Corsi, Tancredo on Liddy to Challenge WH unauthorized work on 'North American Union'

World Net Daily ^ | June 14, 2006 | WND

[Kenny Bunk]

Author Jerome Corsi and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., will be guests tomorrow on G. Gordon Liddy's radio show to discuss the White House's effort to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that could lead to a North American union, despite having no authorization from Congress.

Corsi and Tancredo will join Liddy for the entire 11 a.m. hour, Eastern time, and take calls from listeners.

Corsi reported this week that Bush administration working groups have not disclosed the results of their work despite two years of massive effort within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

The groups, working under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the Department of Commerce, are to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005.

The trilateral agreement, signed as a joint declaration not submitted to Congress for review, led to the creation of the SPP office within the Department of Commerce.

Geri Word, who heads the SPP office, told WND the work had not been disclosed because, "We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public."

WND can find no specific congressional legislation authorizing the SPP working groups nor any congressional committees taking charge of oversight.

Many SPP working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.

[Dane]

Why am I not surprised that tancredo jumped on the world nut daily bandwagon.

[gathersnomoss]

G. Gordon is unfortunately not broadcast here in Richmond. So will I be known as a White Anglo-Saxon Union Person? First they remove protection for the flag, then they change it for a rag.

[catholicfreeper]

Tnacredo and Corsi were at the same conference speaking a couple of weeks back. I am sure they got all giddy when they met each other and Viola.

[EternalVigilance]

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45630


Saturday, August 6, 2005

---

---

U.S. sovereignty
slip-sliding away

---

Posted: August 6, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Henry Lamb

---

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

It began in 1994. All the attention was focused on the new WTO emerging from the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations. Little attention was paid to the Summit of the Americas meeting in Miami. The assembled ministers agreed to create a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and that it would be completed by January 2005, entering into force by December 2005.

For ten years, 34 governments have been conducting negotiating sessions throughout the Americas, fashioning a new trade agreement that will swallow up both NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and, quite literally, much of the U.S. Constitution.


The final draft agreement addresses every aspect of trade in the Western Hemisphere and requires that every dimension of the agreement be "WTO compliant." Chapter II contains two provisions that should disqualify the document immediately from any serious consideration by the U.S. Congress.

Article 4.2 contains this language:


4.2. The Parties shall ensure that their laws, regulations and administrative procedures are consistent with the obligations of this Agreement. The rights and obligations under this Agreement are the same for all the Parties, whether Federal or unitary States, including the different levels and branches of government. ...
This language requires that existing laws – at every level of government – be conformed to the requirements of the agreement. It requires that all future laws conform as well. The effect of this agreement takes away law-making power from duly elected representatives of the people and gives it to unelected bureaucrats, most of whom represent foreign nations.

This language is consistent with the WTO, NAFTA and CAFTA, all of which were approved by Congress. Both NAFTA and the WTO have required revisions of dozens of domestic laws. CAFTA will do the same, and the FTAA will continue to take away laws that the peoples' representatives have enacted.

This process is transforming the meaning of national sovereignty. Article 3(g) stipulates that the agreement is governed by the principles of "sovereign equality." This is a term that arises from the 1995 publication of "Our Global Neighborhood," the report of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance. In Chapter II, under the heading Democracy and Legitimacy (page 66), a lengthy discussion proclaims that the concept of national sovereignty must be revised. Ideas are introduced such as:


"... countries are having to accept that in certain fields, sovereignty has to be executed collectively ..." (page 70)
"... there is a need to weigh a state's right to autonomy against its people's right to security." (page 71)

"It is time to think about self-determination in the emerging context of a global neighborhood rather than the traditional context of a world of separate states." (page 337)

Thus, the concept of "sovereign equality" emerges to replace the concept of national sovereignty.


National sovereignty embraces the belief that every nation has equal sovereignty – independent and supreme authority over its territory. "Sovereign equality," on the other hand, is the belief that every nation has equal sovereign authority – under a common, or collective, supreme authority. The FTAA represents this supreme authority in the Western Hemisphere, in much the same way as the European Union seeks to become the supreme authority in Europe, both of which are subservient to the WTO, which functions within the United Nations' family of international organizations.

These two provisions alone should be enough to scrap this agreement. The negotiators have accepted this language, as has the administration. Congress is the only hope Americans have to reject this entangling agreement. Congressmen will not read this language, however. They will listen, instead, to the lobbyists, the arm-twisting messengers from the administration and editorials from the major media.

They will be told that the agreement is an expansion of free trade and that failure to approve the agreement will label the U.S. as isolationist, a rebel in the global neighborhood. These arguments have been successful with NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO. Ordinary people know better.

Ordinary people still have time to be heard on this agreement. Ordinary people elect these representatives, and politicians are dependent upon them for re-election. Ordinary people are the only power on earth greater than the power of the U.S. government. If ordinary people fail to defend their freedom, no one will defend it for them.

The Free Trade Agreement of the Americas is an extraordinary erosion of freedom, for this nation and for every citizen.

---

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

[Spiff]

Why am I not surprised that tancredo jumped on the world nut daily bandwagon.

Well, that would be because leftist scum like you who use a conservative forum like Free Republic to attack conservatives would think that a principled conservative like Rep. Tom Tancredo is nuts.

