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?
This is the second of my posts on the subject for the record.
Chicanery yet again.
Please read the following:
* There are over 800 posts on this thread. Please read it from the beginning. For each and every comment made on a particular post wherein articles or links are made and/or referred, if you take issue with the statement(s) made regarding those particular posts, provide evidence and/or support from an outside source, or debate the document referred to within THAT PARTICULAR POST, to prove and/or establish that your contradictions are factual or have merit and the poster's statements are incorrect or false.Your anecdotal remarks about Hong Kong are irrelevant to the discussion at hand concerning the intentions and ramifications of the CPR, the NAU, and the Joint Statements concerning the entity now known as the "North American Union" (which is the topic, not Hong Kong). Your anecdotal comments about Canadian border irritations may well be factual; however, jeopardizing the American sovereignty through the creation of the entity known as the "North American Union" takes precedence over any individual's travel irritations.That is not mind-reading and that is not proving the poster's point for them. If you merely DISAGREE with their opinion, however, doesn't make them incorrect and you correct. It means there's a difference in opinion. You have yet to provide or present anything which contradicts or refutes opinions reached from the actual documents to which many of us have referred. You have YET to post anything, save your own opinions in your attempts to refute any of our points.
Every article/link/excerpt referred to by the posters is on this thread with comments at the time those posts were made. If you start with those posts, and the specific documents to which those posts referred and provide a "logical contrary interpretation" based on your opinion, or back up your opinion with something which shows that our thought process has gone in the "wrong direction," I'm sure we'll be more than happy to have a dialogue regarding our differing conclusions.
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.
And you obviously prefer histrionics to actually engaging in discussion by doing what I've asked several times now, see * above.
And you can, likewise, stop pinging me to yet more of your histrionics. Thanks.
As I said, Pastor's ideas cannot be dismissed; he is a key player in the formation and planning of the "agenda" written out in the document "Building a North American Community."
You're welcome. And thank you for your excellent analysis of the bond issue.
Read later
Conflicts of interest are never irrelevant when clearly related to the matter under discussion. And your own conflict of interest, which is significant and substantial, would not have been irrelevant even if you had disclosed it, which you should have done.
..."I could be the President and founder of CFR and it wouldn't matter to this thread."
It would still matter but not as much, provided you disclosed it. If we had only your attitude, comments and contemptuous dismissal of anyone and everyone with a CFR/NAU position opposed to yours, to go by, we might well wonder if you might indeed be the President and founder of CFR...
Nonsense--it had nothing to do with debating skills. It had to do with your unsupported allegations and slurs that you directed at me (not backing up my assertions, attacking Rokke, irrational, illogical, emotional, etc.)
I asked for examples and links so that I might correct the record. You gave none and did not respond to the many questions in my post.
If you are now acknowledging that you were wrong about the personal slurs and other allegations, and now retract them, then I accept the apology.
By the way, you also this statement:
What has been proposed by many on this thread is not a libertarian market model, but rather a protectionist market model. A "we need no one other than ourselves" approach to being American.
I asked you to support that comment as I certainly had not seen that on this thread. Did I miss your response?
Thank you. That would be welcome.
I thought that I had made the point earlier that you win because I am conceding.
It's not about winning. It's about truth, accuracy, and respect.
If I do not back up my assertions, that is the way it is and I am happy to leave it that way.
You are certainly free to post whatever you want, but don't expect unsupported assertions, allegations and personal attacks to go unchallenged.
I would like to mend fences with you on a personal level, just as I would in real life.
Uh-huh. Peace.
Would it help if I asked the moderator to delete those posts?
I am not entirely sure what else I can do.
Sums it up nicely.
Look. We have had enough of the personal nonsense. Let's get back to the topic!
There is no need to delete anything. You have clearly stated that you won't support your allegations. So be it. Let the record stand as it is.
Great!
Good luck. I'm out of here.
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.
This is part of the joint statement by Bush, Fox and Martin March 2005.
Next Steps
We will establish Ministerial-led working groups that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working groups will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals. They will identify concrete steps that our governments can take to meet these goals, and set implementation dates that will permit a rolling harvest of accomplishments.
Within 90 days, Ministers will report back to us with their initial report. Following this, the groups will report on a semi-annual basis. 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 of the world and a secure home for our people in this and future generations.
This is different wording but close to the same meaning. So now, we are going to appoint "ministers"?
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.