Skip to comments.Bush Adminstration Pursuing Globalist Agenda
Posted on 07/31/2006 3:05:40 PM PDT by Reagan Man
The hottest issue at the grass roots is illegal immigration and what our government is not doing to stop it. The question most frequently heard is, "Why doesn't the Bush administration get it?"
Maybe the Bush administration doesn't want to stop the invasion of illegal immigrants and plans to solve the problem by just declaring them all legal through amnesty and guest-worker proposals. Maybe the Bush administration is pursuing a globalist agenda. Consider this chronology.
On March 23, 2005, President Bush met at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, with Vicente Fox of Mexico and Paul Martin of Canada in what they called a summit. The three heads of state then drove to Baylor University in Waco, Texas, where they issued a press release announcing their signing of an agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
On May 17, 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations issued a 59-page document outlining a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter" to achieve "the freer flow of people within North America."
This document is full of language spelling out an "integrated" strategy to achieve an "open border for the movement of goods and people" within which "trade, capital, and people flow freely." The document calls for "a seamless North American market," allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access," "totalization" (the code word for putting illegal immigrants into the U.S. Social Security system), massive U.S. foreign aid, and even "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution."
Tying this document into the Bush-Fox-Martin March 23 Summit, the Council of Foreign Relations stated that the three men on that day "committed their governments" to the North American community goal, and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.
On June 9, 2005, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., held a friendly committee hearing that featured task force member Robert Pastor, a professor at American University and author of the 2001 book "Toward a North American Community" (Institute for International Economics, $28). He revealed further details of the plan for a "continental perimeter," including "an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure that includes new North American highways and high-speed rail corridors."
Pastor asserted that President Bush endorsed North American integration in the Guanajuato Proposal of February 16, 2001, in which Bush and Fox promised that "we will strive to consolidate a North American economic community." Bush followed up on April 22, 2001, by signing the Declaration of Quebec City in which he made a "commitment to hemispheric integration."
On June 27, 2005, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff attended a North American Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Ottawa at which he said, "We want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our borders." The White House issued a press release endorsing the Ottawa report and calling the meeting "an important first step in achieving the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership."
In July 2005, the White House let it be known that it is backing a coalition called Americans for Border and Economic Security organized by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie. Its purpose is to conduct a political-style campaign to sell the American people on a guest-worker program wrapped in a few border-security promises and financed by coalition members who each put up $50,000 to $250,000.
On March 31 President Bush met at Cancun, Mexico, for a spring frolic with Fox and the new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Their press release celebrated what they called the first anniversary of the partnership, and Bush demanded that Congress pass an immigration bill with a worker permit program.
On May 15 Bush made a nationally televised speech in which he enunciated the amazing non sequitur that we can't have border security unless we also have a "comprehensive" bill including legalization of illegal immigrants now in the United States and the admission of new so-called guest workers.
Thanks to the investigative work of Jerome R. Corsi, we have learned that the partnership's more than 20 working groups are already quietly operating in the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the U.S. Department of Commerce, which refuses to reveal the groups' members because, in the words of partnership spokeswoman Geri Word, the Bush administration does not want them "distracted by calls from the public."
Corsi discovered recently that the partnership issued a "Report to Leaders" on June 27, 2005, that shows the partnership's extensive interaction with government and business groups in the three countries.
On June 15, 2006, the partnership's North American Competitiveness Council, consisting of government officials and corporate chief executive officers from the three countries, met to "institutionalize the partnership and the North American Competitiveness Council, so that the work will continue through changes in administrations."
The Bush administration is using a series of press releases, without authority from Congress or the American people, to shift us into the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership with "a more open border for the movement of goods and people."
She's getting batty.
In Reagan own words: 1979
We live on a continent whose three countries possess the assets to make it the strongest, most prosperous and self-sufficient area on Earth. Within the borders of this North American continent are the food, resources, technology and undeveloped territory which, properly managed, could dramatically improve the quality of life of all its inhabitants.
It is no accident that this unmatched potential for progress and prosperity exists in three countries with such long-standing heritages of free government. A developing closeness among Canada, Mexico and the United States -- a North American accord -- would permit achievement of that potential in each country beyond that which I believe any of them -- strong as they are -- could accomplish in the absence of such cooperation. In fact, the key to our own future security may lie in both Mexico and Canada becoming much stronger countries than they are today.
No one can say at this point precisely what form future cooperation among our three countries will take. But if I am elected President, I would be willing to invite each of our neighbors to send a special representative to our government to sit in on high level planning sessions with us, as partners, mutually concerned about the future of our continent. First, I would immediately seek the views and ideas of Canadian and Mexican leaders on this issue, and work tirelessly with them to develop closer ties among our peoples. It is time we stopped thinking of our nearest neighbors as foreigners.
