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?

[hedgetrimmer]

What is snarky?

[pollyannaish]

We have no arguments in principle. I prefer a rather Libertarian approach to a lot of things. But it is not that way things are...but rather the way things ought to be. In addition, most Americans disagree with us at this time. They vote too and because we live in a democracy we are all tied together for better or for worse. Because of that, I do not believe we can suddenly get back there from here. Therefore, we have to deal with the reality of the mess we have made and try to improve it. Those are our choices...make some progress or make no progress. Period.

(I also thing a strictly libertarian approach has downsides as well, but that is an argument for another day.)

What has been proposed by many on this thread is not a libertarian market model, but rather a protectionist market model. A "we need no one other than ourselves" approach to being American. I fundamentally opposed to that, and despite the oft misunderstood quote from Jefferson (I think) about avoiding international entanglements, I believe our founding fathers never intended that either.

In many ways, technology has brought us here. It has created situations and opportunities that our founding fathers never dreamed of. We deal with them the best (hopefully) we can. Is free trade a perfect solution. No. Will it fix all that is wrong with the world. No. Is it an attempt to give American companies access to the rest of the world without being punished for being "American?" Yes. Will it help us eventually carry less of the burden of Mexico...Maybe. But it may be our best hope.

Like I said, I completely agree with you in principle. But we can't get there from here without starting somewhere. Even then it will be a long, hard slog with a lot of set backs. That's ok. I'm a patient...girl. ; ).

As an aside, I have a much greater frustration with the fedgov's meddling in national companies than I have with them creating international trade treaties.

[pollyannaish]

I'll tell you what. I'll let Rokke defend himself if he comes back. He is perfectly capable of it.

I've watched him post on a variety of subjects for a long time and have appreciated his patience. Therefore I have great respect for him and read much of what he says within that context. I do not see it as arrogance or condescending, but simply an attempt at establish "rules of engagement." You would expect a man of his background to do exactly that.

I apologize that I do not have the same lengthy context to use for other posters on this thread. I do now and will take it into consideration if we meet up again.

So, with that I'll leave it alone. This should not devolve into an argument about personalities, but should remain about ideas.

I profoundly disagree with the original premise of this thread. That is the bottom line.

[calcowgirl]

FWIW calcowgirl, I read the Sisyphus comment as somewhat self-depricating on Rokke's part.

You're funny! Did you also find "self-depricating" (sic) the inferences to people belonging in rubber rooms, wearing colored glasses, and calling their opinions delusional ramblings? (just to name a few).

The crux of the issue is that he took this fight on knowing full well much of what he said would be disregarded—but he understood that there is honor in the process, even if the goal is never reached.

Hmmmm. Honor in the process? My first post to Rokke on this thread was in response to a post I challenged that he had called the most "cogent" and "accurate" on the thread. No response from Rokke. I did, however, get a very thoughtful reply from the original poster of the comment.

One of the things that makes this forum great (or has in the past) is that rational discussion can be discovered, even on emotional topics. On occasion, that asset breaks down and disappears for awhile. This appears to be one of those cases.

I agree but am confused by the direction of your post. By posting to me, are you suggesting that I have been irrational in some way? Please cite any and all examples, with links.

I've been watching this thread with great interest for the past several days. Rokke is a brave man to even come in here and discuss the issue. He has first hand knowledge of the issue. He was willing to go head to head on the issue. He asked for one parameter—that evidence be gleaned from the text of the document itself. That was not respected from the beginning.

Many of us have first hand knowledge of the issue. It affects many of us in a multitude of ways. I don't think that discussing a topic makes one particularly "brave". The unwillingness to discuss a topic might, however, be considered somewhat cowardly though.

And why should a parameter be dictated by one individual poster on a thread, not even the freeper who started the thread? And, since the topic of this thread was an article, why should a single document be the center of discussion when the subject article leads us in several directions, not just the aforementioned CFR document? Frankly, I like to broaden my learning resources not limit them.

Instead the rebuttals have disintegrated into book titles from Amazon (LOL), long discussions on the meaning of "affiliation" (depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.) ...

Hmmmm... I found the book titles informative, actually. And who exactly took the conversation on "affiliation" off subject comparing it to Free Republic?

...and attacks on his "Agenda" because he happens to know CFR members.

I certainly didn't attack him, or his "agenda". If you have evidence otherwise, please provide it, with links. And, as I previously posted, I also personally know several CFR members (disclosure: none of them are family members).

That he has been patient enough to put up with it all is a tribute to his character. There are many others on this forum who have simply given up and wandered off to find less exasperating situations.

Do you have equal praise for those who were insulted and called names but chose to "put up with it" and ignore it?

To believe this theory is certainly within your right.

Well, thank you! That's mighty magnanimous of you! I don't know if I believe it or not. But it certainly has as its basis adequate reliable sources of associated materials, many posted on this thread, which make it worthy of discussion.

What is being asked of you is to simply logically, unemotionally and specifically back up your assertions. Doing that would be as good for you, as it would be for him.

