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

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:

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:

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:

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?

Homeland and hemisphere

By Joseph R. Nuñez CARLISLE, PA. - Washington is closely reviewing how the military should participate in homeland security. Consequently, the current regional military structures are being reviewed for mission changes or even elimination. These unified commands - Southern Command, Joint Forces Command, and Space Command, particularly its North American Aerospace Defense Command component, or NORAD - are all being considered for the homeland defense mission. Should we have a command just for homeland defense? Strategic analysis of the situation argues against it. In the first place, the furor over homeland security has created a crusade mentality that goes against reality. We do not live on a remote island, and we know that threats can touch us. We are part of North America, sharing vast borders with Canada and Mexico. There can be no homeland security unless we significantly improve security cooperation with our neighbors. Current arrangements are, at best, incomplete. We have some security cooperation with Canada through NORAD, but little or none with Mexico.

Second, an existing economic arrangement requires politico-military support. Canada, Mexico, and the United States are members of the North American Free Trade Agreement. This economic community has the potential to serve as a gateway to improved security cooperation, as long as we remember two imperatives - strategic restraint and reassurance. We must respect the sovereignty of our neighbors by treating them as partners. Also needed is better communication on how to work together to promote mutual benefit.

Third, our true strategic destiny is as part of the Americas, a community of states from Canada to Chile that have largely embraced democracy and capitalism. President Bush is committed to making this vision a reality, as the Free Trade Area of the Americas moves ahead. Such an agreement requires better security arrangements than we have within our command structure or exists within the framework of the Organization of American States.

Yet, no single command encompasses the Western Hemisphere. The Rio Treaty, a cold-war-era collective defense measure for the Western Hemisphere, is a relic. After Sept. 11, key OAS members stood up to invoke the treaty, but little if any military support came of it, because it has no effective avenue for military cooperation.

What is to be done? The National Defense Panel of 1997 provided a feasible solution: Create an Americas Command, or AMCOM. Forming this command would require some alterations to what the panel recommended. For example, in order to address homeland defense and hemispheric security logically, the command requires a headquarters and two sub-unified commands. In plain English, the headquarters should be in Washington. AMCOM would report to the Secretary of Defense, but would also have responsibilities to the Office for Homeland Security and potential coordination with the Washington-based OAS.

We should keep the Southern Command, but subordinate to AMCOM. The Southern Command is useful, but strategically incomplete (its area of responsibility excludes North America) and it needs a new focus. Many states in the region have extensive experience in multinational military cooperation, so there is potential to expand this within a hemispheric framework that can quickly deploy and demonstrate multilateral legitimacy, as long as member states have a say on the mission. The Southern Command's location in Miami is appropriate, since the city is a hub for the Caribbean, Central America, and South America.

The other command to place under AMCOM is a new North American Command (NORTHCOM), which should be located in Colorado Springs - partway between Canada and Mexico - and based on the existing NORAD framework, supplemented with a major homeland security component that makes good use of reserve forces. NORTHCOM, like NAFTA, would encompass Canada, Mexico, and the US. It would resolve the security and economic issues that intersect at the borders. Goods need to move expeditiously, yet terrorism must be intercepted. The military does not play the lead role in border security, but its support is crucial.

Creating an Americas Command, where homeland and hemispheric security issues are strategically merged, expands opportunity for multinational cooperation that protects our democratic community. Our neighbors are watching, hopeful that we act to provide a better framework for fighting terrorism, reassuring allies, and expanding security cooperation in the Americas.

• Col. Joseph R. Nuñez is a professor of national security and strategy at the US Army War College.

Bush has been pursuing this agenda without telling the US people

What if Bush just came and told us? Would you then agree? Believe it or not, I'm actually in favor of this plan. Do you know how big Canada is in relation to its population? (Its population is smaller than Calif.) Ditto Mexico - what % of their people are already in the States?

If there was some form of economic union, who would be the winner? Which laws/customs would prevail? Do people even consider what would happen to a sh!t-hole like Mexico if there were private-property protections, mortgage financing and anti-trust provisions? (The first thing that would happen would be for Pemex to be sold off.)

I've always said its inevitable that the US will annex Mexico within a few generations - they are such a basket case there's nothing else we can do. Some Canadian provinces have more in common with the US than Ottawa.

If it wasn't characterized as some evil plan, how many would support it?

>>What is your opinion of post #86.<<

that Phyllis has lost whatever judgment she used to have.

Actually I take that back - I've just reread #86 three more times. I think she is being deliberately misleading and actually does understand. She carefully avoids specific falsehoods that can be checked.

>>"Community" means integrating the United States with the corruption, socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.<<

This is just wrong - as I noted above the CFR plan is for a much higher level of border security, maybe too high because of the restrictions it places on Americans.

>The CFR document lays "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." The "common security perimeter" will require us to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations" with Mexico and Canada, "harmonize entry screening," and "fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals."<<

She makes this sound negative - they are talking about increasing border security in all three coutries to keep drugs and terrorists from even getting into North America.

There are two legitimate concerns about the CFR/Homeland security department plan - one is guest workers and/or increased legal immigration and Phyllis does touch on that

>>The CFR document calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages.<<

But these conspiracy rants detract from real discussion of the plan - the major flaw in the plan is that it doesn't deal with 12 million+ illegals already here.

Couple the signing of 'something' with the UN with my long post in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634942/posts?page=78#78

See, the UMDNJ connection?

Now look here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010

Post 23 of that thread connects the NGOS, UMDNJ/Robert Wood Johnson and the UN (also at 78, you can see the UMDNJ/RWJ/Merrill funding of illegal Immigration)

Then, you can break out the connections further with the nanochip technology. Mexico is a funding partner of Verichip.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=tagging

The Verichip Mexican partner is Solusat.

Verichip also signed new distribution Agreements for Russia, Colombia and Venezuela.

All this funding was done by Bill Clinton before left office. He authorized an 84% increase in the government's investment in nanotechnology research and development, National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and made it a top priority.

This agreement was intertwinned with a signing of trade agreements with the European Union and WTO.

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.