PDA

View Full Version : Goodbye America: North American Union to Replace USA


lakeway11
Jun 14th, 2006, 07:04 PM
North American Union to Replace USA?

by Jerome R. Corsi

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 politically, setting the stage for a 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?

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?print=yes&id=14965

TF Chipmunk
Jun 14th, 2006, 07:07 PM
Radical article with radical view :rolleyes: As much as I think George Bush is dumb, no one would be dumb enough to surrender his or her country's sovereignty.

Cat's Pajamas
Jun 14th, 2006, 07:08 PM
dumb :yawn:

Sally Struthers
Jun 14th, 2006, 07:10 PM
Just include the oil producing regions and the resorts in Mexico and exclude the rest of it from this :o

Lord Nelson
Jun 14th, 2006, 07:26 PM
Only Lakeways seems to believe in this bs :lol:

Volcana
Jun 14th, 2006, 07:42 PM
Radical article with radical view :rolleyes: As much as I think George Bush is dumb, no one would be dumb enough to surrender his or her country's sovereignty.From Bush's viewpoint, it's the Mexicans and Canadians surrendering their sovereignity to the USA.

However, this BS was only intended for one reason. To get multi-national companies into Mexico's state-owned oil-fields.

http://eatthestate.org/07-19/ItsAboutMexicos.htm

It's the same deal Libya reached with the USA after 9/11, and why Khadaffi went from being a sworn enemy to an ally overnight. The Libyan regime didn't reform. They just let US oil companies into their oil fields.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4219623.stm

The white supremacist wing of the Republican Party is way too powerful for a Republican president to ever open the US/Mexican border. If it wasn't for the 'we want cheap labor with no rights' wing of the Republican party, that border would already have been closed, and NAFTA scrapped.

Barrie_Dude
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:49 PM
Well, there has been a suspicion on my part that Canada is essentially suburban USA anyway. We are so dependent on the USA economically and for defense that we are more or less a part of them. If one has been following the progression of treaties tween the US and Canada, it would be hard to come to any other conclusion that, at some point in the near future, and possibly in my lifetime, Canada, for all practical purposes, will be USA-Noth

samsung101
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:53 PM
NAFTA has very specific language in it that essentially
laid out the ground work for a 'no border' type of union
with Canada, Mexico, and the USA. The entire concept
is of one big organization sans national identities for business, commerce, and the marketplace.

That was signed in 1994.

Who was President then? Wait, let me think....

Several Presidents of both parties, most Congressmen,
of both parties, squabbled over all or parts of NAFTA for
years before 1994, and since then as well.

No one pushed NAFTA harder than Carter & Clinton.
It's no secret what the real intention is of NAFTA:
no borders, no business fences, no fences period.

Looking back in history, how many Americans would
agree with what Ronald Reagan pushed through Congress
(w/Democratic House & GOP Senate) back in the late
80's? Amnesty was supposed to solve the problem then,
it didn't. Since then we've had over 12 different amnesty
style programs through various forms of Congress. None
have done anything but encourage more illegal aliens to
come over the border illegally.

I like Bush.

But, I hate his border policy ideas, and I hate his
amnesty ideas. I think they are just plain wrong, and
will do nothing but encourage more illegal aliens to
come here and seek entitlement programs.

However, it is a policy he had as Governor, and as
President in 2001. He has never changed his policy
ideas. I still disagree w/them. He was pushing
amnesty and a weaker Mexico-America border plan,
had just hosted Fox at the White House, and then
9/11 happened. All those ideas went on the back burner.
But, I knew when I voted for him, what his policy
ideas were on immigration.

I was hoping Congress would mute his ideas. He has
lots of ideas that go nowhere, i.e., permanent tax cuts,
social security reform, etc., and I'd like to see his amnesty
plans go that way too - nowhere fast.


Sorry, your GWB conspiracy plot is missing one little
thing: secrecy. The details you give are amusing
however. Nice title too.

But, the Bush border policies and commerce policies
are not new. He's spoken of this for years. Thankfully,
the Congress is not in agreement with him on all of this.
Tancredo and Sensenbrenner and Kyl and others are
fighting the Senate bill all the way, and the House is
going to sit on it a long time. Good.

Sadly, our Congress since the late 80's, has done little
to secure our borders. We're spending more money on
the border today, that's true. But, it's not enough. A wall?
I'd like to see more of that. True. But, I don't have any
fake confidence a wall can solve the problem. Nor will
arresting them do much.

We have to enforce our existing laws on the books 1000%
times better. Put more people on the border to discourage
crossings. We need to arrest those who break the law, and
detain them, and deport them. As for those here, go after
the criminals, violent ones, drug related, etc. first, and
get rid of them. Go after employers with some teeth, not
just a slap on the wrist.

Most of all, Mexico has to grow up. Stop dishing off the
problems it has by pushing citizens to leave home -to send
money back home. Our real quagmire is in Mexico, not
Iraq. It's a deadly, messy, bloody, corrupt, and poor nation, when it doesn't have to be. Mexican people are
hard working, family oriented, religious, and will work
to support their families...so, why is the nation poor?
It has oil, why is it poor? Mexico grows up, creates jobs,
and people stay home...when that happens, groups like
the Minutemen won't be needed.

NyCPsU
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:57 PM
:yawn:
lakeway your posts just get better and better

Barrie_Dude
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:58 PM
Yeah, the Shrub did not start this process and it was well along prior to him taking office!

lakeway11
Jun 14th, 2006, 10:01 PM
Bush Administration Quietly
Plans NAFTA Super Highway
By Jerome R. Corsi
Human Events
6-14-6


Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn.


Once complete, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the United States through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman's Union in the process. The Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union, will drive on what will be the nation's most modern highway straight into the heart of America. The Mexican trucks will cross border in FAST lanes, checked only electronically by the new "SENTRI" system. The first customs stop will be a Mexican customs office in Kansas City, their new Smart Port complex, a facility being built for Mexico at a cost of $3 million to the U.S. taxpayers in Kansas City.

As incredible as this plan may seem to some readers, the first Trans-Texas Corridor segment of the NAFTA Super Highway is ready to begin construction next year. Various U.S. government agencies, dozens of state agencies, and scores of private NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have been working behind the scenes to create the NAFTA Super Highway, despite the lack of comment on the plan by President Bush. The American public is largely asleep to this key piece of the coming "North American Union" that government planners in the new trilateral region of United States, Canada and Mexico are about to drive into reality.

Just examine the following websites to get a feel for the magnitude of NAFTA Super Highway planning that has been going on without any new congressional legislation directly authorizing the construction of the planned international corridor through the center of the country.

* NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition Inc., is a "non-profit organization dedicated to developing the world's first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America." Where does that sentence say anything about the USA? Still, NASCO has received $2.5 million in earmarks from the U.S. Department of Transportation to plan the NAFTA Super Highway as a 10-lane limited-access road (five lanes in each direction) plus passenger and freight rail lines running alongside pipelines laid for oil and natural gas. One glance at the map of the NAFTA Super Highway on the front page of the NASCO website will make clear that the design is to connect Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. into one transportation system.


* Kansas City SmartPort Inc. is an "investor based organization supported by the public and private sector" to create the key hub on the NAFTA Super Highway. At the Kansas City SmartPort, the containers from the Far East can be transferred to trucks going east and west, dramatically reducing the ground transportation time dropping the containers off in Los Angeles or Long Beach involves for most of the country. A brochure on the SmartPort website describes the plan in glowing terms: "For those who live in Kansas City, the idea of receiving containers nonstop from the Far East by way of Mexico may sound unlikely, but later this month that seemingly far-fetched notion will become a reality."

* The U.S. government has housed within the Department of Commerce (DOC) an "SPP office" that is dedicated to organizing the many working groups laboring within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada to create the regulatory reality for the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The SPP agreement was signed by Bush, President Vicente Fox, and then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005. According to the DOC website, a U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning has finalized a plan such that "(m)ethods for detecting bottlenecks on the U.S.-Mexico border will be developed and low cost/high impact projects identified in bottleneck studies will be constructed or implemented." The report notes that new SENTRI travel lanes on the Mexican border will be constructed this year. The border at Laredo should be reduced to an electronic speed bump for the Mexican trucks containing goods from the Far East to enter the U.S. on their way to the Kansas City SmartPort.