Again, are you implying that I have somehow been illogical or emotional or that I have made any assertion that I have not backed up? If so, please cite any and all examples, with links. I would certainly like to correct that.

To goad the discussion into disintegrating into a discussion on whether or not the Sisyphus reference was an insult or not is, frankly, silly.

Talk about goading off-topic discussion! You somehow turned your entire post into a discussion of Me and Rokke and how he is brave and honorable and I am emotional and illogical. ROFL! Please don't rewrite history. The thread is what the thread is and it certainly doesn't resemble the one you describe. I think, perhaps, a study of the Constitution and its conflicts with Free Trade agreements might have been a more productive use of your time.

[pollyannaish]

What is snarky?

Accusing another poster of getting special privileges because of who he knows and or his arm-length affiliations. It was a slick little way of trying to discredit him on this subject.

One of my biggest disagreements with you on this entire thread is your very loose use of the concept of "affiliations" and that was what I was hoping to address.

That said, Rokke can defend himself if he comes back. With that I will bid you a good evening. I think this subject has been pretty well exhausted. Interesting, but exhausted. I wish you the best.

[pollyannaish]

Oh sheesh. Ok, I'm done. I was just feeling guilty for bringing up the whole Sisyphus thing and saddling him with it again. I was trying to explain myself. I obviously did a rotten job.

I still believe that many people who believe conspiracy theories are a little, well, delusional...but perhaps not. This thread however has done nothing to change my mind. It has simply gotten way off course, and I am sorry for any part I had in it. I was hoping to add another perspective.

I will tell you one thing. We ALL can be illogical and emotional at times. I have to admit to being exasperated at this point...which is both illogical and emotional. So—you win. Enjoy the trophy and congratulations.

Oh, and you're right. It should be self-deprecating.

[calcowgirl]

I made no false accusations. Start here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634942/posts?page=466#466

It is the first one I remembered that you dismissed out of hand. That, after you did not respond to my original post to caught my attention.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634942/posts?page=437#437
I also noticed more instances.

I certainly never said that you didn't respond to any comments. Your 100+? posts were not missed.

As to all of your interchanges with Hedgetrimmer and Nicmarlo, I will let them respond. I'm pinging them since you didn't.

[TigersEye]

I don't think there has been any great emphasis on a protectionist model on this thread. The subject isn't really focused on that. There is a difference between open markets between nations and combining two or more nations as a single trading entity. That is really what I and others object to.

Especially when it includes some asinine notion of "shared security." Can you imagine every Mexican citizen having a card allowing them free access to travel the whole of the U.S. and Canada? I can assure you Mexico will never reciprocate with that sort of freedom in their country. Not only that but there is a large and growing Islamic community in Mexico who report great success in converting native Mexicans to Islam. They'd have no trouble getting that travel card.

When are they going to allow U.S. citizens to actually own property in Mexico? When hell freezes over I suspect. When will Mexico permit Americans to politic in their country? Currently it would land you in prison for two years if you carried a sign at a rally like we saw here.

I agree that we won't restore this Republic overnight. In fact I don't think it's possible unless we take it to the streets. The only reason I ever post here is the longshot hope that it won't have to come to that. The amnesty bills in the Senate will assure us of great civil strife IMO.

[calcowgirl]

Sorry for the delayed response. I missed this post originally, but I think I adressed it in my subsequent posts to you and Polly.

Dismissed: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634942/posts?page=466#466

Ignored: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634942/posts?page=437#437

It goes on from there.

[calcowgirl]

My suspicion is that if you don't agree with it or ask for evidence to support it, you will get no credit for having read it.

Your suspicion is incorrect and your catty comments are just the kind of childish behavior that has caused this thread to deteriorate.

[pollyannaish]

Since I'm tired and frankly can't remember at this point what started this thread (LOL) I'll just say ok.

I've enjoyed the civil conversation we've had and appreciate your clarity. I also have a feeling that the perspective in the original article is a tad bit alarmist. But we'll see.

Hope to see you around sometime.

[pollyannaish]

If that is the case, I am sorry.

[Rokke]

"You are asking me to do what you could plainly do yourself. "

Prove your points? Read your mind? I didn't even know you were referring to a "Google toolbar" when you told me to Google words. It is your job to support your statements. No one else's.

And much to my relief, I see you've actually posted some supporting excerpts to discuss. For the sake of arguement, I will assume you posted them to support your statement..." 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." To prevent losing this fleeting opportunity forever, let me repost them and open a discussion on them. You posted the following excerpts...

"Further streamline the secure movement of low-risk traffic across our shared borders

Now, what is the threat to our sovereignty if we streamline the secure movement of low risk traffic? If we can streamline the movement of that traffic, we can focus more energy on monitoring the movement of higher risk traffic. As an example, I fly all over the world as a FedEx pilot. When I fly into an international airport, I am met by a FedEx representative of the country I am entering and escorted through customs and immigration very quickly, and often without even showing my passport. Yesterday I flew in and out of a city in China. It took me 10 minutes to get through security and I never even took out my passport. Instead, I had to show my credentials as an airline pilot, and a general declaration letter explaining my visit. In Hong Kong, if you are a frequent foreign visitor to the city, you can get a special pass which permits you to enter and leave Hong Kong without going through the whole customs process. The system is designed to facilitate international commerce and trade. And it works beautifully. And Hong Kong is growing into the world's primier foreign finance center as a result of their efforts.

