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

HumanEventsOnline.com ^ | 5/19/2006 | Jerome R. Corsi

[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?

[texastoo]

"NAFTA was not created to stop illegal immigration,and was not sold as doing so."

This is Clinton's signing of NAFTA. G.H.Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford were present for the signing and each made a speech. All except for G.H.Bush refered to illegal immigration as a reason for passing NAFTA.

This is Clinton speaking:

What does that mean? It means that there will be an even
more rapid closing of the gap between our two wage rates. And as the
benefits of economic growth are spread in Mexico to working people,
what will happen? They'll have more disposable income to buy more
American products and there will be less illegal immigration because
more Mexicans will be able to support their children by staying home.
This is a very important thing. (Applause.)

This is President Carter speaking:

If we fail, I think it would be the end of any hope in
the near future that we'll have honest democratic elections in Mexico.
The illegal immigration will increase. American jobs will be lost.
The Japanese and others will move in and take over the markets that
are basically and rightly ours.

This is Gerald Ford speaking:

And I say with all respect to my former members of the
House and the Congress, don't gamble. If you defeat NAFTA, if you
defeat NAFTA, you have to share the responsibility for increased
immigration to the United States, where they want jobs that are
presently being held by Americans. It's that cold-blooded and
practical. And members of the House and Senate ought to understand
that.

All of this is found at

http://www.historycentral.com/Documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html

The ministries????? Where in the constitution is the word "ministries or secretariat"

Why wasn't the U.N. ever voted on?

[Rokke]

"My laughter is doubled and redoubled."

Um hmmm. I can imagine. Let's recap the conversation. My original point to Hershey...

"But your original statement slams Bush for not securing the border in a time of war. He joins a long and distinguished list of Presidents in that regard."

Your response..."Name one"

My answer "Lincoln"

Then you laughed and claimed that was too long ago. So I gave you 12 more up to the current President. So you laughed harder and changed your original criteria yet again. Now it isn't good enough for the President to have been a President during a time of war. In fact, now the fact they were President's during a time of war excuses the fact they left the border open. Congratulations on twisting yourself into a reverse knot to try to save face. That might work if the whole thread wasn't recorded here for easy review. But it is. So you just come out looking twisted. Then, just to cap things off you demonstrate you can't even keep track of topics you've introduced into the thread. Let me help you out...the war in Kosovo was a Clinton legacy. So was Somalia. And Reagan invaded Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, trashed Libya, and most importantly, won the Cold War. And as you mentioned, Bush I won the first Gulf War. Making him yet one more President who has not secured our border during a time of war.

You are not a bright man, and you try to cover it up with phony laughter. I would suggest you try to argue with facts, but you can't seem to keep a train of thought long enough to pull that off either. You stand out as a classic example of the kind of people who fall for conspiracy theory tripe. Easily confused, poorly read, and insecure about your own understanding of things. Take solace in the fact that as this thread proves, you are not alone. Sad but true.

[rodeocowboy]

I don't know if this is a tin-foil hat story or Bible prophesy coming together. According to the Bible, ten kingdoms/empires will form and the anti Christ will be the emperor. I always wondered how the USA, with it's sovereign mindedness would fit in.

[Rokke]

"I, for one, would be interested in reading it but it is not worth $15 dollars to me."

Me neither. You can download it for free here

Free PDF file of Building a North American Community

[mjolnir]

The ministries????? Where in the constitution is the word "ministries or secretariat"

"Ministry" is just the name other countries use to describe what we call secretaries. We have a secretary of defense, other countries have a defense minister. That's all that means.

As far as NAFTA being sold to STOP illegal immigration, none of those statements promise that-- they merely promise to lessen it, and to do even that indirectly. And maybe it would have been lessened, had Mexico not been so slow about reducing its own tariffs and made moves to lessen its endemic corruption. Still, I shouldn't have said that. Fair enough. Leave it Carter to spot grandiose rhetoric based on air, I guess.

As for the U.N., I agree it should never have been created.

[hedgetrimmer]

The truth is HAS NO AFFILIATION many members in WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

Now thats a fact.

[hedgetrimmer]

Affiliation: To associate (oneself) as a subordinate, subsidiary, employee, or member: affiliated herself with a new law firm.

Is the CFR affiliated with the federal government or is the federal government affiliated with the CFR?

[TigersEye]

It was your criterion not mine. Your examples were laughable. Especially naming BushII who was the point of the first premise that the border needs to be secured.

[TigersEye]

Let me help you out...the war in Kosovo was a Clinton legacy. So was Somalia. And Reagan invaded Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, trashed Libya, and most importantly, won the Cold War.

Yep, there are some more great analogies to the current post-9/11 situation. I agree with you on one thing; the posts here are a record anyone can make their own mind up about.

[hedgetrimmer]

OK. Now lets build on that effort. The CFR is a GLOBALIST organization.

The Council’s Congressional Staff Roundtable Series provides a near-weekly forum for discussion of essential issues under the Council tradition of no attribution. It assembles key staff from relevant congressional committees and foreign-policy staffers who work for individual members of Congress in a neutral setting to discuss international topics. Roundtables engage congressional staff from both political parties in the House and Senate in sustained discussion of major issues in U.S. foreign policy, ranging from U.S.-China relations to American evangelicals and U.S. Middle East policy. The roundtables focus on links between domestic and international factors, the relationship between economics and security, new dimensions of international relations, and changing conceptions of U.S. interests in an evolving international order.

Who is changing the international order? Why is it 'evolving' from nation-states?

[William Terrell]

No. I know you are wrong.

Why, yes, of course you do.

Meetings. Say the words Council. On. Foreign. Relations. and tell me that they don't have meetings. This "task force paper" obviously required a lot of meetings. Yes, indeed, A nonpartisan resource for Information and Analysis.

I guess the question is, did President Bush meet with Canada and Mexico the first time before or after the papers was actually written. It was published in 2005.

How many meetings do you think it took to develop the concept? Or was it just Bush who gestated the idea and the "task force" kind of took the high wind of it.

Let me ask, do you think the Balkanization we see going on around us just coalesced out of the ether by random sequential events all by itself?

As I said, I'd rather be wrong my way than yours.

[Rokke]

"You are really afraid all that is true, aren't you?"

It would appear I am one of the few people on this thread who isn't afraid of the likes of the CFR.

"How do you know? Tell me what goes on in the meetings."

Do you mean the super secret meetings that everyone knows about?

"Your faith in men in the face of great temptation and great power is charming. But no thanks."

I am disgusted by your willingness to smear good men you don't even know because you think they might be doing something you really aren't sure about. And since you're not certain your suspicions aren't true, they must be true and those men must be guilty of something. You're just not sure what.

But my disgust with you is my problem. And I'm sure you care as much about my impressions of you as the men you smear care about your impressions of them.

[hedgetrimmer]

here

[tryon1ja]

This article is a bunch of crap. This kind of bs doesn't help anybody. Your handle "dark skies" sure tells it all for this one.

[Rokke]

"The truth is HAS NO AFFILIATION many members in WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT"

So does FreeRepublic. Are you saying FreeRepublic is affiliated with the U.S. government?

[hedgetrimmer]

You are not a bright man, and you try to cover it up with phony laughter.

You have loads and loads of facts (in your words). So why are you casting personal insults? They are not necessary in a fact based discussion.

[Rokke]

"Is the CFR affiliated with the federal government or is the federal government affiliated with the CFR?"

Neither. They are not associated with each other any more than this site is affiliated with the US government.

[Pukin Dog]

His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union.

Please tell me there are not FReepers actually believing and defending this madness? I noticed you on this thread, and expected to see a lot of comments on how Corsi has jumped the shark, but if people here are believing this crap (or are Democrats pretending to do so to discredit the forum) then we really have a lot of work to do.

[hedgetrimmer]

It would appear I am one of the few people on this thread who isn't afraid of the likes of the CFR.

The rest of us honor and defend our Constutitional Republic.

[hedgetrimmer]

Changing the discussion. Are we talking about freerepublic or the CFR? You decide.