* The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is overseeing the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) as the first leg of the NAFTA Super Highway. A 4,000-page environmental impact statement has already been completed and public hearings are scheduled for five weeks, beginning next month, in July 2006. The billions involved will be provided by a foreign company, Cintra Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A. of Spain. As a consequence, the TTC will be privately operated, leased to the Cintra consortium to be operated as a toll-road.

The details of the NAFTA Super Highway are hidden in plan view. Still, Bush has not given speeches to bring the NAFTA Super Highway plans to the full attention of the American public. Missing in the move toward creating a North American Union is the robust public debate that preceded the decision to form the European Union. All this may be for calculated political reasons on the part of the Bush Administration.

A good reason Bush does not want to secure the border with Mexico may be that the administration is trying to create express lanes for Mexican trucks to bring containers with cheap Far East goods into the heart of the U.S., all without the involvement of any U.S. union workers on the docks or in the trucks.

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

dementieva's fan
Jun 14th, 2006, 10:56 PM
However, this BS was only intended for one reason. To get multi-national companies into Mexico's state-owned oil-fields.


Don't forget canadian water.

Barrie_Dude
Jun 15th, 2006, 12:56 AM
Don't forget canadian water.And Our Oil Sands and Our Wood and our natural gas and our singers and our Tim Hortons...........

SelesFan70
Jun 15th, 2006, 01:43 AM
And Our Oil Sands and Our Wood and our natural gas and our singers and our Tim Hortons...........

Can y'all take hockey back, please? I'm soooooooooo sick of hearing about the North Carolina Hurricanes down here! :rolleyes:

Barrie_Dude
Jun 15th, 2006, 01:46 AM
Can y'all take hockey back, please? I'm soooooooooo sick of hearing about the North Carolina Hurricanes down here! :rolleyes:I am actually rooting for them! I am, however, not much of a hockey fan! I grew up in South Carolina so you know its all NASCAR/Football/Basketball/BassFishing/Golf/Tennis down that way!

Bacardi
Jun 15th, 2006, 01:56 AM
Can this be so?
If it is, I'm withdrawing from the Union and forming my own Confederate state.... Simply known as DANI :woohoo:

Barrie_Dude
Jun 15th, 2006, 02:00 AM
Can this be so?
If it is, I'm withdrawing from the Union and forming my own Confederate state.... Simply known as DANI :woohoo:All Redneck Lezzer Ho's? :haha:

Reckoner
Jun 15th, 2006, 03:40 AM
If Canada were to agree, I guarantee you people would revolt, and I mean an armed revolution by that.

I have to question where this story is comming from without a link, though.

Bacardi
Jun 15th, 2006, 04:50 AM
On a Bush note, anyone see how GW's other brother (not Jeb... I think Jeb might just have a brain).. but his other bro. The one that went thru the messy divorce where he claimed his wife stole hair off his head to practice and place voodoo spells on him? When she was really doing it to try and drug test him for coke. I guess the Bush family loves their Cola, they are the biggest endorsers of Coke... at least they were in the early 80s. *woot*
Bush is :explode:

Bacardi
Jun 15th, 2006, 04:52 AM
All Redneck Lezzer Ho's? :haha:



Nah, I'd travel as far south as possible. Break a lil island off and call it DANI. And ya know just chill. I'd have no government, probably some total anarchy deal.... but it's just how I function. I'd rather have everything buttoned down and polished perfectly all doing the same or the other extreme everyone doing anything they want. I have weird political views I think. :crazy:

Crazy Canuck
Jun 15th, 2006, 05:18 AM
Can y'all take hockey back, please? I'm soooooooooo sick of hearing about the North Carolina Hurricanes down here! :rolleyes:

I'm tired of hearing about them too. Could they just lose already?

Crazy Canuck
Jun 15th, 2006, 05:20 AM
If Canada were to agree, I guarantee you people would revolt, and I mean an armed revolution by that.

I have to question where this story is comming from without a link, though.
I don't entirely understand why Canadians would be so against something of this nature. If you're interested in $$$ there is much to be gained from American employment opportunities. Not to mention American educational institutions.