"* Develop and implement a border facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve the legitimate flow of people and cargo at ports of entry within North America."

Again, how is this a bad thing. They are talking about improving our border crossing facilities. Have you crossed into Mexico or Canada recently? I'm sure if you did you were on completely legitimate business. But the last time I crossed into the US from Canada I waited for over an hour in a traffic line that stretched through the whole Canadian town I was waiting in. It was an irritation for me. It is a deal breaker for a trucking company. The facilities need improvement.

"* Identify, develop, and deploy new technologies to advance our shared security goals and promote the legitimate flow of people and goods across our borders."

Again...is this a bad thing?

The article excerpt in your post #321 includes this sentence..."First of all, it would require that U.S. citizens effectively surrender their citizenship in the independent constitutional republic founded in 1787." What a bunch of garbage. I'm not even going to ask support for that because it doesn't exist.

Apparently the "US-Mexico Migration Panel in your post #644 was a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace initiative that took place before 9/11. They said "The panel's report calls on the U.S. and Mexico to craft a "grand bargain" that would be mutually beneficial, make migration safe, legal, orderly, and predictable, and decrease migratory pressures over time. The report calls for a reconceptualization of the border as a "line of convergence rather than a line of defense." I personally have no idea what "a line of convergence" means, but then I don't know what most of what they come up with ever means. Do you know how they define that?

I disagree with Pastor completely about the Amero. So do most people. No argument with me there.

And finally, your post #680 quotes a very supportable point from the CFR and then tries to counter it with some statement from the Mexican government. So what? The CFR clearly does not speak for the Mexican government, and the Mexican government does not speak for the CFR.

Now, this is what happens when you post specifics. For the LIFE of me, I cannot understand why you resisted doing that. You did just fine. Now I invite you to rebut my responses. I welcome it. It would be SUCH a refreshing change on this thread.

[TigersEye]

I profoundly disagree with the original premise of this thread. That is the bottom line.

Yes it is and personalities wouldn't become the topic if people didn't bring them into it. The original premise is just that; a premise. An attempt to analyse events on the ground and compare them with the goals of a large and influential organisation and see if there are any dots to connect.

Calls for reasoned discussion that are laced with invective, assumptions about personal character and motives and a flat refusal to acknowledge clear patterns of intent in the documents under discussion are disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

[Rokke]

"But your relative at the CFR should be able to get you a copy, maybe even for a discount!"

They aren't published by the CFR genius.

[Rokke]

"What FACT is in this statement?"

Did you read the post? The entire statement is factual support that I not only acknowledge what is posted, but respond to it.

Go back to bed.

[pollyannaish]

Ah come on. Personalities are half the fun here. Just like in politics. We can all pretend, but that is still part of the equation. That's what makes Rush, Rush or Savage, Savage, or Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld.

So I figure if we all just lighten up a bit, and take ourselves less seriously it will make all the invectives and assumptions more fun.

Now knock it off. I've got to get some sleep. LOL.

[calcowgirl]

Thanks for the hardwork, nic. I've bookmarked your post so to help work back through the mounds of information already posted. I know there is much more that I haven't fully absorbed and certainly want to discuss more.

The main reason I even entered this thread was because of the intermodal transportation plans that set the basis for the upcoming California Ballot initiatives asking voters to approve of a $100+ Billion dollar plan, something that was discussed in the first 400 or so posts and somehow got lost when some started calling folks conspiracy theorists. California's plans also include coordination with Mexico and border infrastructure investments (not border enforement, but enhanced mobiliby projects). Hedgetrimmer posted some great links around post #446 regarding the North American Trade corridors. I need to get back and study those more.

I'd love to keep this thread going, assuming we can keep on topic (in my mind that means to explore what IS happening and IS fact and not digress into some of the other hyperbole).

[calcowgirl]

BUMP! Excellent post, T.E.

I've been trying to point out that "free market" and "free trade" are two completely different animals.
You explained it better than most! Thank you!

[Rokke]

Calcowgirl...where do I start. Your problem is the same as Hedgetrimmers. You haven't read the document he wanted to discuss either. The "article" he posted in post #466 IS SIMPLY EXCERPTS OF THE SAME ARTICLE HE SAID HE WANTED TO DISCUSS. That he didn't even know that was all the proof I needed that he never read the original article in the first place. As for your post #437, mjolnir responded more eloquently than I could. Nothing more needed to be said.

"I certainly never said that you didn't respond to any comments."

I quote..."You keep dismissing stuff without apparently reading it or even acknowledging it." You come up with one instance when I didn't respond to you after another Freeper already spelled out a very clear answer. Not even close.

"As to all of your interchanges with Hedgetrimmer and Nicmarlo, I will let them respond. I'm pinging them since you didn't."

I pinged them everytime I mentioned them. If I didn't, it was a sincere oversight.