Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rumsfeld, DOD officials attend meeting on erasing North American borders
One News Now ^ | January 31, 2007 | Chad Groening

Posted on 02/01/2007 7:07:49 AM PST by Between the Lines

Judicial Watch says Donald Rumsfeld and other U.S. Defense Department officials have met with other countries' officials to discuss effectively erasing the borders between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

The public-interest group Judicial Watch has released documents pertaining to a meeting last fall in Banff, Alberta (Canada), called the "North American Forum," which was attended by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other high-level U.S. Department of Defense officials. According to the watchdog group, the meeting was put on by a government agency that wants to "harmonize" the laws throughout North America.

The North American Forum was sponsored by the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SSP). On its government website the SSP says it is a "trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada, and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing."

Chris Farrell is director of research at Judicial Watch. "They want to harmonize -- that's their word -- rules and regulations and laws between all three countries and try to bring them more and more together and try to erase the boundaries and borders between the three countries," he says.

But Farrell believes some of the objectives of the SSP are not in the best interests of United States citizens. For one thing, the Judicial Watch spokesman takes issue with the idea of taking the North American "grid" the U.S. shares with Canada and integrating it fully with Mexico. "I don't know how that's in our interest," he contends.

Judicial Watch, which works to investigate and prosecutes government corruption, has questioned the fact that the Banff forum was attended by a number of high-level U.S. government and military officials.

One of the more disturbing documents from the North American Forum, the group's director of research notes, contained the phrase "evolution by stealth" in reference to important policy debates, including debate on the North American countries' integration and cooperation.

"So Secretary Rumsfeld goes up to this meeting and with him he brings the Northern Command, the military's Homeland Security command," Farrell says, "and they talk about some pretty disturbing things." Many of the topics discussed at the North American Forum involved potentially "really changing how you and I think of America when it comes to our economic and our energy independence and a variety of other issues," he contends.


TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: cuespookymusic; icecreammandrake; judicialwatch; northamericanforum; northamericanunion; omgwtfbbq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last
To: Between the Lines

Moonbattism at its finest.


21 posted on 02/01/2007 7:30:38 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
"Stimulate and accelerate cross-border technology trade by preventing unnecessary barriers from being erected (e.g., agree on mutual recognition of technical requirements for telecommunications equipment, tests and certification; adopt a framework of common principles for e-commerce)."

The above quote is from the White House website. It seems to be a clear statement of the current Administration's intent on border issues.
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Prosperity Agenda
22 posted on 02/01/2007 7:30:38 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
Bush goes through with anything like this, my respect for him is gone.

Duh!

And so will your national sovereignty.
23 posted on 02/01/2007 7:32:23 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Sorry, I don't see how making it easier to use my cell phone north or south of the border is a demonstration of some larger "intent" regarding "border issues."


24 posted on 02/01/2007 7:33:13 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 100-Fold_Return

It is good that you are not holding your breath, because you are wrong.


25 posted on 02/01/2007 7:33:32 AM PST by msg-84 (Semper Fidelis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Sorry, I don't see

That's what the powers that be hope. That you won't see, until it is too late to do anything about it. Every dictatorship, every subversive government, has taken power in exactly the same way -- they did it before the masses realized what was happening. By then, it was too late. That is how Hitler took over much of Europe. That is how Islam is taking over Europe. That is how Castro took over Cuba. That is how Chavez is taking over Venezuela. That is how Putin is retaking Russia. They hope the masses keep their heads buried in the sand until......
26 posted on 02/01/2007 7:38:13 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
I don't doubt that there are elements within the U.S. Government who believe it is in our best interests to become one with Mexico - the part I'm having trouble understanding is, how is absorbing a poor, third world backwater nation like Mexico, whose culture and language are far different than ours and whose poverty and corruption is legendary, in the best interests of an advanced, industrialized society like the United States?
27 posted on 02/01/2007 7:39:16 AM PST by reagan_fanatic (Every time a jihadist dies, an angel gets its wings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dixie Yooper
I choose to not believe this article until I hear it from a more reliable source

Oh come on!! You've got everything you need. Joe Farah, WorldNutDaily, Jerry Corsi, and now Judicial Watch. Only one missing I think is DEBKA. Or possibly the National Enquirer. Once they chime in, I'll be stocking up on Ramen Noodles and bottled water...

28 posted on 02/01/2007 7:42:21 AM PST by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

The point of mentioning the military personnal is that they were there. It's a perfectly valid point to make.
Are you suggesting that if the military didn't agree with decisions made by the civilian government it would keep the decisions from being carried out? Are you suggesting a coup would be possible over the AmeriCanaMexico push of the current administration?


29 posted on 02/01/2007 7:43:20 AM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Judicial Watch on the case. lol


30 posted on 02/01/2007 7:43:47 AM PST by Rex Anderson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

Sounds like chicken little is at it again.


31 posted on 02/01/2007 7:44:31 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
Don't they have some lawsuits to attend to?
32 posted on 02/01/2007 7:45:34 AM PST by Lx (Do you like it, do you like it. Scott? I call it Mr. and Mrs. Tennerman chili.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

What borders?


33 posted on 02/01/2007 7:46:02 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Nor do I "see" how the standardization of civil aviation beacons between Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. is a small step on the road to what Hayek calls the road to serfdom.

In fact, Hayek might argue that the threat of dictatorship, or the threat of being on the road to serfdom, is greater when a leader argues we should not standardize such beacons for unfounded, but nationalistic, reasons.

34 posted on 02/01/2007 7:46:39 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

Does Judicial Watch still believe a missle, not a plane, hit the Pentagon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8


35 posted on 02/01/2007 7:49:47 AM PST by Rex Anderson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic
Easy: Cheap labor (because Lincoln declared slavery illegal).

Those globalists are more interested in CODA (cost of doing business) than in people. Importing millions of cheap laborers may be detrimental to a sovereign nation, but it is a boon for businesses that use cheap laborers to produce goods and services. How else do large corporation CEO retire with multi-million dollar nest eggs?

==

A few months after Clinton was out of office, he made a speech (at Georgetown U, IIRC). Around the same time Madeline Albright made a similar speech somewhere overseas. Both made reference to the coming time when the US is comparable with 3rd world nations. Clinton's theme was that we needed to be nice to 3rd world nations because the US would be one soon.

I was astonished that the media didn't rake Clinton or Albright for those comments. After 5 years of Bush and open borders and the flood of millions of illegals, I see that we are heading in that direction, unabated. And both political parties are in on it. They are more on-the-same-page than they want the masses to know.
36 posted on 02/01/2007 7:50:39 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Since THEY have decided they cannot bring all of the third world up to our standards, they will bring the U.S. down to third world standards. Only then can there be a fair and even global playing field.
That also puts the ruling elites on top.

Sounds like a plan to me.


37 posted on 02/01/2007 8:03:54 AM PST by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Sorry, I don't see how . . .

"evolution by stealth"

38 posted on 02/01/2007 8:07:34 AM PST by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations. So should you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

I refer you to my comment #34, if "evolution by stealth" is your concern.


39 posted on 02/01/2007 8:13:03 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Rex Anderson
Does Judicial Watch still believe a missle, not a plane, hit the Pentagon? No, they do not.
40 posted on 02/01/2007 8:13:22 AM PST by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations. So should you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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