And this is why you and the rest of the leftist scum Tancredo Trashers hate him:

Rep. Tom Tancredo's ratings from various conservative organizations:
100% "Best and Brightest" Rating from American Conservative Union (one of only 38 other Congressmen)
100% Rating from National Right to Life Committee
100% Rating from Conservative Index (Spring '05 - 75% lifetime, tied for second highest rating)
100% Rating from Concerned Women for America
100% Rating from Christian Coalition
100% Rating from Campaign for Working Families
100% Rating from FreedomWorks
98% Rating from National Tax Limitation Committee (average since 1999)
95% "Taxpayer Hero" Rating from Citizens Against Government Waste
95% Rating from Americans for Tax Reform
95% Rating from Christian Action Network
93% Rating from Eagle Forum (tied for second highest rating)

Rep. Tom Tancredo's ratings from various leftist organizations:
0% Rating from National Education Association
0% Rating from National Organization for Women
0% Rating from Brady Campaign
0% Rating from People for the American Way
0% Rating from Planned Parenthood
0% Rating from Pro-Choice America

[John Lenin]

The writing is on the wall you are just too blind to see it.

[Godebert]

If you have something to say to me you say it directly.

[AmishDude]

I posted this on a previous thread:

What I don't understand is why you think posting another unnecessarily long article makes what you say any more convincing.

[MikefromOhio]

You really are eleven, aren't you. (apologies to eleven-year-olds who know how to act decently.)

Learn to read.

I said "people like you", ie people who think like you do--having absolutely no regard for our national sovereignty.

People like me aren't setting policy these days EV. Neither are people like you and Thank the Good Lord for that. As for if I'm 11 or not, well, that's for me to know and you to continue to guess at. I didn't know 8 year olds like yourself were allowed onto a site like FR.....

[MikefromOhio]

If you have something to say to me you say it directly.

LOL! Who said I was talking to you? NO one. So why don't you bugger off?

[skeeter]

Good g*d the twit factor on this thread sure is high. All the same thanks for posting the article, I'll try to tune in. Should be interesting.

[Dane]

Well, that would be because leftist scum like you who use a conservative forum like Free Republic to attack conservatives would think that a principled conservative like Rep. Tom Tancredo is nuts

Whew, keep on posting spiff, with your rhetoric, stock in Reynolds tin foil looks like a good buy for a long time.

BTW, Spiff how come you never mention that tancredo for the majority of his professional life has worked on the public payroll, especially 12 years of getting a taxpayer paycheck from the Dept. of Education.

Representative, United States House of Representatives, 1999-present
Regional Representative, United States Department of Education, 1981-1993
Representative, Colorado State House of Representatives, 1976-1982

Link

[AmishDude]

The writing is on the wall you are just too blind to see it.

Is this the writing you see?

[jonrick46]

"Not to mention the president himself, calling the Minutemen "vigilantes" from his ranch in Texas, while he was conferring with the Canadian Prime Minister and Vicente Fox?"

I think we should all be against vigilantism because of one good reason: it is too easy for good intentioned people to get hurt because of poor training. I am in favor, like the President, of vigilance. Vigilance that does not endanger people to physical harm from those they are watching is good vigilance. Good vigilant citizens who do not endanger themselves in the process are doing a good. I ask, what do you do if you spot a drug smuggler high on cocaine crossing the border and he decides to kill you? You might get killed if the adrenalin rush causes you to do something stupid. You might be in big danger if your head is spinning from the heat of the Arizona desert.

Vigilantes are those who put themselves in harms way against lawbreakers. They automatically put themselves in such a position because they lack the training specifically for border patrol operations. They also do not have the advanced organizational mechanism that the border patrol possesses. For that reason, they lack the critical ability to change their tactics when those they watch employ an alternate tactic. This operational adeptness is crucial and failure in this one area could have mortal consequences.

This is why President George W Bush, when asked about "those people who are hunting migrant people along the border," he answered: "I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America. I'm for enforcing law in a rational way. That's why you got a Border Patrol, and they ought to be in charge of enforcing the border."

[AmishDude]

If you have something to say to me you say it directly.

LOL! Who said I was talking to you? NO one. So why don't you bugger off?

You think he might be...what's the word?

[Ben Ficklin]

"He sees a North American Fortress, where monopolies can rely on the abundant raw materials, especially energy, and the power of a technologically advanced US Military to smash the competition."

[EternalVigilance]

If these agreements were being forwarded by Bill Clinton, instead of George Bush, how would you react?

[catholicfreeper]

I would feel better about Tancredo pro life record if he wasnt aligned with a bunch of Zero population fantatics and anti pro life people like former Governor Lamm and other nutjobs at FAIR, numbers and the other 6 spin off organizations they have.

[John Lenin]

The Senate bill if passed will in it's current form will open the floodgates to unlimited immigration to the US. You do realize that Citibank has a huge chunk of the Mexican banking system already ?

[Godebert]

"LOL! Who said I was talking to you? NO one. So why don't you bugger off?"

So you weren't referring to me? Seems to me you are not living up to the spirit of the agreement you asked Mr. Robinson to impose. You don't have the guts to debate me one on one so you make snide comments to other posters and then play dumb. What a coward.