HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT

-- What you won't be reading in the Defeatist, Elitist Media (DEM):

-- Signs are pointing in directions I find most disturbing

Spoiler and warning: many of my standard readers are going to find this post highly disquieting and bordering on heresy; I have myself written many times, however, that I am a Conservative first and a Republican second -- and also that I am no apologist for President Bush. The facts are the facts and disputatious as one might be to the issues I present, that still does not change what is in evidence.

You won't find this on Hugh Hewitt. Or Instapundit. Or PowerLine. Or any of the other blogs. Only here.

Read and draw your own conclusions.

BZ

_________________________


What Was the Motivation?

I freely admit: most of my recent posts seem to have consumed themselves with the issue of illegal immigration. At the risk of being repetitive I made post after post about the dangers and threats posed by illegal immigration. It's my blog. I get to do that.

All along, I was asking myself: President Bush seems to be such an anomaly; in many ways he pans out to be conservative: he believes in the military, in (what I thought was) sovereignty, in defending America. His war on terror took guts and balls. He walked that tightrope seemingly all alone in the international community. He made two SCOTUS appointments.

On the other hand he contradicts himself by throwing massive amounts money at problems (witness his billions for AIDS thrown to countries whose governments are known for their corruption, disastrous governments and leaders whose penchant is to divert American dollars to numbered Swiss and Jamaican accounts; his promise to rebuild New Orleans -- a city that is, again, rife with corruption and essentially unrebuildable in its present location; his tendency to pitch cash in every direction and to veto nothing budgetary; the US government has bloated during his tenure). This is not in keeping with minimal government and what many perceive to be basic Republican and, moreover, Conservative tenets.

Harriet Miers. The Dubai Ports deal. His failure to take a continuing hard and firm stand with regard to the looming social security crisis and, now, the most disconcerting tendency of all: President Bush's hesitation to slam the door shut on illegal immigration.

So I had to ask myself: with regard to the immigration issue, what could President Bush be seeing that I myself am not? What other higher planes are there? What would be the overarching issues that I might not have yet considered?

The contradiction was huge as far as I was concerned: how could you be fighting a so-called War On Terrorism and fail to see the open northern and, more importantly, southern back doors? And how could one seemingly be in bed with the oily Vicente Fox? Mexican nationals admit Fox has done nothing to move the country forward in terms of creating jobs and moving the economy.

I posited in earlier posts: I was confused -- as was most everyone else with Bush's stance on the issue. I tried to break it down:

-- Was Bush concerned about keeping and holding the Mexican/Hispanic vote? Why? -- when a great percentage of Mexican voters side with the Democratic party?

-- Why also not consider and address the issue of illegal immigrants not only finding fraudulent documentation but documentation that allows illegal voting as well?

-- Was it a matter of oil? Mexico supplies a good portion of our imported oil; was there an "under the table" deal cut with Fox to keep the crude flowing?

What was the issue with President Bush and his failure to simply say: "Enough. Seal the borders. Build a fence. Address the employer issue. Use the Minutemen."

And Bush's labeling of our Minutemen as "vigilantes?" Totally reprehensible! At that point I wondered if our president was in fact a Dem in GOP clothing. Why is it that Jimmy Carter has praised Bush's immigration stance?

The Reason May Be Hiding In Plain Sight

It was there all along; I just had to find it, read it and hear it. And you likely won't care for the answer; I myself do not:

It would appear that President Bush is in the process of building a cabal with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexico's Vicente Fox to create one large borderless American business enterprise -- possibly in an attempt to compete with the European Union and other political and economic powerhouses.

And you wondered why NAFTA and, moreover, CAFTA?

Like the EU with its Euro, this new multi-national union (including, initially, the US, Canada and Mexico) would have its own monetary unit called the Amero.

The proof is here:

http://www.spp.gov/

There you will find the home page for the "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America." I quote directly from the homepage itself:

President George Bush, President Vicente Fox of Mexico, and Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada unveiled a blueprint for a safer and more prosperous North America when they announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) on March 23 in Waco, TX. They agreed on ambitious security and prosperity agendas to keep our borders closed to terrorism and open to trade. The SPP is based on the premise that security and our economic prosperity are mutually reinforcing, and recognizes that our three great nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions.

As the ads say: "But wait, there's more!"

Guided by a Leaders Statement and Action Plans on Security and Prosperity, Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers convened trilateral working groups to develop concrete work plans and specific timetables for securing North America and ensuring legitimate travelers and cargo efficiently cross our shared borders; enhancing the competitive position of North American industries in the global marketplace; and, providing greater economic opportunities for all of our societies while maintaining high standards of health and safety.

"Ensuring legitmate travelers" pans out to be essentially anyone who wishes to cross the northern and southern borders of the United States unimpeded for the purposes of enriching any of the involved country's GDP. The proposal is that the northern and southern US borders would for all intents and purposes disappear.

Do what I call the "logical extension." Pushed further, this business protectorate would likely encompass, in time, not just Mexico to the south but most if not all of the Southern American states right down to Cape Horn.

At this point I should expect most of you are thinking: "BZ has surely lost his marbles on this one, seeing Groom Lake/Area 51 aliens in the closet, likely to be claiming his own abduction soon -- and any other conspiracy theory that comes to mind."

Oh no, dear reader; not just me. From Human Events Online regarding the plan to replace the US dollar, the Canadian dollar and the peso with the Amero:

Following the March 2005 meeting in Waco, Tex., the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published in May 2005 a task force report titled “Building a North American Community.” We have already documented that this CFR task force report calls for a plan to create by 2010 a redefinition of boundaries such that the primary immigration control will be around the three countries of the North American Union, not between the three countries. We have argued that a likely reason President Bush has not secured our border with Mexico is that the administration is pushing for the establishment of the North American Union.

This is clearly in plain sight. To continue from this article:

Pastor’s 2001 book “Toward a North American Community” called for the creation of a North American Union that would perfect the defects Pastor believes limit the progress of the European Union. Much of Pastor’s thinking appears aimed at limiting the power and sovereignty of the United States as we enter this new super-regional entity. Pastor has also called for the creation of a new currency which he has coined the “Amero,” a currency that is proposed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso.

Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation wrote a recent piece in the New York Post which provides some additional explanation:

May 19, 2006 -- THINK the immigration debate boils down to whether the 10 million illegal immigrants already here deserve amnesty? Think again. The leading reform proposal in the Senate is Sens. Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA). If it becomes law, more than six times that figure will pour in - legally - over the next two decades. The original CIRA would've allowed as many as 100 million people to legally immigrate to the United States over the next 20 years. We're talking about a seismic shift of unprecedented proportions.

Doing The Logical Extension

It would seem to me, all things considered, that President Bush is something of the covert Globalist. Should you think me the bit paranoid, I reprint a paragraph back in the Human Events article for reference:

If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero,” we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election. Pursuing any plan that would legalize the conservatively estimated 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States could well spell election disaster for the Republican Party in 2006, especially for the House of Representative where every seat is up for grabs.

This begs a wonderful question: knowing now about the nature of President Bush and his workings, would you have voted for his second term? Or even his first?

Or would you take the Standard Fallback of "he's better than Gore"?

And knowing this now, how does it affect your view of the overall immigration issue?

If we as a nation want the South American/Mexican Model of government for our own, we are certainly well on our way.

Here is one example:

The Mob Takes On The State:

RIO DE JANEIRO is more beautiful, but residents of São Paulo boast that their city is safer. At least they did until May 12th, when a wave of violence orchestrated from within the prison system struck Brazil's biggest city and several neighbouring towns. In five days of mayhem and retribution some 150 people, a quarter of them policemen, were killed; 82 buses were torched and 17 bank branches attacked. Rebellions erupted at 74 of the 140 prisons in São Paulo state. Schools, shopping centres and offices shut down; transport froze. For several days, Paulo-istanos could not even claim that their city was safer than Baghdad.

It was a show of force by the leaders of the state's main criminal gang, the Primeiro Comando da Capital. Directing the violence by mobile phone from their prison cells, they cast sudden doubt on whether São Paulo, the engine of Brazil's economy, is ruled by laws or by the mob. This is sure to be an issue in October's presidential election, which pits the incumbent, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, against Geraldo Alckmin. As governor of São Paulo until March, it is Mr Alckmin who has carried the chief political responsibility for its security.

I submit this here and now: immigration and its linked agendas shall become a self-fulfilling prophecy; sort of a Pygmalion Effect.

There is a REASON that thousands want to immigrate to our nation.

Conversely, if we turn this nation into a carbon copy of what Mexicans and Southern Americans left -- well then, dispirited, those that we embraced will leave us in droves for another model. Witness Mexico. Who stayed to fight? Who left? Do the math.

We are well on our way -- at least in Fornicalia. Whilst in San Diego, Los Angeles and Long Beach I primarily heard the Spanish language being spoken around me. I knew that those who spoke it could understand English -- they somehow managed to pay their bills and such -- but other than the times absolutely necessary they reverted to Spanish.

I repeat at the risk of redundancy: I am most disturbed for the rest of us.

BZ