competition was good, at least thats what the freetards over at NAFTA and the WTO say. And those same people use our tax money to build infrastructure in foreign countries just so they CAN compete with us, sweet deal, eh? And since the model the European Union used was to spend billions of dollars in the less developed countries of their trading bloc, they created the competition against the more prosperpous members. The CFR says increased competition is bad, but they proposed the NADBank to guarantee that there would be competition by Mexico against Americans financed by Americans.

and the increasing problem of illegal immigration stemming from poverty in Mexico

The increasing problem of illegal immigration from Mexico stems from the elitists and globalists in our own government, some of whom are CFR members like Doris Meissner who refused to do their appointed work to secure the border. Remember Doris? She was the first INS commissioner to declare she didn't believe in borders, and stopped enforcing it during her tenure. Then she goes off to be on this North American Task Force to declare that illegal immigration is a problem and to fix it we just expand our border to the perimpeter of the North American continent. How crooked can you get?

[antisocial]

This article was found on CFR website:

http://www.cfr.org/project/311/study_group_on_globalization_and_the_future_of_border_control.html

Tells me that what I suspect is happening is indeed being planned to happen.

Study Group on Globalization and the Future of Border Control
Chair: Charles G. Boyd
Staff: Stephen E. Flynn, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies


September 1, 2001 - January 1, 2004

The post-Cold War momentum towards open societies, liberalized economies, and new technologies have accentuated an important new reality-that despite the prerogatives of sovereignty, the capacity of the United States and other nations to police the movement of people and goods across its national frontiers and through its ports of entry are frail and getting weaker.

The explosive growth in international trade and travel provides criminal and terrorists with ample opportunities to enter a nation undetected. In the United States, people and goods arrive daily at more than 3,700 terminals in 301 ports of entry. In 2000, 489 million people, 138.5 million trucks and vehicles, 5.8 million maritime containers, and 829,000 commercial planes passed through the U.S. cross-border inspection program. Not only is this volume projected to grow dramatically in the years ahead, but the economic pressures for greater openness are on the rise as well.

The logic of the global marketplace is to topple borders, not to fortify them. Modern businesses intent on outsourcing and adopting "just-in-time" delivery systems want unfettered access to international markets and they want to lower the national barriers to moving people and goods reliably and affordably around the planet. Nonetheless, as the prevalence of transnational threats such as WMD proliferation, terrorism, drug trafficking, illegal migration, biohazards and disease rise, so to do the pressures on border control agents to identify and intercept illegitimate activities within this tidal wave of commerce.

Accordingly, absent creative thinking security, law enforcement, and regulatory authorities will find themselves increasingly at odds with free trade protagonists who seek to accelerate the integration of the global economy by reducing or eliminating many of the border control processes that they perceive as creating costly commercial barriers to international trade, travel, and commerce.

[nicmarlo]

the original story is a bit tinfoily and overly alarmist.

That position would be a most reasonable one if there were not substantial portions of the aforementioned documents already implemented or in the works. Because that is not the case, the documents, the writings of this author (Corsi) (who may, alone, cause someone to question his credibility), the writings of Phyllis Schlafly (who is respected among conservatives), and numerous credible others, imho, simply cannot all be swept aside and discounted. The fact remains that there concern is warranted because enough legitimate issues have been raised.

Hope you have an enjoyable day, as well.