Posted on 06/09/2007 12:17:40 AM PDT by Fred Nerks
This is Part I of a three-part series.
No one in their right mind would consider Jerome Corsi a liberal or a leftist. Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including co-authoring with John O'Neill the No. 1 New York Times best seller "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry."
The 2004 book was a defining character study of presidential candidate John Kerry. "Unfit for Command" may have been the single biggest reason John Kerry is not president today and George W. Bush is. He is also author of "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians."
Corsi is not a conspiracy nut, and he does his homework on the various issues he tackles. I suggest that the American people of all political orientation give full attention to a major event that frames immigration policy, the Dubai Ports deal and badly negotiated trade deals, as well as the sellout of American interests by our favorite politicians of both parties - and no party.
Corsi and Minuteman co-founder Jim Gilcrist wrote the book "Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders." The book is a timely investigation into how our nation's southern border is disintegrating into violence and chaos, human smuggling, drug running and incursions by Mexican military and police into U.S. territory.
Researching and writing the book forced him to ask some hard questions about the WHY of our porous border and the ultimate goal of those who are allowing it to remain a national disgrace of lawlessness and corruption.
In any event, I decided to interview Dr. Corsi after reading an article he wrote for Human Events Online: "President Quietly Creating 'NAFTA Plus'." [ http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15059 ]
His responses to my questions were astounding.
During the interview, Dr. Corsi told me that everyone is asking the obvious question about open borders. Why is the Bush administration failing to deal with them in any effective manner except to propose "guest worker amnesty." But most people don't pursue the answer to that question, perhaps because their instincts tell them they will not like the TRUE answer. As a conservative who supported the Bush administration in the past, Corsi found the answer difficult to take.
His conclusions and answer to the question of why nothing of any consequence is being done about our porous borders is startling and disturbing: "We are close to a coup d'état by the executive branch. What I have come across in my investigation reminds me of the plot in the blockbuster '60s book 'Seven Days in May' ... having to do with a military coup plot against civilian government. The conclusions I arrive at seem more in line with some fantastic plot line of the TV series '24'."
Corsi related to me that the most recent coup attempt against our nation, system and sovereignty is not being conducted by the U.S. military. Rather, it is being achieved through men who place commerce and commercial interests at the top of what mankind is about. It is very Hegelian and Marxist, at its center encompassing a belief that people are primarily motivated by economics and materialism, that trade and commerce and having material goods are the primary factors in creating a peaceful world. The policymakers who hold those attitudes have had immense influence on George W. Bush.
Immigration, open borders, trade deals, all of it is part and parcel of an attempt to create a North American Union. In its present form it is known as The Security and Prosperity Partnership signed by the "three amigos," Bush, Fox and Canada's Paul Martin at Waco, Texas, in 2005.
The idea for the North American Union has been floated for a couple of decades. It went into hyperdrive after the Cold War. At that time, powerful groups including the guiding lights in the Council on Foreign Relation, government, business and the denizens of the Beltway's Iron Triangle came into their own. Last year's report by a CFR task force entitled "Building a North American Community" is the outline for the North American Union, which they would like to have up and running by 2010.
The task force is quite clear that one of the major goals of this effort is to remake boundaries around the three North American nations. Individual countries will relate to a supranational parliamentary or governing system rather than to their own. National governments will still have limited power but not so much sovereignty. Immigration, in their ultimate plan, will mean open borders and a vastly diminished importance of citizenship in the three nations.
This is simply a new brand of old feudalism being set into motion by none other than the hero of so many Republicans, George W. Bush.
Read Part II, North American Union: Coup d'état American Style.
It’s no secrete that GW Bush is an open borders guy (with the two other major North American countries).
Personally, I think this is an idea we HAVE to persue in one form or another if we want to stay dominant on the world level. But I’d venture that most Republicans and Democrats and those here at Free Republic don’t share that view.
I think it is exactly what is behind the recent amnesty bill. If any Mexican can come to US and be legal then what is the difference? I don’t believe the jokers in DC really are that stupid to believe any illegal will start folowing any rules no matter what.
You must live in a cave.
I am inclined to agree, as unpalatable as it may seem on the surface.
It is vital to the American people to retain sovereignty of the US.
One thing though is certain, if there is to be such a creature, it won't be because the President and Congress shoved it down out throats.
One of the sentiments back then was;
“We should make Canada the 51st state”
now that the time has come to actually move in that direction, everyone now says:
“What the HELL are we doing?”
[Just a thought, not a launch pad for an argument.]
Sovereignity? What’s that, some kind of global test?
Ping for later reading.
Ah, the Bush conspiracy.
The fact is, Bush is doing what every American president since 1965 has done on the borders. Next to nothing. There are enormous practical interests on both sides of the border driving immigration. I agree that immigration needs to be slowed but nattering about conspiracies doesn't advance the cause.
The pro-immigration forces are tolerably open about their intent. The two groups operating in bad faith are organized labor and the environmental/slow growth lobby, both of which should be strong for effective border control and lower immigration but prefer instead to import more eventual democrats, sacrificing their own nominal principles to political expediency.
We are dominant. The minute we do this deal, we become another 3rd world cesspool. The ruling classes will be dominant. The avereage American will live under socialism.
Are you feeling well or just on Bushes side in this?
I don't think that's possible. The nature of the United States Constitution doesn't lend itself to that. Mexico may be admitted as a state perhaps, and sovereignty be retained, but do we want that? It's not worth the liability.
“One of the sentiments back then was;
“We should make Canada the 51st state”
now that the time has come to actually move in that direction, everyone now says:
“What the HELL are we doing?””
There’s a big difference between making Canada a State of the United States and the United States subordinating itself to the North American union’s government, really a bunch of One-Worlders, or Tower-of-Babel rebuilders.
I agree. The US has changed over the years since its inception. We have added states and terrotories. I think to be able to defend ourselves against the rest of the world, we have to change, get bigger. We live in a different world since 9/11. We can’t continue to fight change.
FRED THOMPSON NEEDS TO CLARIFY HIS POSITION ON THE SPP BEFORE I’LL SUPPORT HIM.
SPP?
No, we don’t.
If we pass HR25, the FairTax, we will be completely dominant economically.
I can’t believe some of the responses I’m reading here. Man, the trolls are out this morning!
Read the article. You don’t know what the SPP is?
The idea of a North American Union of three nations is a cracked-pot idea. But one would be mistaken to underestimate the appeal of cracked-pot ideas. Let’s look at some.
Marxism/Communism. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Sounds nice. But there were really no implementing details. More importantly, it was contrary to human nature. It became the greatest engine for mass murder the world has ever seen.
We all know that Nazism is evil. But Nazis held many of the fashionable beliefs of their time, and ours.
Submission to the will of God sounds reasonable enough. But forced submission is an important aspect of Islam. Islam is strongly associated with the greatest savagery the world has ever seen.
So, a stealth North American Union has appeal too. It is another bad idea. But this bad idea should not be ignored. One test is this. If it were a good idea, why would we have to impose it through stealth, trickery, and coercion? There are answers, but no good ones. Will this North American Union be more like America? or more like Mexico? Advocates believe the former. Dream on.
Here is the only way I could see Union working. Individual Canadian or Mexican provinces/states could apply for statehood in the greater United States. We would consider individual requests. Some might have to change first in some ways, before we would accept them. A greater, mutually voluntary United States could work. It would make sense too for any Mexican or Canadian state or province. If they can’t see that, then we don’t want them.
You're quite insane you know...
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.