Home
| Blogs
Film
Food & Drink
General
Politics
Shopping
Travel
Write a Blog ...
| Events
Arts & Entertainment
Business
Community
Educational
Food & Drink
General
Holiday
Sports and Recreation
Post an Event ...
| Gallery
Food & Drink
General
Travel
Create an Album ...
| Search
Users
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Comments
| Community Links
The City of Manteca - Official Site
County of San Joaquin - Official Site
State of California - Official Site
California State Parks
The City of Ripon - Official Site
The City of Lathrop - Official Site
The City of Escalon - Official Site
DMV Office Locator
| Suggestions
| Register
| Login
| Help
Have we as America reached the point where we must get into an agreement with Mexico and Canada to share our resources. Even if you don't believe we should have an agreement with our two North American neighbors it's going to happen anyway.
The Council of Foreign Relations in 2005 had finished a report suggesting the United States unite with Canada and Mexico and become one bloc. What does this mean? according to the report which is titled Building a North American Community. We three separate nations will combine our resources including Law Enforcement,some Military,Education,Social Security and erase the borders by using a National Identity cards which would allow the free flow of people to cross our borders at will as long as they were National Id card holders. This also includes driving vehicles from Mexico through the US into Canada.
Like the European model the CFR's plan is already being introduced into our three governments, there are plans in the works already which a super highway will be built from within Mexico that will cross the US, bisecting the US through Texas and into Canada to their ports of Entry. You may even see this superhighway as part of Obama's jobs bill coming up in the near future.
Though this super highway has some problems for Americans such as it will be an International Highway patrolled by foreign troops.
Our Social Security will be shared with Canadian and Mexican citizens. We already have agreements in place to share social security monies with foreign countrIes, and we wonder why our Social Security is going bankrupt.
Here are some snippets of information from those agreements.
• Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people withinNorth
America. 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.
Law Enforcement and Military Cooperation
Security cooperation among the three countries should also extend to
cooperation on counterterrorism and law enforcement, which would
include the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence center, the
development of trinational ballistics and explosives registration, and
joint training for law enforcement officials.
As founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), Canada and the United States are close military allies. When
Canadian troops hunt terrorists and support democracy in Afghanistan,
or when Canadian ships lead patrols in the Persian Gulf, they engage
in the ‘‘forward defense’’ of North America by attacking the bases of
support for international terrorism around the world.Although Mexico
is not aNATOmember and does not share the same history ofmilitary
cooperation, it has recently begun to consider closer collaboration on
disaster relief and information-sharing about external threats.
• Implement the Social Security Totalization Agreement
negotiated between the United States andMexico. This agreement
would recognize payroll contributions to each other’s systems,
thus preventing double taxation.
WHAT WE SHOULD DO BY 2010
• Create a ‘‘North American preference.’’ Canada, the United
States, and Mexico should agree on streamlined immigration and
labor mobility rules that enable citizens of all three countries to
work elsewhere in North America with far fewer restrictions than
immigrants from other countries. This new system should be both
broader and simpler than the current systemofNAFTAvisas. Special
immigration status should be given to teachers, faculty, and students
in the region.
Is this what the U.S. Citizens want?
As far as I am concerned I say close down the borders along Canada and Mexico.
I don't think we need to be giving US Tax money (Social Security)away to citizens of other nations.
This new government will be governed by Congressmen from each nation as in three or more from each and they will be the government body which will make decisions on how these three governments policies will be fused into one and carried out.
So what happened to the sovereignty of the United States ?
To read more on this New nation now forming you can go to this link:
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102
Latest Activity: Nov 12, 2011 at 12:40 PM
Yes, they must actually fact check their sources before posting outdated conspiracy theories, or they will be called out on it. I sometimes wonder how people fall for Nigerian banking scams, but then I see people post things like this.
I'm treading lightly. This is not a conspiracy theory it is a fact. The CFR are the ones who suggested the NAFTA agreement to be made real and now this.
Look how this is planned out and written right before the Economic collapse.
If you have any real thoughts about, please post them and I will comment on that. As for this being some kind of leftis conspiracy, I will give you a bit of homework. Who was it that pushed for the major Texas highway project mentioned above? I'll give you a hint, he is about to be conservatives' last week's news.
Revengeof; I will check to see if he is a member of the CFR, I know many would be surprised to find out that most of the congress and senate are members of the CFR. A shadow govt.
I notice that to get the actual report, you need to pay $15.00 to CFR.
I find the idea interesting enough that I am seriously considering it.
@ DLangdon...
You don't need to purchase the report, the links below open the report in PDF format. I read the report, no big deal.
Ron
Dlangdon, I clicked on the English version and got the report in PDF. maybe it's not the whole report but 157 pages worth. FREE
RevengeO,I checked the membership roster of the CFR and I did not see Rick Perry. I did see George Soros is a member though.
Soros, George
http://www.cfr.org/content/about/annu...
Of the current GOP candidates, only one, Newt Gingrich, is listed as a member.
Neither President Obama nor Vice-President Biden are members.
This is from their roster as of today.
BOMBSHELL !Rick Perry did support the NAFTA super highway.
The path has been cleared for the state of Texas to begin building the new Trans-Texas Corridor, a project that is designed to be four football fields wide, along Interstate 35 from Mexico to the Oklahoma border, according to a new report from WND columnist Jerome Corsi, the author of "The Late Great USA."
The way was opened when Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, vetoed a series of proposals the Texas Legislature assembled to slow down the work on what is considered to be a key link in a continental NAFTA superhighway network.
Perry's latest veto was of a plan to add a number of requirements to the Texas eminent-domain procedures, under which governments can grab and use private property.
Biased, my point was that the CFR is behind the New North American govt.
I missed the part where George Bush was a member. Thanks for the info.
The contention that many US senators and representatives are members appears to be without merit.
Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and Nancy Pelosi, along with those mentioned earlier, are NOT members of the CFR. I did find it interesting that two sitting justices of the US Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen G. Breyer are members. Both were appointed by Bill Clinton, who is also a member. Our current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is not.
Just some interesting information, make of it what you will.
Ron
Biased, seems to lean towards bad mouthing others in my personal opinion nor does he look at the positive of others comments.........he may be a sock puppet.
In a country where the freedom of speech allows those with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to voice their opinion, it does not allow them protection from criticism of said theory.
Biased is just offering a critical rebuke of your unsubstantiated conspiracy. If you feel attacked it's just societal rejection of a fringe movements beyond reasonable beliefs. Don't feel like Biased is alone with his criticism, he is just expressing his opinion, which he has a right to do.
North American Union, yeah it's a conspiracy. But even if it wasn't a conspiracy I don't see what's so horribly bad about it. I guess building "superhighways" from Canada to Mexico is a job killer now. Like I said cooperation between nations eww... That's exactly what it sounds like when conservatives talk about this type of stuff. "OMG THE AMERO! It's coming in 2008!"
Capitalists_Nightmare,
Not all conservatives think cooperation between Canada, Mexico, and the USA is a bad thing. It is just the type and level that is under dispute. Some of the issues presented in the CFR report would be beneficial to everyone. Until the more pressing issues internally are resolved it is unlikely that any progress on North American cooperation will come to pass.
As far as civics lessons are concerned, there is one individual
here who should partake of some English and grammar lessons before suggesting anyone else take any other classes.
Cheers, Randy
Biased;
Bull153 and I probably sound alike because we both consider ourselves conservative. We both make true and factual points in our blogs and comments. We both have a low tolerance for people who bring nothing to the forums but insults and denigrating comments. I suppose that is what bothers you so much.
How petty and juvenile have you been in your accusations of ignorance and lack of education of many of the bloggers here? It is funny how much you complain about others when you are no better.
Your claim of being an adult and actually addressing the contents of posts is flat out untrue. You focus on insults and not substance. Your own words provide indisputable proof.
You accuse me of nitpicking typos and grammar but do not say a word about my comments on the CFR and cooperation. Could that be because you cannot argue factually my points?
Before you continue your tirades on hypocrisy, you probably should look in the mirror.
Randy
Biased relies heavily on the Texas Corridor being the NAFTA Superhighway when there are several states involved with this project.
Here is the article and link, you can read the whole article and it explains all of this.
Interstate 69 (I-69) is an Interstate Highway in the United States. It exists in two parts: a completed highway from Indianapolis, Indiana, northeast to the Canadian border in Port Huron, Michigan, and a mostly proposed extension southwest to the Mexican border in Texas. Of this extension – nicknamed the NAFTA Superhighway because it would help trade with Canada and Mexico spurred by the North American Free Trade Agreement – only three short pieces—a 6.2 mile (10.0 km) section near Corpus Christi, Texas, one in northwestern Mississippi and in the Memphis, Tennessee area and a 1.73-mile segment near Evansville, Indiana--have been built and signed as I-69 (see Interstate 69 in Mississippi and Interstate 69 in Indiana). A fourth segment of I-69 through Kentucky, 145 miles (232 km) long
I-69 heads northeast, past Anderson, Muncie, Marion, and Fort Wayne, Indiana; the latter city is served by Interstate 469, I-69's only current signed auxiliary route. After crossing the Indiana East-West Toll Road (I-80/I-90) near Angola, I-69 enters Michigan, crossing I-94 east of Battle Creek and joining with I-96 for an overlap west of Lansing. Where it splits from I-96, I-69 turns east, both in compass direction and in signed direction, and heads north of Lansing and through Flint (where it crosses I-75) to a junction with I-94 in Port Huron. The last bit of I-69 overlaps I-94 to the Blue Water Bridge across the St. Clair River, where traffic continues on Highway 402 in the Canadian province of Ontario.
The proposed extension evolved from the combination of Corridors 18 and 20 of the National Highway System as designated in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, but the federally recognized corridor also includes connecting and existing infrastructure, including Interstate 94 between Chicago and Port Huron and several spurs from I-69. Among these proposed spurs are an extension of Interstate 530 from Pine Bluff, Arkansas (known as "the Dickey Split," for its champion, congressman Jay Dickey), an upgrade of U.S. Route 59 from Texarkana, Texas, and a split in southern Texas to serve three border crossings at Laredo, Pharr, and Brownsville.
In August 2007, I-69 was selected by the USDOT as one of six Corridors of the Future, making it eligible for additional federal funding and streamlined planning and review. When it is finished, it may be one of the longest interstate highways not numbered with a digit ending in 0 or 5 (next to Interstate 94) and may be the longest north-south interstate highway. If the entire length of the freeway is completed, the freeway will end up being about 1800 miles in length.[citation needed]
Texas has several corridors not just the Texas Corridor. The NASCO corridors do the same as the Texas Corridor.
Biased;
Thank you for your comment regarding the CFR ... I guess?
Your supposed facts are in error.
Whether we write the same is a matter of opinion, not fact.
You cannot know that we act the same since you have met neither of us.
We may or may not have the same nickname. Mine has not been used since I left the Air Force. You will have to ask Ron about his.
We do not nor have we ever had the same profession. Please provide some proof of this, unless you consider the fact that we both retired from the Air Force as our profession.
We do not share 100% of our political beliefs. Ron is interested in the Manteca Patriots, I am not. We are both conservative, but we do disagree on several political issues.
There are two regular bloggers I have on my contact list. I've privately corresponded with one other. Another has referred to me as one of "two most reputable and reasonable conservative voices in this forum in my opinion." I hardly think that adds up to my being "too pathetic to interact with." If you still have doubts, feel free to ask them. I'm sure they consider you a pillar of this blogging community.
I have almost always added my name to the bottom of my comments. You will have to ask Ron when and why he started to do the same. We both have our profiles accessible to the public.
In any case, people are free to believe whatever they wish.
Randy
@ Wayne2008...
I think you are worrying way too much. This is a real no brainer, and I have an even better solution than the one the CFR proposes.
Puerto Rico has been seeking statehood. So make Puerto Rico the 51st state. Their tourism is great, and it is much closer than Hawaii is. It would also ease the burden on Hawaii by offering an alternative warm weather vacation paradise...
Next, we annex Canada and make it the 52nd state. Cut the Canadian military by 2/3 and call the remnants the Canadian National Guard. Think of all the natural resources available to boost the US economy. ...and no one would be fleeing to Canada to avoid extradition on US criminal charges. It would also free up the border patrol on each side to work at the airports and seaports detecting terrorist threats.
Now, we have Mexico invade Belize and Guatamala, making them part of Mexico. Mexico is annexed and becomes the 53rd state. We cut the Mexican military in half, call them the Mexican National Guard, and equip them with the more modern military equipment from Canada. We build a 100 foot high wall along the 185 mile wide old southern Guatamalan / Belize border with a twenty mile exclusion zone devoid of anything but dirt. We leave one or two crossing points and place all the current border patrol assets there... after all securing a 200 mile wide border is far easier than dealing with our current 1,500 mile border mess.
Now, all former Canadian, Mexican, Guatamalan, and Belize citizens are Americans... no more illegal immigration worries for the 18 million or so illegals in the US. No deportation, no green cards, no dream act, no worries. Mexico has huge areas suitable for incarceration of criminals. Arizona and Alabama could drop their laws that everyone is protesting and the police can go back to fighting crime instead of immigration.
There would be six new senators and about fifty new members of the house to deal with their state's issues. Everyone would fall under US regulations, so all of the Mexican trucks that don't meet standards would be junked and replaced by US built vehicles, improving the economics and job outlook in the original 48 states.
There are many other benefits to be gained... but you all get the jist of this. The CFR has nothing on my ideas... ;)
Ron
Those are some great ideas, but why stop at Guatamala if you're going that far might as well capture Panama and control the sea gates which the Chinese and Russians use just in case a war breaks out also Panama will be useful if he decide to have a trade war and we could put tariffs on foreign Oil imports.
Think of all the oil the US would gain. Canada is a great idea they have so many resources untapped that would be a boon for the United States. We will need all of these resources once China cuts the U.S. credit.
Puerto Rico should be a state even all of those territories we still hold in Guam and other places, make them states also, might as well they all receive U.S. Aid for survival.
You should post those ideas on the Cornerstone you would get a lot of feed back.
@ wayne2008...
If I were even remotely serious, I might... but my obvious sarcasm seems to have been missed... ;)
Ron
No Bull you are completely right, and wayne2008 has good ideas expanding on yours. I'll expand wayne's ideas, why don't we just invade all of South America. Then the European powers would be out for good and the Monroe Doctrine will be fully implemented, let's not forget the amount of natural resources. I mean Venezuela has some serious oil reserves, and Brazilian girls! Oh don't even get me started on that...
CM, I am still stuck on the Brazillian girls as a commodity......now is that one gorgeous woman's name Shakira, now I am all for taking over South America and it is called South America of the United States already so that makes it more realistic,...........;-]
Log In to post comments.
