Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. legislator(Tom Tancredo) warns of Bush plot to merge Canada, the U.S. and Mexico
Canada.com ^ | November 21, 2006 | Beth Gorham

Posted on 11/22/2006 5:29:38 AM PST by Dane

Beth Gorham, The Canadian Press Published: Tuesday, November 21, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A U.S. legislator who backs tough anti-immigrant measures and more security at the Canada-U.S. border is warning Americans that President George W. Bush is plotting to integrate the continent.

And he says Prime Minister Stephen Harper “buys into it.”

Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, revered by some U.S. conservatives for his efforts to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, said this week that Bush is a dangerous internationalist.

“He is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that, it’s an idea. It’s not an actual place defined by borders. I mean this is where the guy is really going,” he told WorldNetDaily, a controversial conservative website.

“I know this is dramatic, or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic. But I’m telling you that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American union, it’s not something that’s just written about by right-wing fringe kooks,” said Tancredo, who is considering a run at the presidency.

“It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it...”

Tancredo followed up with an interview on the conservative Fox News network, where he said the borders will lose all their significance, serving merely as “speed bumps” in the flow of goods, services and people.

In October, Tancredo demanded the United States suspend work on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) signed last year by Canada, Mexico and The United States until Congress examines its goals and agreements, which include standardizing regulations and dismantling other barriers to trade.

The deal to collaborate on a wide range of trade and security issues is part of a larger plot to merge the countries in a European Union-like arrangement using a common currency, he said, with no oversight from legislators.

The congressman, who wrote a book on the border security issue called “In Mortal Danger,” is one of four members of Congress who’ve signed a resolution opposed to a union or a free trade “superhighway system.”

They’re not the only ones worried about closer ties between the three countries.

A coalition of American conservatives is organizing a grassroots effort to make it an issue in the 2008 presidential race and vow to campaign against any candidate, Republican or Democrat, who won’t side with them.

The movement was spearheaded in October by Howard Phillips, chairman of the public policy group Conservative Caucus, anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schlafly and author Jerome Corsi.

The group is calling for a congressional investigation into the SPP and full disclosure of all documents when the new Congress run by Democrats begins in January. They’re getting support from the Minuteman Project that monitors the borders to deter illegal crossings, a group Bush has called vigilantes.

Supporters of the anti-union stand point out that a prominent three-country task force backed by Canada’s business elite has promoted an elaborate vision of a common economy and security perimeter.

The plan, released last year, drew fire from some Canadians who saw it as a dangerous surrender of sovereignty designed to benefit big business.

Tancredo, who has often talked about the “porous” Canada-U.S. border, stirred up controversy last year when he mused on a Florida radio show that America could destroy Islamic holy sites like Mecca if there’s another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

While beloved by many right-wingers and immigration hawks, Tancredo was recently labelled one of the 10 worst congressmen by Rolling Stone magazine.

The publication noted he wants to deport every undocumented worker in the United States, a proposal that would cost at least US$200 billion, and has called for halting all immigration, legal or otherwise.


TOPICS: Canada; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: alienbuttprobes; aliens; bush; clintonzedillo; cuespookymusic; ernestozedillo; immigrantlist; immigration; kookmagnetthread; morethorazineplease; nau; obl; offofmymeds; pagingartbell; robertoramrez; spp; summit; tancredo; tancredo08; tinfoilhatalert; whatsthefrequency; wnd; worldnetdaily; worldnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-157 last
To: Common Tator

Did you support passage of S.2611, the Senate immigration reform bill that would have allowed millions of illegal aliens the opportunity to obtain legal status, as well as the opportunity to pursue a path to citizenship?

The GOP share of the white vote also declined. The GOP share of the white vote was 58% in the 2002 mid-term elections. In the 2006 mid-term elections, it was 51%. If the GOP had gotten 58% or more of the white vote in 2006, it would have held on to both houses of Congress. Stating that the GOP share of the Hispanic voted declined proves nothing because its share of both the Hispanic vote and the white vote declined.

I believe you are incorrect about anti-illegal immigration candidates not doing well in the last election. Only about six and a half percent (6.5%) of the members of Cong. Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats. Weren't somewhere around eleven and a half percent (11.5%) of all Republican seats lost? If I am incorrect about those figues, please correct me.

How many Democrats that defeated incumbent Republicans that supported H.R.4437 actually ran on a platform of support for both legalization of millions of illegal aliens, as well a path to citizenship for those illegal aliens? Many Democrats that defeated incumbent Republicans that supported H.R. 4437 attempted to portray themselves as being as tough or tougher than their Republican opponent on illegal immigration and border security.

What potential 2008 presidential candidate or candidates do you believe would make a good president?


141 posted on 11/23/2006 11:31:38 AM PST by arnoldpalmerfan (Tancredo for President 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

What potential 2008 presidential candidate or candidates do you believe would make a good president?


142 posted on 11/23/2006 11:33:01 AM PST by arnoldpalmerfan (Tancredo for President 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I saw Tancredo on TV yesterday. He said that "This is not black helicopter stuff."

I agree. I'd say it's more like electric blue helicopters with fluorescent orange day-glow paisleys.

143 posted on 11/23/2006 11:41:50 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

PRND21 has posted that he might support Rudy for president. Apparently, his idea of someone who he could support for president is a cross-dressing liberal. I will not be voting for Rudy. I don't intend to cast a vote for a liberal drag queen.


144 posted on 11/23/2006 11:43:59 AM PST by arnoldpalmerfan (Tancredo for President 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Tancredo pulls the pin, throws the grenade and then jumps on it himself.

The begining of the self destruction of a single (albeit important)issue candidate who is trying to expand the interest of a bored and sanguine electorate.


145 posted on 11/23/2006 11:48:40 AM PST by Gideon Reader ("The quiet gentleman sitting in the corner sipping Kenya AA and enjoying his Stan Getz CD's".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Dane, you posted the following: "Huh, then why did 25 members of his immigration caucus and voted for H.R> 4437 lost, of most notice the two candidates he actively campaigned for, Graf and Hayworth."

Why did you falsely claim that twenty-five (25) members of Cong. Tancredo's caucus were defeated? Do you just make up facts and then post them at FR as truth?


146 posted on 11/23/2006 11:50:19 AM PST by arnoldpalmerfan (Tancredo for President 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher

President Bush continues to push for legislation that would legalize millions of illegal aliens and give those millions of illegal aliens a path to citizenship.


147 posted on 11/23/2006 12:10:04 PM PST by arnoldpalmerfan (Tancredo for President 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: arnoldpalmerfan

Mitt Romney WILL be the next President.

Once we reach debates, he will wipe the floor with all the others. He is too smart, too good looking and too well prepared to lose.

Place your bets, because it is a LOCK.


148 posted on 11/23/2006 12:55:07 PM PST by Pukin Dog (I will vote for Hillary Clinton for President, before I will vote for John McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: arnoldpalmerfan

I know this is late, but I loved your post. Too bad nobody bothered to answer your questions!


149 posted on 11/26/2006 10:19:08 PM PST by CottonBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator

He Tator Salad, you're confusing apples with oranges, er Mexicans with Canadians. Canadians working in the U.S. economy are a net plus to the economy. Mexicans are not. The Heritage foundation found that the cost to the U.S. Taxpayer is $100,000 per illegal over the life of *each* illegal. Because they are seen as potential voters, they are coodled and draw upon social entitlements, i.e., education, health care, foodstamps in a hugely disproportionate way, over any other constitutuency and that would include, 'um Canadians.
Your pithy questions to anti-illegal immigrant advocates are only clever by half.


150 posted on 01/07/2007 10:04:02 PM PST by mrflashrifle ("With Amnesty, we'll be getting the equivalent of 12 Million high shool drop-outs")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mrflashrifle
Since when does this new Congress care about what Illegal Mexican immigrants cost. The members of the U.S. Congress and Senate only care about being reelected.

A large number of anti illegal immigration congressmen got defeated. Democrats want Amnesty and Fast Citizenship for ALL Hispanics. That is what the Democrats want and there are not anywhere near enough Republicans opposed to that policy to stop them.

What part of the Democrats now control both the House and Senate escapes you? There are not enough anti Mexican immigration Republicans in the Senate to filibuster the bill! It is going to pass both houses and Bush has said many times that he will sign the bill.

Only a hanful of voters care what a Mexican immigrant costs society. There were not enough to elect several anti illegal immigration candidates. It was the pro mexican immigration candidates that won enough races to allow Democrats to take control of both houses of congress.

You are Clueless.

151 posted on 01/08/2007 9:15:15 AM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I thinks it's time for a new third party called the Conspiracy Party. Then all those on the Left and Right and in the Center who believe all these nutty evil Government conspiracies can be in a party they are comfortable with. They will never get anyone elected to a high position, but at least they can be angry at life together.
152 posted on 01/08/2007 9:26:46 AM PST by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
Why should we be limited to two parties? Why shouldn't we be able to have 3rd, 4th, parties? I like the Constituiton Party.

It is our outdated voting customs that that are to blame for this.

I should be able to vote a sequence i.e., Perotka, if he loses Tancredo gets my vote, if he loses, then the Republican gets my vote, if he loses the vote dies.

153 posted on 01/08/2007 9:35:25 AM PST by Jason_b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jason_b
Why should we be limited to two parties? Why shouldn't we be able to have 3rd, 4th, parties? I like the Constituiton Party.

Ask the founding Fathers of the US Constitution, they basically set up a political 2 party electoral system.

Hey you can diss the founding Fathers, that's your right, as prescribed in the 1st amendment.

154 posted on 01/08/2007 9:41:37 AM PST by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Dane

I mean no disrespect.


155 posted on 01/08/2007 9:44:55 AM PST by Jason_b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Jason_b
I mean no disrespect.

Well they did set up a winner take all system, especially for Congress, remember that when you go half-cocked about third and fourth parties.

156 posted on 01/08/2007 9:48:49 AM PST by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Dane

What a frickin maroon.


157 posted on 01/08/2007 9:50:00 AM PST by cicero's_son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-157 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson