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?
ty czar. That was about the size of it, from what I could see.
Yeah....kinda "foreign" sounding, isn't it?
I guess we better appoint them. This would do away with negative campaigning. Can you imagine a minister running against a minister? Will women be allowed to be a minister? What is her title?
Yeah....kinda "foreign" sounding, isn't it? Agree!!!!!!
I am sure you haven't forgotten, but lets point it out for others,--they are working with "stakeholders" NOT American citizens.
Yeah, that's a more accurate thought.
Can you imagine a minister running against a minister?
NO! : )
Time for me to hit the hay. See you all soon. Thanks for your posts, btw, they've been interesting.
Yeah, that caught my eye, too, as well as a rolling harvest of accomplishments
WTH?
okay, night now.
A true North American continent
Most Europeans in the 18th century never explored farther than 15 miles from home. Today, they move freely about their region as members of the world's largest economy.
Those facts came to mind this month with the release of "Growing Up in North America," an examination of "opportunities and challenges" facing North American children. Teaming to prepare and publish the tri-national analysis were The Canadian Council on Social Development, Red por los Derechos de la Infancia en Mexico, the University of Chicago's Chapin Hall Center and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
True, regional globalization is anathema to a hard-as-nails contingent unable or unwilling to make the transitions to new possibilities. The past year witnessed a lot of such anti-progress.
For example, numerous attempts were made to restrict migrants entering the United States from civic activities such as holding drivers' licenses, banking, renting, seeking a job, assembling, seeking health care and schooling for children, or speaking a foreign language.
A future historian will one day remember all this with shame. She or he will point out that mayhem and murder were proposed of North Americans who were only guilty of a misdemeanor border-crossing infraction - humans who were routinely branded by labels such as "illegals" and "illegal aliens" by the press and public.
Future analysts will recognize, as has University of Colorado law professor Paul Campos, the whole thing can turn on a dime by applying the 13th century legal doctrine of "adverse possession" and simply normalize the situation.
Fortunately, reasonable change may come when the Senate debates a new immigration reform bill.
But the other unfolding scenario is not political. It's socioeconomic and cultural in character - a vision of an emerging North America as a counterweight to the economic blocs forming in Europe and Asia.
One North American advantage is size - 426 million people, more than a quarter of them, 120 million, children and youth under 18 (73 million in the United States, 39 million in Mexico, and 7 million in Canada).
The three research organizations and the Casey Foundation realize that changes in one country have an effect on the others. They seek indicators suggesting conditions about the well being of these children as a weathervane to the future.
Children and youth bear the burden of our missteps, bad practices and draconian policies. They easily fall through the opportunity cracks, such as when a firm relocates across the border and parents stop getting a payroll check. They suffer when breadwinners leave home to do farm work abroad and those left behind experience the long absence of a partner or parent from the household.
Role reversals happen to immigrant children who master the dominant language and translate, interpret and negotiate for the working adults in the family. Agrarian children and non-native children are hugely impacted in the transition to urban youth culture, with its hyped-up marketing, social uncertainty, angst and asymmetric communications.
What effect will anti-change and unwelcoming social bias have on children, as apprentice adults? What new attitudes and future behaviors are forming? Some bold signs of change are present, although not announced in blazing neon. For instance, there are indications that Canada, after relaxing some immigration rules, has been actively attracting Mexican professionals, students and skilled workers turned off by wholesale U.S. demonizing of the Mexican identity.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation study on North American children (found at www.aecf.org) is the first of an expected series. The next one, at the end of this month, will concern children living on the Mexican border.
The most obvious reason to focus on children is self-interest. We need their numbers, hands and brains to form a post-industrial economy that will sustain an aging population that could have made it better for them from the start.
The emerging vision can easily afford to go beyond the "free market" idea.
Someday we might roam North America as freely as do the Europeans in their continent.
Houston-based Jose de la Isla writes a weekly column for Hispanic Link News Service. E-mail at joseisla3@yahoo.com.
I noticed the word "stakeholder". Kind of odd, isn't it? Since this was a joint statement by Fox, Bush and Martin, it does make you wonder.