Jakeev
Jun 15th, 2006, 05:20 AM
North American Union to Replace USA?

by Jerome R. Corsi

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 politically, setting the stage for a 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?

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?print=yes&id=14965

:lol: :lol: Hollywood could have a masterpiece on its hands if they called this guy.:lol: :lol:

Reckoner
Jun 15th, 2006, 05:23 AM
Can y'all take hockey back, please? I'm soooooooooo sick of hearing about the North Carolina Hurricanes down here! :rolleyes:
Actually North isn't in the title. And yes even I, a Canadian born and raised, am sick of hockey. I mean, the world cup is on.

Crazy Canuck
Jun 15th, 2006, 05:25 AM
Actually North isn't in the title. And yes even I, a Canadian born and raised, am sick of hockey. I mean, the world cup is on.
Get out of my country.

badunka
Jun 15th, 2006, 05:27 AM
I don't entirely understand why Canadians would be so against something of this nature. If you're interested in $$$ there is much to be gained from American employment opportunities. Not to mention American educational institutions.
What's wrong with the Canadian ones? Statisically we're more affordable and provide the same level of education without buying into the "Ivory Tower" mentality.

Really while Canada and the United States do share many similar economical facets largely due to NAFTA it has to be kept in mind the large distaste for America that is felt here. As previously mentioned, very few Canadians would be willing to become part of a North-American super country. Really there is a much different mentality here in Canada than in the States and really it would not mesh well. Plus there really is not real benefit to joining the two countries anyways. Keep them separate, lower trade tariffs etc and you'll have much of hte same result with identities being kept.

darrinbaker00
Jun 15th, 2006, 06:21 AM
Actually North isn't in the title. And yes even I, a Canadian born and raised, am sick of hockey. I mean, the world cup is on.
A Canadian who doesn't like hockey? I thought they deported all of you traitors down here to the States. ;)

Lord Nelson
Jun 15th, 2006, 12:52 PM
From Bush's viewpoint, it's the Mexicans and Canadians surrendering their sovereignity to the USA.

However, this BS was only intended for one reason. To get multi-national companies into Mexico's state-owned oil-fields.

http://eatthestate.org/07-19/ItsAboutMexicos.htm

It's the same deal Libya reached with the USA after 9/11, and why Khadaffi went from being a sworn enemy to an ally overnight. The Libyan regime didn't reform. They just let US oil companies into their oil fields.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4219623.stm

The white supremacist wing of the Republican Party is way too powerful for a Republican president to ever open the US/Mexican border. If it wasn't for the 'we want cheap labor with no rights' wing of the Republican party, that border would already have been closed, and NAFTA scrapped.
Your comments are pretty entertaining. So to you oil companies should be state owned. So where will they get the resources to renovate their infrustructure? Libya's state owned oil resources badly neeeded foreign investment and that's why Kaddhafi decided to make peace with the U.S. He may have also been scared of the Islamists and needed cooperation with the West to fight them. This is good for the Libyans and is a milestone in Bush's Presidency. But of course you would prefer libyans and americans to be at war, right???

Also, you may not know this but majority of Americans don't want to see the U.S. Mexican border opened up. Has nothing to do with just supermacists being the only nes who don't want to see border opened. Furthermore, more and more hispanics are voting for Republicans so half of the party which includes Bush, don't want to toughen too much the immigration laws.

lakeway11
Jun 16th, 2006, 05:07 PM
Can this be so?
If it is, I'm withdrawing from the Union and forming my own Confederate state.... Simply known as DANI :woohoo:

Dani, count me in with only one proviso...there must be horse racing and ice hockey and sprint car racing ;)

SelesFan70
Jun 16th, 2006, 05:11 PM
Actually North isn't in the title. And yes even I, a Canadian born and raised, am sick of hockey. I mean, the world cup is on.

Trust me, I grew up in SC and moved here to Durham-Raleigh, NC...it's a NC entity! :p

IceHock
Jun 16th, 2006, 05:13 PM
if he did that he would be the dumbest pres. we've ever had....oh wait he already is.can't really get much worse can it :confused:

~{X}~
Jun 16th, 2006, 06:20 PM
Tim Hortons! :hearts: