Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A more perfect union?
The Washington Times ^ | 7-18-07 | Elizabeth Miller

Posted on 07/18/2007 7:40:00 AM PDT by JKrive

The real reason behind President Bush's push for immigration reform, says author Jerome R. Corsi, is to unite the United States, Mexico and Canada by erasing borders and creating a "North American Union."

That is the theme of Mr. Corsi's new book, "The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada," which says the Bush administration's "globalist agenda" is leading to a merger of the countries through the implementation of policies and laws to open trade barriers and renovate the highway systems in anticipation of increased travel within the new megastate.

Mr. Corsi said a growing number of Americans think the North American Union is being forced onto Americans. Government officials say the idea is no more than an unjustified conspiracy theory spread through the Internet.

Mr. Corsi said the impetus of the plan was the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, announced by leaders of the United States, Mexico and Canada at Waco, Texas, in 2005.

The White House-led partnership is a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity through greater cooperation and information sharing, according to the SPP's Web site (www.spp.gov).

The SPP is not a treaty or agreement, but the Web site calls it a dialogue among the countries and their leaders.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: corsi; cuespookymusic; marines; nau; northamericanunion; spp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last
Has anybody read the book yet, what do you think? Dr. Corsi's work is excellent, and if an authoritative source such as him documents the NAU, we better take a second look.

I posted more information on Critical Mass

1 posted on 07/18/2007 7:40:02 AM PDT by JKrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JKrive

NA SPP bump


2 posted on 07/18/2007 7:43:43 AM PDT by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JKrive

bump for later


3 posted on 07/18/2007 7:44:10 AM PDT by WorkerbeeCitizen (An American Patriot and an anti-Islam kind of fellow. (POI))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JKrive

To Global George:
Well **** you very much...


4 posted on 07/18/2007 7:45:15 AM PDT by gunnyg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gunnyg

Maybe you missed the part about “The SPP is not a treaty or agreement”. IMHO, Corsi is fear mongering.


5 posted on 07/18/2007 8:08:07 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gunnyg

Despite my knee jerk reaction that such a union would be plain wrong, are there any arguments that the joining would be beneficial in any way ?


6 posted on 07/18/2007 8:11:32 AM PDT by buckalfa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa

Not really. In purely economic terms, even a union with Canada would be a problem. They have natural resources and an educated workforce, but culturally they are more accustomed to government “over-reaching” than we. Mexico has oil, and tequila. That’s about it. Bad idea.


7 posted on 07/18/2007 8:18:22 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

Beneficial or not—this monkey is working for us!

I know, ever since G. Washington turned us down, we have been electing xxxx-house “kings” in hopes of their being our sugardaddies and taking care of all our “needs”!!!

All that crap is now coming to a head. And we have only left a population of wimps that got us this way, and ensures they will remain in power.


8 posted on 07/18/2007 8:25:31 AM PDT by gunnyg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Mexico has oil, and tequila.

Mexico also has heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana.

9 posted on 07/18/2007 8:37:30 AM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
“The SPP is not a treaty or agreement"

You purport to know---What, then, is it? And, if neither a treaty nor an agreement, why is time, energy and money being devoted to the SPP?

I look forward to your clarification.

10 posted on 07/18/2007 8:40:01 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JKrive
a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity through greater cooperation and information sharing

There is nothing about the above statement that gives any credence to the creation of an NAU. Everything in that statement is a good idea. Creating an NAU is not!

11 posted on 07/18/2007 8:46:57 AM PDT by BubbaBasher (WWW.IMWITHFRED.COM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa

Oh, sure! Join with socialist canada and practically anarchist mexico. Drag 2 foreign languages (at least) in here. But it will save money on border guards and fences and stuff like that. Good stuff!


12 posted on 07/18/2007 8:48:52 AM PDT by twonie (Keep your guns - and stockpile ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

Yeah right!
Anyone who fails to stay within the bounds of pc, non-suckups (or “patriots,” in their own estimate)—gets labeled...this or that. It’s an old story, one that I no longer hear nor respond to, generally.

It’s soley for the “grab over and bend yer ankles” crowd and their herd mentality.

Semper BS!