Does anyone have a clue as to who these ministers are and who pays for their salaries? What funds were set aside by our government for these ministers? Is this part of NAFTA PLUS that you just decide to change rules whenever.
This doesn't surprise me. Jose writes a very socialistic article commparing the US with Europe. He just can't wait for all this socialism to hit Americans. However, he loses it when he states:
"The most obvious reason to focus on children is self-interest. We need their numbers, hands and brains to form a post-industrial economy that will sustain an aging population that could have made it better for them from the start."
This statement makes him sound like a pimp to me. But this also makes me wonder why Mexico's aging population didn't provide an economy for their own offsprings. They could have at least paved the roads.
I think I am just angry seeing our country going down the drain to the likes of this.
There is a lot to be angry about! But, there is still a lot to fight for.
Don't let it get you down. :-)
Thanks for the post. I'll keep fighting the good fight.
Right now, I am going to say good night.
That also jumped out to me as well as a few other sentences. Children are the most impressionable and easily propagandized. Of course they would be targeted to inculcate "change." Think Hitler Youth.
I'll be back later. Great find, calcowgirl!
"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."
Thought you'd be interested in this excerpt from the Canadian Action Party. I don't know anything about who they are or what their political ideologies are. But, at this point, it's irrelevant as they are against the merging of the three sovereign countries into a "North American Union," and have "spelled out" their understanding from the documents what is planned ahead. I've posted an excerpt from their summary below.
http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/temp/articles/morphosis/part1.asp"
Summary and Part 1: The Metamorphosis and Sabotage of Canada by Our Own Government- The North American Union
Summary:
The North American continent is being transformed from three sovereign nations (Canada, USA, Mexico) into one regional corporate power base, the North American Union. Unlike the creation of the European Union, there is no public political/ academic discourse on the merits, or pros and cons of a North American Union building up to a vote within each nation as to the wish of the people to join such a union. Instead the union is being created by stealth, is already well on its way to fruition, and is being imposed on us by our own elected representatives and government with no opposition.
The driving forces are corporate and military. The Chief Executive Officers of the most powerful corporations operating in the three countries want this union and have been working for some time devising their strategies and goals. Their facilitators are first, unelected officials and bureaucrats who move easily between corporations and government; second, former elected officials like John Manley , former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada; third, the heads of the three nations, Martin, Bush, and Fox; and finally, the governments and the rest of the elected members who apparently just rubber stamp what is put in front of them by the unelected officials- few questions, if any asked.
The ultimate enforcement mechanism for the North American Union is a police state.
The tools for the police state are "anti-terrorist" laws.
Anti Terrorist laws are a ruse to strip the citizens of civil liberties in order to prevent dissent against the police state.
The Orwellian justification is "security", "safety".
Part one deals with the North American Union of Canada USA and Mexico. It is being created by the corporate side under the North American Task Force, and the military side by the Binational Military Planning group.
Part Two deals with -Laws Arrangements and Agreements all of which throw away our sovereignty, independence, and our civil liberties.
1. The Canada -U.S. Smart Border Declaration with a 30 point action plan signed Dec 12,2001
2. The Public Safety Act, 2002 with despotic powers to certain Cabinet Ministers
3. The Anti Terrorism Act currently under review
4.The North American Security and Prosperity Initiative (NASPI)- a report released January 2003 of the project of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives(CCCE) to develop a strategy for shaping Canada's future within North America and Beyond
5. The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement signed by Bush and Martin in March of 2005
6. 40 Point Smart Regulation Action Plan
7. The Report of Ministers to the Leaders -SPP- North America June 2005
Part Three deals with the effect of all this bad law, some history, and what to do about it.
Conclusion"Citizens of North America"? Secure "societies"?The global challenges faced by North America cannot be met solely through unilateral or bilateral efforts or existing patterns of cooperation. They require deepened cooperation based on the principle, affirmed in the March 2005 joint statement by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, that ‘‘our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.’’
Establishment by 2010 of a security and economic community for North America is an ambitious but achievable goal that is consistent with this principle and, more important, buttresses the goals and values of the citizens of North America, who share a desire for safe and secure societies, economic opportunity and prosperity, and strong democratic institutions.
