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?

[nicmarlo]

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.P> This is the key.

[William Terrell]

Believe me, that stuff looks good only in retrospect. It doesn't make me any smarter or better than anyone else.

[Westlander]

http://cf18.clusty.com/toolbar

For Firefox and IE

[nicmarlo]

Thanks! Got that on my computer now and google's been booted. : )

[Westlander]

Curious....do use IE or Firefox?
I'm a Firefox fan, seems faster and has never gone bonkers.
You can customize it more than IE.
Clusty, Vivisimo, and Wisenut are my search choices.
Happy Surfing.

[nicmarlo]

Firefox. And I'm just learning the ropes with clusty. It's a bit different than what I'm used to, but I'm sure I'll figure it out. Thanks again.

[texastoo]

Think how much erosion has already occured 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...

These globalist could never get the votes, could they? So now we have "agreements" that can be changed at a whim with only a meeting of the three elites. Fox, Bush and Chirac all decided they wanted NAFTA PLUS and just basically said that this is the "right thing to do" for the "Partners of Prosperity". Like you said, this erosion is neglect or blessing. Of course, another topic but the SCOTUS has aided these "agreements" with eminent domain. It will be much easier to trample on the rights of Americans as the new highways or corridors are being built by a foreign company with the intentions of hauling foreign goods from the tip of South America to the North Pole.

[nicmarlo]

It will be much easier to trample on the rights of Americans as the new highways or corridors are being built by a foreign company with the intentions of hauling foreign goods from the tip of South America to the North Pole.

Dressed up as Santa bearing gifts, to boot.

[texastoo]

I saw your replies to my earler posts. Thanks. I read the articles by Jesse Jane and miss her posting here. I am going to bookmark this thread as it has so much information.

I am having computer problems. I have talked to someone in India for about 3 hours today. It was like Pete and Repeat. The phones echo like crazy.

[nicmarlo]

I didn't realized she was banned until after I posted that link...I went to see if she'd posted recently. I was surprised to learn she's banned.

[calcowgirl]

Pastor is a piece of work!

Found among the comments ("Additional and Dissenting Views") of consenting task force members of the
CFR Report: "Building a North American Community"

Page 49

This report articulates a vision and offers specific ideas for deepening North American integration. I endorse it with enthusiasm, but would add two ideas to galvanize the effort and secure its implementation: a customs union and U.S. government reorganization.

The report recommends that the three governments negotiate a common external tariff on a sector-by-sector basis, but some sectors will prevent closure, leaving untouched the cumbersome rules of origin. Paradoxically, but as occurred with NAFTA, a bolder goal is more likely to succeed than a timid one. We should negotiate a customs union within five years. That alone will eliminate rules of origin. This will not be easy, but it will not be harder than NAFTA, and mobilizing support for a customs union will invigorate the entire North American project.

North American integration has subtly created a domestic agenda that is continental in scope. The U.S. government is not organized to address this agenda imaginatively. Facing difficult trade-offs between private and North American interests, we tend to choose the private, parochial option. This explains the frustration of Canada and Mexico. To remedy this chronic problem, President Bush should appoint a special assistant on North American Affairs to chair a Cabinet committee to recommend ways to breathe life into a North American community. A presidential directive should support this by instructing the Cabinet to give preference to North America.

Robert A. Pastor
[a vice chair of the Task Force]

[calcowgirl]

More stuff for your files:
TRANSPORTATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY: A VISION FOR INTEGRATION

Thank you, once again!

[Rokke]

"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."

So let me get this straight. You claim a document says something it doesn't say, and I am supposed to prove the article doesn't say what you says it does. OK. Here you go. Links to the two articles in question. They don't say what you say they do.

Building a North American Community
SSPPNA Statement

Prove me wrong.

"Even this post of yours continues with SOLELY your own opinions."

First point...I explained the factual process of airline pilots transiting through international airports to demonstrate the process and importance of streamlining the movement of low risk traffic across borders. Everything I said was factual. Point 2...I demonstrated through personal experience the process of crossing the Canadian border to explain the need for more efficient crossing facilities. That isn't opinion. It is fact. Point 3...I asked you if developing new security technology was a bad thing. Is it?

"That paragraph was posted as an example of wording used in one document and one document only on the spp website."

Well there you have it. Once again I've proved I'm a terrible mind reader. Here I thought you were trying to actually engage in a debate on the article you posted, but instead you were trying to prove why you don't need to support your points. In case I haven't already made it obvious enough, I have been literally begging for someone to engage me in a discussion of the articles I linked above. To my surprise, it would appear that after first requesting the debate over 700 posts ago, Hedgetrimmer has finally decided the time has come. There is plenty to talk about in the CFR document. I have no desire to engage in a simultaineous debate on that document and the seemingly unlimited sources you might choose to pull up on a Google search. Again, I falsely assumed you were finally ready to discuss the article you posted. Apparently not. Let me know if you change your mind.

[Rokke]

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

What? See my post 859. I answer posts in the sequence I recieve them. Glad you finally decided to talk about the CFR document.

[Rokke]

"Don't tell me who in the armed forces I can respect or disrespect, puppy. I paid the price."

Then you ought to know better. Most Marines do. Including the several former Marine Corps Commandants in the CFR.

[Rokke]

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

So you still deny the collection of excerpts you posted isn't a collection of excerpts from the exact document we are talking about? And now you claim the CFR document wants to merge Canada, Mexico, and the US?

You still haven't read the CFR document, have you.

[Rokke]

"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!"

Actually, you continue to make my point for me. After a SINGLE post from you in which you actually did what you claimed you wanted to do over 700 posts ago, you run through the first paragraph of a 70 page document, and then start making claims the document doesn't even talk about (as evidenced by your lack of annotation or reference to them which you managed to do in your first few comments in your post). So in good faith, I respond to your post, point by point. Agreeing and disagreeing and using nothing by data from the document to back my positions. And after all that, your response is to comment on your fantasy and unsupported belief that the CFR document advocates absorbing Mexico as a US territory? Of course CFR doesn't have a "Constitutional option" in their document concerning Mexico. It also doesn't have an option for declaring the world flat, for dealing with visitors from Mars, or for regulating how men walk on water. None of those things are discussed in the document, and neither is your phony Mexico territory issue.

Again...you still haven't read the whole document, have you. I guess I'm glad you at least read the first page. It's a start.

[Rokke]

Please don't ping me to anymore of your fantasy sidebars. I don't have the time or desire to read them.

[Rokke]

Your post 878. Great. Thank you again for resuming our discussing of the actual article. From this point onward, I will respond only to your very worthwhile efforts discussing the CFR document.

Unfortunately, I have to go to work now and won't be able to respond for several hours. When I do, I will respond to this post first. I appreciate your efforts in posting it.

[pollyannaish]

Please do accept the trophy. I find they are useful to pull out next time one does something less than articulate. LOL.

And would you please slap me upside the head next time I post way past my bedtime after a long day at work?

I do hope you will accept my apology. I get frustrated sometimes with the limitations of debating via the keyboard. It can cause all sorts of misunderstandings.

As promised.