By developing methods of working closely together, we will lay the foundations for future cooperation on a broader and more significant scale. We will put to rest any doubts of those cynical enough to believe that the United States would seek to dominate any relationship among our three countries, or foolish enough to think that the governments and peoples of Canada and Mexico would ever permit such domination to occur. I, for one, am confident that we can show the world by example that the nations of North America are ready, within the context of an unswerving commitment to freedom, to see new forms of accommodation to meet a changing world. A developing closeness between the United States, Canada and Mexico would serve notice on friends and foe alike that we were prepared for a long haul, looking outward again and confident of our future; that together we are going to create jobs, to generate new fortunes of wealth for many and provide a legacy for the children of each of our countries. Two hundred years ago, we taught the world that a new form of government, created out of the genius of man to cope with his circumstances, could succeed in bringing a measure of quality to human life previously thought impossible.
Now let us work toward the goal of using the assets of this continent, its resources, technology, and foodstuffs in the most efficient ways possible for the common good of all its people. It may take the next 100 years, but we can dare to dream that at some future date a map of the world might show the North American continent as one in which the people's commerce of its three strong countries flow more freely across their present borders than they do today.
Why is it, that every time a conservative speaks out against the Bush domestic policy agenda, you find it necessary to personally attack the messenger?
After reading #3, are you now a "Bush Man" or a "Dole Man"? :)
I know very well who Phyllis Schlafly is and her history, particularly with regards to the ERA nonsense.
I also know Pat Buchanan used to be a fearless opponent against our enemies.
I also remember when William Buckley made sense most of the time.
I also remember when Barry Goldwater was a staunch conservative before he started going down hill.
Read the post 3 on this thread and get back to me.
Bush has done as much or more to put the UN and the One Worlders in their place than any president ever has.
The Radical Left and Radical Right unite under the same "anti-globalist" (anti-free trade) banner?
What would Reagan say?
Wasn't born yesterday. I first read that Reagan rhetoric many years ago. Reagan always supported free trade, as long as it was fair trade. I don't think Reagan would have approved of the outcome of NAFTA. NAFTA has been neither a total success or a total failure. It's opened up markets and brought down prices. Its also cost millions of manufacturing jobs in America and lowered the standard of living for the middle class. Canada and the US has always had a good relationship. Mexico remains the third world cesspool.
I like my line better, if I may...
Bush has done as much or more to put the un and the one worlders in place than any president ever has.
See, and I only had to remove one word to state my opinion.
Corsi takes a huge leap, from a trade agreement to a CFR white paper, in making the case for a hemispheric conspiracy.
If you look at the board of the CFR and the authors of this white paper it is pretty hard to think these people would agree with Bush on anything. It looks like the Clinton foreign policy team, man for man.
From all the FReaking out going on the book should sell well.
This is excellent Art Bell Show material. In fact, it was the topic last week one night.
It's all about the Benjamins.
I don't think the standard of living for the US Middle class has gone down at all. And certainly the numbers of folks going from middle class to wealthy hasn't either. That is what you want, I assume.
Since the 1980s there have been hundreds of thousands of blue collar manufacturing jobs lost in the US. But how many IT jobs were there? How many software programming jobs were there? How many biotech jobs were there?
The economy moves swiftly, and the weak fruit gets picked. Not all losses are good, obviously, but you have to remember to count the positive developements as well. The people working the docks and ports make great money and they are busier than ever. The freight industry, everything from rails, to trucks to Fedex is booming. Do you realize how much software and IT support that requires in addition to the grunts that physically handle the materials?
GM may be losing its marklet share and many jobs, but why are the japs and germans continuing to expand their manufacturing & Assembly here?
In my industry- electrical-we are as busy as busy can be. All consultants are extremely busy designing new buidlings, port expansions, highways, new home developements, and up here, Boeing expansion and reconfiguration. The biggies inthe electrical equipment arena - GE, Square D, Cutler Hammer, Siemens are all working 3 shifts at most of their factories trying to keep up with orders.
Wood is booming, heavy equipment is booming, medical supplies is booming, mining is booming, construction is booming, etc. So it is not only the IT world that has seen the benefits.
Just as I thought. Phyllis Schlafly criticises part of Bush`s domestic policy agenda and you consider her persona non grata.
Bush`s appointment of John Bolton at the UN was a great decision. But Bush is a globalist, just like his Father. Bush concentrates on the positive outcome of exports but ignores the negative effects brought about by imports. Just because Bush has negotiated one free trade agreement after another, doesn't mean they'll benefit the USA long term. Our trade deficit continues to grow and grow and grow and grow.....
Yes, they were just there frolicking, playing a little beach volleyball, hanging out at Senor Froggies, and ogling the women.
Schlafly has long since been a serious commentator. She actually made some serious contributions to the conservative moment a decade or two ago, but now she's slipping into conspiracy mode, with a decidedly nasty attitude.
My economic understanding of the trade deficit is that it is as much a bogeyman as having a spending deficit. In other words, not the monster the critics claim.
England tried to control it's empire trade with all laws that benefitted the mother country, and it fell flat long term and had to be supported by force.
I still like Phyllis Schlafly, but like you with Bush, I will agree with her only when she agrees with me, not the other way around.
Ronald Reagan once said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
Lets not obfuscate the debate. Fact. Since the 1980`s the US has gone from a manufacturing oriented nation, to a service oriented nation. I'm more concerned with what happens to workers here in the good old USA, then what happens to workers around the globe. What we have today maybe called free trade, but in many cases, it is far from fair trade.
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.