I didn't either as I don't follow Canadian politics. So I decided to check before reading your post. As far as I can tell, they are described as "economic nationalists." The party was formed in 1997 by liberal ex-defence minister Paul Hellyer with a little over 100 members at its founding. They are fierce anti-globalists.
The Vancouver Sun, Vancouver, B.C., Sep 9, 2000. pg. A.9Now... I'll read your post.Hellyer was first elected to Parliament in 1949 at 25. Eight years later, he became the youngest minister in the government of prime minister Louis St. Laurent. He went on to hold key posts under Lester B. Pearson and, finally, Pierre Trudeau.
He came out of retirement after the 1995 budget, upset by the "slash and burn" tactics that, he says, turned Canada from a great to a mediocre country.
His fury led him to examine the free trade agreements and the growing number of Canadian companies being purchased by Americans.
"The more I delved into it, the more I appreciated that we were headed for the falls," he said. "And I just can't sit idly by and let that happen without doing everything I can.
"I guess my personal position is if the Canadian people voted to join the United States -- if somebody put the question to them on a ballot and they voted for it -- I wouldn't like it, but I would accept it.
"But to have it happen by default, which is what's happening -- without them ever being asked, without most of them even knowing what's going on -- is not my brand of democracy.
"So we have to make a stand. And we have to form a coalition of concerned Canadians who are willing to get together and try to save the country."
The answer, Hellyer hopes, is the fringe Canadian Action Party, which he founded and leads, and whose candidate -- Jack Peach -- appears on the ballot in the Okanagan-Coquihalla federal byelection.
CAP is dedicated to changing the monetary system, battling the "evils" of globalization, and preventing Canada from becoming the 51st state.
Hellyer said globalization is "in my opinion, the highway to poverty, homelessness and disease for tens of millions of people of this earth."
Governments, Hellyer says, have become little more than "waterboys" for global corporations, which are buying up Canadian companies and imposing their will on the Canadian people.
He calls for the abrogation of the free trade agreements, and says if that doesn't happen soon, Canada will cease to exist.
"What we're really talking tonight is a revolution," he says. "It is a war for independence. We're looking for recruits. We'd like to sign up as many of you as we can."
A father of three and grandfather of five, he is still on the campaign trail more than 50 years after he first started in politics.
While I think the conclusions as stated are a bit over the top (probably/hopefully an understatement), there are some references that I would like to look into. I strongly agree with one of the first comments (bolded below). It should be discussed openly and debated, by citizens, not by just so-called "stakeholders". Who has a greater stake than the citizens?
The North American continent is being transformed from three sovereign nations (Canada, USA, Mexico) into one regional corporate power base, the North American Union. Unlike the creation of the European Union, there is no public political/ academic discourse on the merits, or pros and cons of a North American Union building up to a vote within each nation as to the wish of the people to join such a union.
The second part of this statement surprises me and I will read the report, if for no other reason, to find out what logic they give to support it. It strikes me as off-base.
The driving forces are corporate and military.
The following are over the top, IMO. We should always be vigilent of laws infringing on our freedom, but I haven't seen anything to suggest we are approaching what these words describe.
The ultimate enforcement mechanism for the North American Union is a police state.
The tools for the police state are "anti-terrorist" laws.
Anti Terrorist laws are a ruse to strip the citizens of civil liberties in order to prevent dissent against the police state.
As to the remainder, I'd like to gather up and read some of the documents they list:
4.The North American Security and Prosperity Initiative (NASPI)- a report released January 2003 of the project of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives(CCCE) to develop a strategy for shaping Canada's future within North America and Beyond
5. The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement signed by Bush and Martin in March of 2005
6. 40 Point Smart Regulation Action Plan
7. The Report of Ministers to the Leaders -SPP- North America June 2005
You don't even have any idea how little sense you are making do you? It is like you are looking at a picture of a horse and asking me to deny it's a dog. Where in the world do you find anything in a statement that says we should give preference to North American trade that even hints at overthrowing the US government?!? Of course I have absolutely no doubt you won't answer that question because you never do, but I am actually and sincerely curious whether you are serious or just pulling my leg. This is almost as good as your use of book titles as evidence to support the rest of your bogus claims.
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.