13 posted on 07/18/2007 9:26:58 AM PDT by gunnyg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
See Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP): Myth vs. Fact

Pertinent excerpts:

Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.

Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.

Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.

Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.

Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

14 posted on 07/18/2007 9:36:29 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gunnyg
See my Post #14 for the myths and facts concerning this.
15 posted on 07/18/2007 9:38:24 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JKrive

Leaving aside the question of whether we want to bring in the Canadians and Mexicans, there’s another, more basic question.

Doing it without following the constitutional route of STATEHOOD—the way we brought in Alaska and Hawaii most recently, and other states earlier—would destroy our constitution and our constitutional system of law.

It’s the same problem as the EU. You can’t just PASTE states with different cultures and law codes and constitutions and electoral systems together. You need to have a uniform system, not an unaccountable bureaucratic superstructure.

I’m sorry to say that President Bush, despite his many good points, seems to think this way. But you cannot expect to fix anything by adding another layer of bureaucracy on top of it.

If we bring in Canada, it should be one province or one state at a time. And the same with Mexico. You can’t just paste them together without entirely destroying the rule of law and handing the whole mess over to a bunch of Brussels style bureaucrats.


16 posted on 07/18/2007 9:41:52 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

All very well, but that’s what the perps say.

Which are the myths, and which are the facts? Are you saying that they just have to say it, and that makes it true?

We have already seen supreme court justices saying that their decisions should be based on “international law and custom,” whatever that means. And we have already seen the EU at work. And we have already seen 20 million Mexicans come in over the border at the invitation of our government, which claims that it cannot do anything to solve the problem.


17 posted on 07/18/2007 9:46:14 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

Good job. Many thanks.


18 posted on 07/18/2007 9:49:19 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JKrive
Just received the book today. Reading the dust cover leads me to believe that Dr. Corsi has documented some things many of us have LONG suspected.

Goggle the name Dr. Robert Pastor and see what you come up with.

19 posted on 07/18/2007 9:51:51 AM PDT by Bigun (IRS sucks @getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Mexico has huge tourism potential and lots of land for building homes, retirement homes, businesses, etc. Also there is much potential in fishery and agriculture.

In addition, if American companies had free reign in Mexico they could employ all the potential ‘illegals’ right there ... no need to cross the border to get a low wage job. A Mexican could stay home and get a low wage (factory or service sector) job ... the same exact jobs they have when they move North.


20 posted on 07/18/2007 10:05:37 AM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
I forgot about the tourism industry, and it's huge. I didn't forget (so much) about agriculture/fishery. None of the above are particularly good reasons to merge two countries, though.

Unless our population had nothing to do and was starving to death. :)

21 posted on 07/18/2007 10:19:01 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.
///////////////////
You have to be a paid flak.

Worse, to have a guy like you on this board who would consciously murder his own country is discouraging

SPP is modeled after the early eu agreements between france and germany back in the 1950’s. You know that. the grand vision was to start with economic union and then proceed to political union. You know that too.

These matters are openly consistantly discussed at places like davos and various internationalist american publications. You know that too.

everything from current de facto free movement of labor to the planned highway & bulk water transfers from canada is set up within the the greater NAU model. You know that too.

And yet you open your mouth and breathe insipid insulting lies.

More americans have been murdered by illegal aliens than have died in Iraq. You best pray you don’t catch a bullit from an illegal alien and die the hopeless shameful death so many American have been forced to die.


22 posted on 07/18/2007 2:51:46 PM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Bite me...I went out and did a Google search on the SPP and came up with that website. I have a good reputation on this board for my research, and I haven’t seen anyone post any sources for any of the claims they are making about this except for citing Corsi articles from WND...not credible, they have become a joke. If you have credible information with sources that disputes the source that I gave, then post it, I welcome it. The other posted said they had sources but listed no links, you did the same. I don’t accept that...that is no reason to call me a paid flak or liar, because I am neither.


23 posted on 07/19/2007 7:23:24 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

Nice try.


24 posted on 07/19/2007 8:49:59 AM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

“Nice try”? That’s all you have to add to the debate? You won’t post your sources for your claims? Or maybe you can’t because they all go back to Corsi. Back at ya...nice try on your part...but unsourced claims aren’t gonna fly on here.


