SwiftVets.com

[baldeagle]

Human Events Online

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted May 19, 2006


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 to include Canada, setting the stage for 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 whole article here
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965

Isn't this in opposition to his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution of The United States? And, if true, is it not a valid impeachable offense?
_________________
"In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home." --George Washington

[Navy wife]

This is an unbelievable story. So far, Corsi has only provided us with a report from a left-center organization without documentation to prove his point. I agree that this is scary and beyond comprehension but I need more than speculation.

[dusty]

I have to be like Navy Wife on this one. Mainly because it's not up to G.W.
There are a lot of people that would have to sign off on something like this. Senators, Representatives, the American people just to name a few.
Now I could see breaking Canada and Mexico up into several states and possibly making them part of the USA but who want's em? Not me.
They have more internal problems than I would like to take on.
I would say that idea has about as much chance of happening as the one Mr. Corsi postulates.
Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right!

[Anker-Klanker]

I'll reserve the right to change my mind if I'm presented with some facts, but this kind of unfounded assertion is going on all over the right wing world on the subject of the immigration "debate" (which it ceased to be a long time ago).

I'm disappointed.

[joe_madeup]

Granting due respect to a co-author of "Unfit For Command": the claims being advanced in the quoted text are, shall we say, implausible.

People have made some good points - Let me add another.

The quoted text includes this claim: "Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada..."

Note that Canada is one of the founding members of NAFTA. Canada is already in NAFTA. Canada has always been in NAFTA, as long as there has been a NAFTA - and before. NAFTA grew out of a U.S.-Canadian trade compact; NAFTA merely solidified the compact and added Mexico to the founding group of U.S. + Canada.

Further, to me it seems the phrase "globalist agenda" is poorly used, or is in direct contradiction to the idea of a NORTH AMERICAN union. If it's U.S. dominated and only North American - it ain't global.

But more important - I simply can't imagine President Bush, after all the heat he's taken for Iraq and the War on Terror and continuing to reject the Kyoto Treaty, is about to sign away our sovereignty in the dead of night. Even if he could (which, as others have pointed out, he sure can't).

U.S. immigration policy has some real problems, I agree.

But the text, as quoted, seems to contain several contradictions like the ones we've pointed out. Or maybe its points need a lot more work. In fact, I fear it's embarrassing for Mr. Corsi.

[SBD]

A quote from the CFR report

[SBD]

[Anker-Klanker]

Sorry, but the excerpted information from the "CFR Report" is just that, excerpted, and slightly out of context (in my opinion). For a full reading go to: http://www.cfr.org/publication/8104/

Please note that this was a paper written by an independent panel - which if you study it's membership, looks considerably more like a socialist group, and does not contain any names that I can recognize that have anything to do with the Bush administration. The Council on Foreign Relations, by the way, is all over the map - literally and figuratively - on topics and relations that relate to foreign policy. People of all stripes who have interests in foreign policy and relations - retired government people, academians, social activists, big business representatives, etc., etc. - utilize their forums to write papers to advance their own political, social and business agendas.

It is NOT, as one might prematurely conclude by the name, an official function of the US Government, nor is it officially sanctioned. If you go to their site's main page you will probably find as many topics and positions you like as those you don't like.

[Me#1You#10]

[BuffaloJack]

There are too many level headed Americans to ever allow something like this to happen.
This has got to be another internet-driven conspiracy theory (like there isn't enough of them.)
The only thing it's missing is Grey-Aliens.
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71)

[SBD]

FINAL REPORT MAY 2005

[SBD]

Can anyone get to the recently taken down site http://www.spp.gov website

Here is the Google Cache of Site

[Anker-Klanker]

If you explore the included links on the CFR task force page I previously sent the task force met before and after the meeting of George Bush, Vincent Fox, and Paul Martin, probably to leech whatever respectability and stature they (the CFR people) could from the meeting of three heads of state. There is no official connection between the two (or three) events, as the statement from the chairman of the independent task force makes clear. So, the coupling of the CFR independent task force with the meeting of the three heads of state was a unilateral "set-up" to make the task force's output look more legitimate (my opinion, and it is very interesting the "officious" language being used).

No, I cannot invoke either the link or the cached link to the SPP Home page. I guess that could sound onerous if you believe there's a huge conspiracy being born, but then again, and if you don't believe it's a conspiracy, then you could believe that whoever put up the SPP page ran out of funds, folded, or otherwise ran out of "juice."

What I did find were two links to Canadian sites that discussed the SPP from a Canadian perspective.

The first one is very recent and very benign (I think) and if the US, Mexico, and Canada are working on what is discussed here, I have no problem.

http://www.chfa.ca/default.asp?action=article&ID=147

The second link is an official Canadian Government paper (beware: PDF format) which discusses the defense and security implications of SPP, and in my view, it sounds very similar to what I think may have been said when NORAD was first proposed and implemented. I haven't studied this thoroughly looking for hidden meanings, etc., but it at first glance seems to be all above-board, focusing on Canadian military people's concerns, with NOTHING (that I can see) suggesting that each country's security or sovereignty was to be compromised.
link - report on the national security policy for Canada


(Moderator, please fix that long link) fixed/kate

For what it's worth.

Update: If you do an advanced Google search for the phrase:

"Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America"

You will find a TON of information from this search term, including the offical US government site, and the President's own statement on the agreement, as well as official sites for Mexico and Canada. It will take several hours to go through all these. But I can already see that if you are suspicious of Bush's and the Governments motives you can find words might be interpreted to support your suspicions. Since I'm not so suspicious, and think there are Constitutional safeguards in place, I read them differently.

[joe_madeup]

To say that Bush, Canada and Mexico have publicly "announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) on March 23 in Waco, TX" and raise accurate questions about it... is different from saying crazy stuff like "Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada". (when NAFTA already includes Canada, publicly)

As I suggested earlier: Mr. Corsi MAY have a valid point somewhere, but he needs to work on it. A lot. What he put out so far, in the Human Events Online article, is embarassing (to him).

[kate]

Agree that Corsi is off base with what he states, and how he states it in the article, but the premise of the PTB behind the North American Union is not just a conspiracy theory. Considering the Council on Foreign Relations, their sister org the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers...the membership of those 3 orgs is the rich and powerful of the world, who commision those independant panels to do their studies and position papers on their behalf. I have a very close friend that works for that group -- it is real. This is not new stuff from these New World Order powerbrokers.

this from the
North American Regional Meeting of the Trilateral Commission, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 2002 report pdf
<snips>