Well that explains some of the confusion. I don't have a Google toolbar. I didn't even know one existed. When I Google something I go to the Google site and type in keywords. Now I understand what you were saying, and you understand what I was thinking. I was only taking you out of context because you were refering to a specific function of Google, and not the site in general.
See how that works? You state specifics and your whole point becomes so much clearer. Now. Because you are aware that I don't have a Google toolbar, and because you know exactly where the statements in your posted articles are that support your points in the first place, could you please direct me to those statements in an alternate way. Like cut and paste, or reference a line number. It very well could be that once you do that, I will understand the points you are making far better.
"Since it is you who claims how clever you are"
I do?
Further streamline the secure movement of low-risk traffic across our shared borders* 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.
* Identify, develop, and deploy new technologies to advance our shared security goals and promote the legitimate flow of people and goods across our borders.
A couple links and excerpts I have posted are found at #321 (i.e., The new architecture would include a free trade zone protected by a common security perimeter, within which goods, people, and capital would move freely across what had once been firmly established international borders) and #644 (i.e., Conclusions of the U.S.-Mexico Migration Panel), and #655 (i.e., Pastor calls for replacement of the dollar with "Amero" [Pastor is an integral cog in this wheel; he is an integral member of the CFR who proposes the creation of a North American Community; therefore, anything he suggests should not be outright dismissed]. Additionally, #680 (i.e., although they "claim" they "must maintain respect for each other's national sovereignty," it appears that's not really what they MEAN. For example, that statement contradicts Mexico's actions...).
The SPECIFIC information is on this entire thread concerning MIGRATION, BIOMETRIC CARDS, faux claims to assured "sovereignty" of the respective countries (which is NEGATED by the very words "interdependence" and/or "dependence" upon or between Canada, Mexico, and/or USA), BORDERS (which has been heavily emphasized, in the discussed literature, on the outer perimeter of the entity now known as the "North American Community" (i.e., what was once only known as the sovereign and independent countries of Canada, United States of America, and Mexico, respectively), and a de-emphasis on the respective INNER borders of Canada/USA and USA/Mexico).
This is only scratching the surface of what has been posted on this thread. I simply will not spend the hours of time necessary to repost what has been posted. Many paragraphs have the pertinent ideas/words/goals/plans highlighted, underlined, italicized. This thread has been growing by the day. I won't play the game of whack a mole with you. Nor will I engage in an effort in futility of reposting posts on yet another post. The above examples illustrate well enough that the material referred to, or excerpts thereof, PLAINLY exists on this thread, and where it is not, links are provided directly to the source.
I suggest YOU go back through the over 800 posts on this thread and for each comment that was made on that particular post wherein articles and or links are made and/or referred, if YOU take issue with the statement made, you provide the evidence required to prove that your contradictions are factual and the posters' are false.
Otherwise, all you are doing is stating your contradictory opinion sans evidence in refutation to another poster's article which gave rise to the original comments of same.