25 posted on 07/19/2007 9:04:23 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

anyone looking at your first statements can see how expertly they are parsed.

to then claim ignorance is just hapless.


26 posted on 07/19/2007 10:31:02 AM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

You claim to know all about expertly parsed sentences and you can’t even use proper sentence structure...LOL! Try again.


27 posted on 07/19/2007 10:43:53 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

Now you’re just wasting everyone’s time.

If you actually have a job that’s spp related, I don’t think there will be any changes during Bush’s term. He’s a bilderburger. So you have about 18 months to plan for new job.

But after that I think there will be a big change. For current NAU policy to remain on track there would have to be democratic president. But I don’t think that a democrat will be elected. The french hated Chirac and yet they couldn’t bring themselves to elect a female socialist. If the french can’t elect a female leftist —it ain’t going to happen here. So I don’t think Hillary is electable.


28 posted on 07/19/2007 11:22:32 AM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JKrive

I’ll read this right after I get done reading “89 reasons why the world will end in 1989” :p


29 posted on 07/19/2007 11:23:40 AM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
If you actually have a job that’s spp related, I don’t think there will be any changes during Bush’s term. He’s a bilderburger. So you have about 18 months to plan for new job.

Nope...I work in the Aerospace/Aeromedical R&D contracting sector, have for 21 years.

For current NAU policy to remain on track there would have to be democratic president. But I don’t think that a democrat will be elected.

I agree. Then why are you wasting everyone's time talking about something that is not going to happen? My point is...until I see some real facts laid on the table that this is an actual threat, I am not going to worry about some NWO theory being pushed by Corsi. No one has been able to supply me with those facts to date.

30 posted on 07/19/2007 11:55:31 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
Mexico also has heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana

All which before the early 20th century (well except meth) and 'Progressives' were perfectly legal in the separate and sovereign states of this union. However do you think the Framers were able to exist in a union of states that didn't have ridiculous laws preventing citizens from doing what they chose with their own selves?

31 posted on 07/19/2007 11:59:32 AM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

No one has been able to supply me with those facts to date.
///////
Sounds like you’re new to FR.

Nobody will do your work for you this go round because its been done to death in the last couple years.

This stuff is posted pretty regularly on FR.

Hang around. You’ll see it.


32 posted on 07/19/2007 12:04:31 PM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
I am certainly not new, I've been here since Feb of 1999 and I am very well-known for my research on this forum. If I dispute what someone says, I provide them with facts with links from credible sources to back up my side of the debate. This "do your own research" attitude exhibited by some on here when confronted for facts does not help the debate...you are basically asking me to take you at your word just because you say you know the facts. It doesn't work that way with me, I am too logically inclined. I take all the facts and weigh them out, then I form my opinion.

Yes, there has been quite a lot posted on here about this issue...all of it can be traced back to Corsi and WND, whom I deem about as credible as The Weekly World News. In fact, I may start referring to Corsi as Batboy if this continues.

The Buildaboogers have been talking a good game for over 50 years, but they are apparently a miserable failure at implementing their so-called agenda. They don't even warrant a tin-foil hat with me anymore, LOL!

33 posted on 07/19/2007 12:28:40 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: billbears

I do not understand your reply to me. Just fyi.


34 posted on 07/19/2007 12:30:24 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

Sounds like you live in a safe neighborhood. Small chance you’ll be murdered. Good for you. But watch your back.

I don’t get the animosity toward Corsi. He looks at the same stuff as Rep King or Rep.Tancredo.

It was McCain who tried to sneak the amnesty bill through the senate and had his head handed to him. He carried the Bush’s water and now his campaign is stone dead.

As I mentioned you’ll get to keep your job for about 18 months. Use the time well to look for another.


35 posted on 07/19/2007 12:57:03 PM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo; processing please hold

Cool, the Washington Times picked it up.


36 posted on 07/19/2007 12:59:01 PM PDT by ovrtaxt (The FairTax and the North American Union are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
This "do your own research" attitude exhibited by some on here when confronted for facts does not help the debate...you are basically asking me to take you at your word just because you say you know the facts.

