ADN

You should read about the new world order,

Building a North American Community
Report of the Independent Task Force
on the Future of North America



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 †™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™¢¢¬‚¦‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦¢‚¬Å“to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security.†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬? 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
2

WHAT WE SHOULD DO BY 2010
†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™¢¢¬…¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¢ Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢ 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.
9
Support a North American Education Program
Given their historical, cultural, geographic, political, and economic ties, the countries of North America should have the largest and most vibrant educational exchange network in the world. Currently, we do not.
Despite the fact that Mexico is the second-largest trading partner of the United States, it ranks only seventh in sending students there. In 2004, only 13,000 Mexican undergraduate and graduate students attended U.S. universities. Similarly, Canada is the largest trading partner of the United States but ranked only fifth in educational exchanges, with 27,000 students in the United States compared to 80,000 students from India, followed by China, South Korea, and Japan. The number of Mexicans studying in Canada remains very low†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬?about 1,000. And although American students study all over the world, relatively few go to Mexico and Canada. These numbers should be expanded dramatically to deepen familiarity and increase knowledge in each country.
28

If would like to read more Please Do :

ahhh My eyes..! :shock:

New World Order you say..?

it's better to go to the source, so it doesn't seem "conspiracy based"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 130-3.html

http://www.usembassycanada.gov/content/ ... %20America'

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/displ ... atest.html

Here's the Official Agenda: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 323-1.html

but its not like we didn't have a year to protest. DOES ANYONE READ THEIR GOVT. RELEASES???

um, no what you linked to was a savefile.com file share site that has no specific issuance or visibility of the subject.

What I linked to was the WhiteHouse, The "WashFile", and the Canadian embassy. I appreciate your bringing up the subject, but this has been on the public agenda since 2004. It's like literally at least year before-last year's news.

I am not sure why it was useful to use painful fonts... but it was an interesting mention.

Now, what do you think about the whole thing? Do you see it being a good idea, or a bad one? Why?

*puts on sunglasses, and waits for response*

/laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

For one thing everything I posted, is in the PDFcomes from federal goverment. Second conseratives are against this liberal idea,I'm against this liberal idea,Merging 3 goverments into one,is like EU,You would lose the your freedom, and the constitution. you should have read the pdf from safile.com it talks about the meeting in march 2005 crawford texas at bushes ranch. I guess you will have to learn the hard way!

1. Now that you link works, I can see your document. I also see on the first page who wrote it.

2. This is not a Federal Document. This is sponsored by The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, national membership organization, nonpartisan research center, and publisher. Founded in 1921, CFR is dedicated to producing and disseminating ideas so that individuals and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments.[/i]

www.cfr.org

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) is a member organization of the 150 most powerful leading Chief Executive officers of PRIVATE COMPANIES. They exist solely in the private sector, and led the private sector in the Canadian US Free Trade Agreement, and later in NAFTA.

The Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales (COMEXI) is an independent non-profit pluralistic forum with no government ties whatsoever, financed (like all three of these organizations) by membership dues and corporate support.

------

So REALLY this paper is a commentary and approval on the SPP (I gave Whitehouse links above), and suggestions for the transition to a North American continental focus of our combined culture and economy.

This has been a idea on the desks of scholars since 1982, and they have actively pursued policiy on it since 2004, a full year before the Crawford meeting that inspired . If any of this suprises you, you should maybe find some time to learn about your govt.

------

I will read this in greater detail, having only purused it at work, but it is compelling. I also would argue a Conservative may find some true sentiment within this. In the days of limited government, you could pass between the borders of Mexico and Canada without incident or papers. The allegations you make of losing the Constitution or being like the EU, are exactly the opposite of the premise of this proposal, which is not an institutional standing on policy of any kind.

The advantages of providing our interdependence to our continental neighbors are untold. Look at how much fuel we burn for the passage of goods and commodities to cross the ocean. While all these people are talking about strengthening our borders, ask yourself this.

I will say this, our chances are unique in this,.. and nothing like Europe.

For if we went the historical path of France, England, and Spain... England would be in the middle and the most heavily armed.

if you read Cafta that new tradeAgreement. which is law,their alot about merging the three countries.So alot is comming true
with this document!

ok, now I suspect you have no idea what CAFTA is about, which is about US trade with where 80% of our exports go, and will resolve over 700 million dollars in deficit trade, by making US exports into Central America and the Dominican Republic exactly the same as their goods that came in from; duty free.

This is like NAFTA, which increases the advantages for the local Farmers, if they are willing to learn abit about how it works.

And NAFTA makes sense. Why should the US have to pay taxes just to export to the same people we import from, that we change no tax.

What sucks is the south and central american farmers are being betrayed by their communities, and the reason is simple. We are not an agricultural world. We have more "farmers" than we can support. Like when we had to pay farmers not to grow corn, because they could sell it cheap to mexico, and make bank. What a great sentiment to the noble ideal of the man who drives the nation with his crops. Create a glut to control a market. What would happen if we started paying Mobil not to import oil from the middle East?

But aside form the poor farmers who are not needed, Mexico has done very well with NAFTA, as will Central America. You may also notice that these AFTA agreements establish Undisputable Sovereignty for all nations in agreement, so I'd love to know how you base your allegations.