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?
All true I suppose but to talk about US protectionism is absurd to the nth degree when I see 800 billion dollar trade deficits. I would pick another country (Japan, China) to argue against protectionism
But here's some buffo news for the "free trader" crowd and "trade deficits don't matter crowd". Mexico is exploring building a new mega harbor in Baja California to help the us bring in even more Chinese crapola for Wal Mart, Home Depot and so on. Via Mexico and bypassing the US longshoremen's unions and the more expensive US ports
And again, "protectionist" is refusing to allow shipping companies to use bar codes and scanners to expedite the off-loading of cargo. Sadly, much like the UAW, the ILA will go the way of the dinosaurs. And much like the UAW, that complained but did nothing while automakers fled to Right-to-Work States, the ILA fails to see that this Mexican port (if built) is its own storm cloud on the horizon.
And again, "protectionist" is refusing to allow criminals to use shipping companies using bar codes and scanners to expedite the off-loading of contraband. "Protectionist" is allowing inspections by the people through their government agencies to maintain the integrity of the customs process.
"Protectionists" maintain sovereignty, which is why "free traders" are against it.
Mexico can build an damn port they want that will receive Chinese imports for transshipment to the United States, just so long as the US taxpayer isn't on the hook somehow.
My bet is that by the time it's built (if it's built) the US dollar as premier reserve currency regime with it's feet of clay idol of "free trade" will collapse under the weight of cumulative trade deficits and the US will not be able to afford so many Chinese imports. Due to the dollar taking a dive. Which is the course your kind of economics favors. Party on until the US Dollar makes a super "adjustment" downward. That's your version of free trade. In retrospect tariffs will be seen as having been a bargain and the more pro-American and rational course - that was not taken-
And yes, it was over barcoding.
Sorry. I forgot to mention that it occurred in 2002.
=:-}
BTTT
BTTT
See previous post
many call this facism ... and I think you are absolutely correct.
Haven't you ever noticed that as people age, in many cases they get more socialistic ? Just because someone honorably served their country once doesn't mean every action they take for the rest of their lives is equally admirable, or that we can't critique it.
I can be grateful to folks like him and at the same time not entrust the keys to my family's prosperity to him, hmmm ?
If it is being applied to "some people" rather than to George H.W. Bush, then the answer to your question "Haven't you ever noticed that as people age, in many cases they get more socialistic?" is of course "yes, I've noticed that." However, it should be noted that even in that case, the question is misleading, since it's the youth who tend to be more socialist and then, as they gain experience, become more conservative.
As a matter of fact and record, George H.W. Bush is less, not more socialist than he was when he was younger "youth" would be over-doing it. As a 1980 Presidential candidate he rejected supply side economics, as Vice President and President he embraced it, only to be blindsided by a back-stabbing congress.
Be that as it may, you perhaps didn't read RoadTest's post no. 27 that I responded to. It implied George W. Bush was not just any kind of liar, but a "Satanic liar". It castigated him and his father as Skull and Bones Hellions".
Opposition to free trade in America during this century and the last has been driven by unions, and but its socialist character is simply due to that fact. Opposition to free trade means the government gets in the business of deciding which businesses to subsidize. It hardly needs be said that the government's mercy to one American corporation is injustice to some other American. Sometimes this opposition even leads to calling a Satanic lie unremakable, patriotic, pro-free market statements of indisputable fact like this: "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary."
A nation's prosperity isn't connected to its security and vice versa? Look, if nations could talk, a libertarian's ideal nation might say, hey, all our security needs are met by our prosperity--- and the libertarian nation would be wrong. A socialist nation like the USSR might say our prosperity needs are met by our security--- also wrong. We're conservatives. We know that what President Bush said is true--- they are in fact interconnected.
If you disagree, fine. My issue is with those who would accuse President Bush or his father of being evil. I assume you agree, since you state that you can disgree with him and yet still think of him as a decent person, to even be grateful to him.--- hardly a sentiment worthy of the devil he and his father were accused (by Roadtest) of being since their Skull and Bones days. I'm only sorry I made the mistake Lancer_N3502A caught, that George H.W. Bush was actually shot down twice and awarded the frigging Navy Cross for heroism. Thank the Lord for decent, humble men like him. he is, and will remain, a hero.... A hero who raised a son who lifted and (in a different way) defended America in its darkest hour.
OK, your clarification helps.
No, Satanic would not be my description of either Bush. I reserve that for the Clintons and their ilk, and I just can't understand why the Bush's are so friendly with and defenders of Bill Clinton.
The Bush's are sometimes misguided, beholden to and acting in the interest of some special interests(union or corporate) that are not always conducive to the interests of freedom and happiness of average Americans, but overall, they are certainly decent human beings.
And yes, both Bush's certainly understand that a nation's security is entwined with its prosperity - so what explains their support of open borders, call it what you like ? How can George W not act to tightly close the southern or northern border and call for amnesty (call it what you like) and additional immigration of tens of millions without consideration of the impact on American lower and middle class society ?
Who knows? These are my thoughts (obviously!). I think one reason is that they, especially W., look at Texas as America writ small, or Texas as the model for what America can be like. Texas doesn ot have quite the same problems with immigration that California or the other border states have; when the Cowboys play in Mexico, Mexicans cheers for it. I think there's a good reason for that. Leftism makes immigration, especially illegal immigration, divisive and even dangerous, because leftism undermines American culture and language, leaving a void for Mexican culture to fill. Leftism in California is dominant, so illegal immigration is that much more of a problem there. President Bush thought he could be friends with Democrats, like with his lt. governor in Texas, as President. I think his immigration policy is another example of mistakenly extrapolating from his Texas experience.
I also believe that Ted Kennedy has pushed our immigration policy so far out of kilter that it's often hard to see what a sensible one looks like. We severely limit our work visas for people who are highly skilled--- the Asians and south Asians who graduate from our graduate schools of engineering. We make it easy for people who are less skilled and therefore have less to offer the economy to come in. America used to be able to decide whether it wanted to let people in who were easily assimilated, like Europeans. Kennedy called that racist and worked to put barriers against doing that. So Bush's position perhaps seems moderate to him because of the great success Kennedy and (sadly) Alan Simpson have had. I think President Bush has lacked imagination (like that Mike Pence has brought to this problem) in this area--- the Pressident knows he disagrees with the nativism of Southern Partisan and the isolationism with respect to trade, the WOT as well as immigration of Pat Buchanan, and he so ends up way on the other side because even though he disagrees with them, he has unimaginatively accepted their grouping of those issues. President Bush, who is a humble man, also unfortuantely doesn't seem to think critically when he criticizes his own side, just as Leftists never criticze their own side. President Bush may also be influenced by his family, including the bad ideas of George P. Bush. It's hard to argue against someone who has a personal stake in an issue even when you know they're full of crap, which is why Ann Coulter felt she had to write what she did about the Jersey Girls.
But I also believe that President Bush's problems in framing this issue in way useful to this country flows from the fact that probably isn't self-conscious enough about being a conservative. I think it was John O'Sullivan who said that an institution that isn't explicitly conservative will inevitably turn to the left. The same is true with administrations. In identifying open borders with free trade, President Bush fails to distinguish between people and commodities. I don't think he would be as likely to do so were he as grounded in conservative literature about philosophy and economics as Ronald Reagan was. But, even Ronald Reagan fell to the lure of do-somethingism with respect to this issue. So, I guess there are no guarantees. Micheal Barone expressed this lack well, and his statement is pertinent to this issue:
"Put not your trust in princes," Lord Strafford said as he was facing execution, abandoned by his master Charles I. Conservatives who rely on presidents to achieve their goals will mostly be disappointed. The success of the conservative enterprise depends on individuals in the marketplace and the efforts of Burke's "little platoons" in promoting virtuous behavior. George W. Bush's policies of enlarging the space for individual choices in education, health care and Social Security, and his policy of defending the nation in the war on terrorism, serve conservative purposes. But by themselves they do not achieve conservative goals. That is up to all of us.
Excellent post. Thanks, you make good points. It all comes back to the individual - unfortunately we individuals still have to deal with the political so they don't give it all away.
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.