Word.

37 posted on 07/19/2007 1:00:12 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt; processing please hold
"You can't deny the working groups are doing it," Mr. Corsi countered. "You can deny the interpretation of it, but they're doing it."

bttt!

38 posted on 07/19/2007 1:04:27 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter; Rudder

You are posting self-serving propaganda by the very government who is pursuing the North American Union/Community.

I told you before, yesterday, I believe, this would not stand up in any court of law as either legitimate or adequate proof to back up denials of the accusations made against the government’s intent.


39 posted on 07/19/2007 1:07:58 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

Because the burden of proof is on the accuser, get it?


40 posted on 07/19/2007 1:08:58 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

To be fair, all you did was post some bullet points from the official spp website. Not exactly a reliable source.

It’s not convincing.

We do have the historical record of the EU to go by, as well as a HUGE highway under construction right up our gullet. This spp thing is following in the EU’s footsteps.


41 posted on 07/19/2007 1:09:52 PM PDT by ovrtaxt (The FairTax and the North American Union are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

and you have to post something other than SELF-SERVING propaganda.

FULL DISCLOSURE IS NOT FORTHCOMING BY THIS GOVERNMENT.

They refuse to release information.

Any court of law REQUIRES full disclosure on both sides. Not PROPAGANDA


42 posted on 07/19/2007 1:11:16 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

get it?


43 posted on 07/19/2007 1:12:13 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

Let’s take one of the examples posted above. In a court of law the fact that a highway is being built would probably be stipulated by both sides, but the accusation that it is part of a scheme to erase the national border would be subject to the regular rules of evidence.


44 posted on 07/19/2007 1:14:07 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

In a court of law governed by our common-law system, I should add.


45 posted on 07/19/2007 1:15:51 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Let’s take the working groups.

They refused, even under FOIA, to release the names of people who are in the committees so that these people can be contacted and asked questions about what they are doing, either in writing, or by various other means.

Let’s take this meeting in Canada. It’s behind closed doors and those who are opposed to its meeting, such as representatives of Eagle Forum, are not allowed to get near the place so that 1) whomever is arriving can arrive in secret 2) whomever is attending cannot be asked questions.


46 posted on 07/19/2007 1:17:24 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
Sounds like you live in a safe neighborhood. Small chance you’ll be murdered. Good for you. But watch your back.

Don't know what that has to do with our discussion, but I moved to the country years ago. I was threatened on here once by one of the ex-CIA agents when I got too close to the truth on who forged the yellowcake documents. The first story about the rogue CIA agents hit AP yesterday...I have known about it for years. Other than that, I am locked, stocked and loaded. But I am more worried about nuclear war than any NWO plot.

I don’t get the animosity toward Corsi. He looks at the same stuff as Rep King or Rep.Tancredo.

Everyone rolls their eyes at WND any more, they have gone so far out on the limb to sensationalize stories that they no credibility here anymore. Most folks compare it to Debka.

It was McCain who tried to sneak the amnesty bill through the senate and had his head handed to him. He carried the Bush’s water and now his campaign is stone dead.

Again...no relevance to our discussion. Besides, I can't stand McCain. The only redeeming factor he's got is that he stands with Bush on the troop withdrawal issue.

As I mentioned you’ll get to keep your job for about 18 months. Use the time well to look for another.

As I said, I work in the Aerospace/Aeromedical contracting sector. To be specific, the US Air Force is our customer, we do the R&D that helps keep our troops safe. I am totally confident that our troops will keep us safe from harm as well. I don't believe I have to worry about being murdered by the Buildaboogers.

47 posted on 07/19/2007 1:19:20 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

Okay, so I’ll ask you...where are your credible sources?


48 posted on 07/19/2007 1:22:15 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
That's their propaganda site for people like you to fall for. You think they'll put the truth out for all to see. If you believe that, you are really gullible.

It does change our courts. Our Supreme court will be regulated to the dust bin of history.

49 posted on 07/19/2007 1:22:29 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Because the burden of proof is on the accuser, get it?

We can lead a horse to water but we can't make him drink.

50 posted on 07/19/2007 1:24:13 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson