North American Union to Replace USA?

Status
Not open for further replies.

P12

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
327
Location
Hewitt, TX
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965

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?

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.

Don't know anything about this author or the concept of the "North American Union". Although if this is true it makes sense now why Bush and the Senate have not shown interest in securing our borders.

(note: I did a search befor posting. Did not see any reference to this article.)
 
The idea gives me acid reflux.....:barf:

Eliminating the USA won't happen in a bloodless fashion.....there will be civil war first....:cuss:
 
I really do hope no one here is gullible enough to believe something like that. Absolute speculative paranoid BS. Like Vern Humphrey said it's not going to happen.
 
Big business wants a North American Union with free flow of capital and peons, and "you shut your piehole, you terrorist/racist/extremist/insurgent" kind of public debate. So long as our "elected" leaders do BB's bidding rather than the taxpayer/voter's, NAU is exactly where we are heading. Make no mistake about it, the cogs have been turning since WW2.
 
If the 3 nations in north america were comprised of vitrtually the same type of people, and the same type of governments (like socialist Western Europe)I would believe that there are intentions of heading down that road.

However, Mexico and Canada hate us. Canada would hate our guns being sent up there, and Mexico would hate not having any citizens to exploit, control and impoverish. They'd never go for it :neener:
 
Quote from Vern:
"It won't happen at all -- this is spin, and untrue. But the Democrats -- who WILL sell our soverignty -- would love to have you believe it."


Hey Vern:

If not, then can you explain to me, the reasoning behind the "Trans-Texas Corridor"?

And if you do not know what the Trans Texas Corridor is, then you are totally incorrect about it not happening. It is happening, right now.
 
It won't happen at all -- this is spin, and untrue. But the Democrats -- who WILL sell our soverignty -- would love to have you believe it.

:scrutiny:

The house is already in flames, lit by the Bush border policy, and you're worried because the Democrats might have a match.
 
Hey Vern:

If not, then can you explain to me, the reasoning behind the "Trans-Texas Corridor"?

And if you do not know what the Trans Texas Corridor is, then you are totally incorrect about it not happening. It is happening, right now.

Hey, Ira:

How does that change the Constitution of the US?

The issue is free trade - - something that conservatives believe in. The left is trying to scare you into abandoning your basic conservativism (drop your guns in here as you enter.)
 
Vern, it doesn't cancel it. It simply ignores it.

That still doesn't answer my question. Do you know exactly what the Trans Texas Corridor entails?
 
The Trans-Texas Corridor has nothing to do with the Constitution or the soverignty of the United States -- any more than the old Pan American Highway does.

If you think it does, please explain your thinking.
 
Bah, utter BS. You can tell just by the name North American Union.

If something like this happened, it would be the AE. The American Empire.
 
I'll start making my hat right away!
it's truly a sickening idea, it will most likely never happen, not in our lifetimes anyways. It would be met with too much opposition, from both sides.
I think G.W. is finally starting to lose it, no scratch that he lost it a long time ago.
 
I'll start making my hat right away!
it's truly a sickening idea, it will most likely never happen, not in our lifetimes anyways. It would be met with too much opposition, from both sides.
I think G.W. is finally starting to lose it, no scratch that he lost it a long time ago.

No doubt President Hillary Clinton and Vice President Nancy Pelosi will be more to your liking.

Besides, who needs those nasty 'ol guns?
 
Vern:

You wrote:"The Trans-Texas Corridor has nothing to do with the Constitution or the soverignty of the United States -- any more than the old Pan American Highway does.

If you think it does, please explain your thinking."

You wrote the above, in response to the following question. "Are you aware of the Trans Texas Corridor and what it entails?"

Apparantly, you think it is merely a roadway. And your reasoning, is a roadway cannot change the Constitution. This particular "roadway" has an establishment of commerce corridor treaty/compact written with a foreign power, entered into by a State. Thus far, I find nothing of consent from Congress allowing Texas Transportation Code 227.021 Sub. (2) that authorizes the state to enter into this treaty/compact with a foreign power, (company owned by the King of Spain) to have imminent domain power over citizens of Texas. Considering this business corridor is going to be a swath of area approximately FOUR MILES WIDE, starting at the Mexican border, and continuing to Dallas, Texas, many of our fellow Texans are somewhat concerned, not only with takings of property "for the public good" but with the clause within the code, allowing the Trans Texas Corridor to deny access to certain entities.

Maybe you can help me by finding Congressional authorization for this "road" plan, and when you do, let me know exactly where to locate the U.S. Code, or any legislation authorizing The Texas Department of Transportation to negotiate a treaty, with a foriegn entity and at that point in time, I will agree with you that meets within the intent of Article I, Section X.

Now, if I were to say that Arkansas Department of Transportation, were going to enter into an agreement that would take all property within a four mile swath at a point beginning in Texarkana, continuing through the state over into Tennesse, and all commercial traffic of any manner whatsoever would be dictated by a company owned by, say, the King of France, who would have ultimate decision over who gets to contract to sell fuel within that corridor, would you feel it Constitutional?
 
hey hey, i wasn't trying to shut you down Vern, just stating my opinion.
I support the constitution more than anyone else my age that I know of and I would hate to see any left winger commie pinko try to debase what our country was founded on. And no, I'm not voting for Hillary:barf: gawd man I think you misinterpreted me big time, I'm a gun owner, I just have different views on foreign policy. It's people like Mike Savage, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity that are too far right and don't give the good Democrats any credit (and don't say there aren't any good Democrats because I've known plenty of Democrat gun owners that would defend the constitution to the death, they do exist trust me. It's the extreme lefties that I worry about, their totally absurd, they'd like to see the US turn into a 3rd world country)
I know so many conservative republicans like myself that are anti-bush, and it's easy to see why his approval rating is only 27%. He is obviously NOT a conservative.
 
Ninty percent of what I see coming out in threads like this could come straight from Demunder or moveon.org. It's as if they have a master strategy to get conservatives to look at each other in the worst possible light and tear conservativism apart.
 
Hey Vern:

One other item regarding the constitutionality of the "Trans Texas Corridor" plan for the toll payment. Here is what they say from a cut and paste, regarding their method of tracking people on this thing.

"...The use of electronic tolling will prevent congested toll plazas. Electronic tolling improves efficiency because motorists can pay the toll while traveling at highway speed without stopping at the toll plaza."


Vern, an "electronic tolling device" is to be a microchip placed in the inspection sticker of vehicles. That is nice and convienent, so they can tell exactly where you are, not only on the Trans Texas Corridor, but also on any road they care to put up readers at.

While you are explaining the constitutionality of their method of "takings" for this debacle, tell me how requiring a tracking device in your vehicle (this comes from their own web site) statewide, is constitutional?

BTW, I was to be a delegate to the Texas State Republican Convention to be held in June, until I cancelled this morning due to being fed up with the "big brother" tactics being used by my former party of thirty five years.
 
July 13, 2005 by Phyllis Schlafly

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has just let the cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries. A 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."
"Community" means integrating the United States with the corruption, socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

"Community" is sometimes called "space" but the CFR goal is clear: "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely." The CFR's "integrated" strategy calls for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people."

The CFR document lays "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." The "common security perimeter" will require us to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations" with Mexico and Canada, "harmonize entry screening," and "fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals."

This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.

It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet "vigilantes" on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona.

A follow-up meeting was held in Ottawa on June 27, where the U.S. representative, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, told a news conference that "we want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our borders." The White House issued a statement that the Ottawa report "represents an important first step in achieving the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership."

The CFR document calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages.

Just to make sure that bringing cheap labor from Mexico is an essential part of the plan, the CFR document calls for "a seamless North American market" and for "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico."

The document's frequent references to "security" are just a cover for the real objectives. The document's "security cooperation" includes the registration of ballistics and explosives, while Canada specifically refused to cooperate with our Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

To no one's surprise, the CFR plan calls for massive U.S. foreign aid to the other countries. The burden on the U.S. taxpayers will include so-called "multilateral development" from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, "long-term loans in pesos," and a North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico.

The experience of the European Union and the World Trade Organization makes it clear that a common market requires a court system, so the CFR document calls for "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution." Get ready for decisions from non-American judges who make up their rules ad hoc and probably hate the United States anyway.

The CFR document calls for allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the United States, including the hauling of local loads between U.S. cities. The CFR document calls for adopting a "tested once" principle for pharmaceuticals, by which a product tested in Mexico will automatically be considered to have met U.S. standards.

The CFR document demands that we implement "the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico." That's code language for putting illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system, which is bound to bankrupt the system.

Here's another handout included in the plan. U.S. taxpayers are supposed to create a major fund to finance 60,000 Mexican students to study in U.S. colleges.

To ensure that the U.S. government carries out this plan so that it is "achievable" within five years, the CFR calls for supervision by a North American Advisory Council of "eminent persons from outside government . . . along the lines of the Bilderberg" conferences.

The best known Americans who participated in the CFR Task Force that wrote this document are former Massachusetts Governor William Weld and Bill Clinton's immigration chief Doris Meissner. Another participant, American University Professor Robert Pastor, presented the CFR plan at a friendly hearing of Senator Richard Lugar's Foreign Relations Committee on June 9.

Ask your Senators and Representatives which side they are on: the CFR's integrated North American Community or U.S. sovereignty guarded by our own borders.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html



Formally established in 1921, it is one of the most powerful private organizations with influence on U.S. foreign policy. It has about 4,000 members, including former national security officers, professors, former CIA members, elected politicians, and media figures. The council is not a formal institution within U.S. policy making.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
 
Vern, an "electronic tolling device" is to be a microchip placed in the inspection sticker of vehicles. That is nice and convienent, so they can tell exactly where you are, not only on the Trans Texas Corridor, but also on any road they care to put up readers at.

Gee, whiz. Like on the Coleman Bridge on Highway 17 between York and Gloucester Counties in Virginia? That method has been used there for more than a decade and a half.

And it's in use in most other toll roads and bridges in the country.

If that's so bad, why didn't you speak up when such systems were first used?
 
Vern, I sure glad your'e more thoughtful and eloquent than me. Some of these inspired posts have done shut down my brain, mouth and mind and left me speechless!!:D
 
Last edited:
Vern,

If you go to the original story link you will find an embedded link you might benefit from reading before you start painting with tin. Corsi may be on to something.

The author of the linked articule is the Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the
Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales
.

This may also interest you:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32735.pdf

I think saying the Dems will sell us down the river and the Reps a white as the driven snow on the issue is just blindness. They both have a price.

I decided to distance yourself from looking for D or R fingerprints on the process. But just looking at the parts of the process we can see externally, is it not worrisome to you? Just because it doesnt have Sell Out written all over it doesnt mean Joe Citizen shouldnt be at least skeptical IMO.

S-
 
I have gone to every link -- and beyond.

The facts are one thing, the spin another. For example, using chips or laser-scanned toll-both passes is old technology. How did it suddenly become the Anti-Christ?

Next, no one denies we have serious problems on the border -- we have had for some half a century. And one of the most serious aspects is that no one did anything about it in 1956, but let it simmer until today.

Now, how to get out of this hole we got ourselves into is a thorny problem. And it doesn't help to roll everything up into one vast conspiracy theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top