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?
I don't care if what I say amuses you.
The fact remains the articles I've mentioned I've posted, as has hedgetrimmer, calcowgirl, and numerous others, and additional articles besides. That you choose to feign ignorance of them is not my issue, problem, or fault.
http://www.cec.org
The official web site of the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation.
http://www.naalc.org/
The official web site of the North American Commission on Labor Cooperation.
http://www.nadbank.org/
North American Development Bank
http://www.intermodal.org
Intermodal Association of North America
As for your concerns about groups of people writing documents that influence government policy...that is nothing new in American history and is actually a vital component of our democracy. And nobody is labeling or mocking people for disagreeing with what any document says. As evidenced by this thread, I have been doing my best to get anyone to actually discuss the document. My ridicule and disagreement is reserved for people who make broad and unsupportable statements about conspiracy theories that don't exist.
I'm not ignorant that they exist. I am just aware that they DO NOT say what you claim they do, and you can't provide any support to prove otherwise. I have little doubt, that if you could...you would.
We're not in grammar school any longer. Choose what you wish to do. I already gave instructions once.
BUMP!
Wouldn't it just be easier to support your points? I mean that sincerely. Do you not think your arguments would be a little more convincing if you offered specific evidence to support your statements when you make them, rather than just making a broad statement and then telling the person you make it to to go Google up support for it. If you stand behind your convictions, support them. Don't expect others to find support for them for you. They won't.
Rokke, knock off the chicanery. You're convincing no one with your tactics. I posted articles immediately above and below your own posts, as well as directly to you.
Search the words in the articles (posted oftentimes all around your own posts) which I previously posted and told you look for. You will find them. It's really not "top secret."
No, they are labeling and mocking them for taking the original article under consideration and for agreeing with what some of the documents say (What was that cute little reference to Sisyphus again?) Others just want to dismiss the whole thing because CFR is made up of "good men".
It is the job of the People to hold Government accountable. Some seem to resent them for doing so.
I agree that Rokke is well versed regarding the CFR and his posts are well written. And although I disagree with his take on this subject, I never felt the need to post to him until he wrote...
"Who is advocating integrating with corrupt socialist and communist governments? What is your evidence that this country has been or wants to be?"
Once I read that, the word AGENDA splashed accross my computer screen. So our President, Senators, US Corporations and their lobbyists are not complicit with Mexico in selling out the US Taxpayer. Where has Rokke or you been the last 6 months?
BTW, I never called Rokke naive or stupid. If I did, please show me.
And then you said they said this...
"The goals are to remove the sovereignty of the United States and of Canada, take their wealth and distribute it to Mexico, even moreso than has been the case. It is to encourage migration from Mexico to the United States."
And this...
" Encouragement of migration is plainly spelled out. Focusing on the borders of the North American Union is plainly spelled out. Reducing focus on internal borders, i.e., Canada/USA and USA/Mexico, is plainly spelled out. Encouraging interdependence and/or assimilation between and among Canada/USA and USA/Mexico is also within the texts."
Of course they say no such thing. So I asked you to reference where you found support for your statements... and you tell me to "get google, type in the words "migration", "border", "dependent", and "assimilate" and you'll find those terms." And you think THAT is "convincing"?
The fact remains, you continue to make statements you cannot support. You can post every document the CFR has ever written, but if you say they've said something they haven't said, you are no more correct than you are now.
Sigh. Here we go again. Can you point out where that has happened. Honestly, is it too high a standard to expect people to back up their claims with facts?
"What was that cute little reference to Sisyphus again?"
What would you call an effort to get someone to engage in a discussion they initiated, only to have them dodge to some other topic everytime you get close to getting a real discussion going?
"It is the job of the People to hold Government accountable. Some seem to resent them for doing so."
No. What people like me resent are people who make things up and then expect the government to respond to their fantasies. The government has a tough enough job just handling real world problems.
Similarly, just as your non-denial denial that you have "no horse in this race," or that you are not "conflicted" to even be discussing this document objectively, even though your relative is in CFR and may have had a hand in designing the very document about which we speak, does not make your claims factual. Unless we believe what you say just because....well, you said so.
And neither does your claim that the "reason I didn't post I have a family member in the CFR is because that fact is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the discussion" make that fact, well, irrelevant at all. Trust me.
THEN PROVE IT!!!
I already gave instructions. For the second time, you may choose to do whatever you wish to do. But it's pretty obvious to me you're choose "not."
Does the Sisyphus comment make any more sense to you Calcowgirl? I'm dealing with people who think directing someone to Google is supporting their own false claims.
Now you're taking what I said out of context.
What a surprise.
Now beyond all better judgement, I'm going to ask you to explain where I did that. I'll be happy to correct myself if I did.
I assume you do know how to read? Encouragement of migration is plainly spelled out. Focusing on the borders of the North American Union is plainly spelled out. Reducing focus on internal borders, i.e., Canada/USA and USA/Mexico, is plainly spelled out. Encouraging interdependence and/or assimilation between and among Canada/USA and USA/Mexico is also within the texts. Interdependence, btw, takes away from Independence, a necessary ingredient to sovereignty.If you're too lazy to find the words by reading, get google, type in the words "migration", "border", "dependent", and "assimilate" and you'll find those terms. If you need help with reading comprehension, there are online helps for that.
On this thread, or in those particular documents about which I have referred at least a half dozen times on this thread, if you type each of those words on your google toolbar, your mouse will be brought to those particular words.
Since it is you who claims how clever you are, I really didn't think I'd have to explain to you how to find a word on a thread or in a document using such simple "find next" tools on a tool bar. It appears I overestimated your abilities. For that I apologize.
when you typed this did you have a straight face?
Fair enough. I will take you at face value then. When I read the phrases above in context, I thought you were being ironic in an attempt to discredit his response. I apologize if you were being sincere and I misunderstood.
On the substance of this debate...I think the more important question is, where have these conspiracy theories been the last sixty years? The truth is EXACTLY where they are today. As footnotes in the margins.
I do not believe that President Bush or the star players on his team are particularly influenced by organizations such as the CFR. He is influenced by people who are members, as are all Presidents, but I believe the evidence shows that the President is much more likely to be influenced by experience with people like his housekeeper or an Iraqi who lost part of his family under Saddam, or someone who lost his wife in the WTC than he is the elites.
You may still not like the results, but to fit his behavior into some secret one world government plot is actually a complete misunderstanding of the man and his character—and imo the characters of many of the people who are members of the CFR.
Again I apologize for my mischaracterization.
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.