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.

[jmc813]

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

They would be howling. You need to understand that these folks opinions are not shaped by principle, logic, or experience, but by cognitive dissonance exclusively, which explains the low quality of their posts on this thread.

Here's a description of this phenomenon.

[jer33 3]

Task Force Report US Embassy

[MikefromOhio]

That's why you guys remain a minority here on FR.

Minority? I don't think so....

[Czar]

Yet we seem to have a crowd at FR who remain in a perpetual state of denial. It's not CFR or NAU that's the problem, it's all of us crazies who keep hollering about sovereignty, borders and culture. You know, the loyal American conservatives.

I think of that other crowd as the pretend-conservatives.

[MikefromOhio]

I think of that other crowd as the pretend-conservatives.

awww.....I know you are by what am I? Seriously, I don't see anything to be extremely worried about, but you all take it to a brand new level.

[Smartass]

"I think of that other crowd as the pretend-conservatives."

Facts are overwhelming, and fantasy is being a blind obedient cheerleader!

[Czar]

"Seriously, I don't see anything to be extremely worried about,..."

Well of course you don't.

And when you do, you'll be neck high in it.

You may want to start paying attention.

[MikefromOhio]

Well of course you don't.

And when you do, you'll be neck high in it.

You may want to start paying attention.

Oh it's already neck-deep in here....except that it's YOU supplying it....care to guess what it is?

[You Dirty Rats]

"Seriously, I don't see anything to be extremely worried about,..." Well of course you don't.

That's funny -- I thought we were all scared to death of Tancredo.

Anyway, us "Bots" have a new theme song, inspired by I-69 and the destruction it will bring to our nation:

'We're on a highway to HELL!!!"

The road to loss of sovereignty is paved with moonbats.

Actually, the conspiracy roadsters have misunderestimated the strategery. The real purpose of the NAU is to enable George W. Bush to circumvent the two-term limit on the Presidency by become El-Presidente for Life of the NAU.

You prefer sour cream or guacamole with that, amigo? That will be fifty Ameros, por favor!

[AmishDude]

You cannot counter the "points" of someone who thinks the sky is plaid. And notice how they argue. Not simple, declarative statements, but long articles, one after the other. They never make a statement and ask you to refute it, they ask you to comment on an entire article. Know why? Because they need to set the scene, they need to set up all of the coincidences and then lead you to the conspiracy. Facts by themselves are a problem, they need the narrative to make the nutcase idea sound plausible.

[AmishDude]

I-69

*giggle*

[hedgetrimmer]

Not simple, declarative statements, but pure, utter nonsense?

Like when someone asks you to define sovereignty?

[You Dirty Rats]

When I see a proposal to create the "North American Marines" then I'll believe this is a hugh and series problem.

Until then all your sovereignty are belong to us.

[AmishDude]

I did. Didn't you read it?

And do you notice that your question was an attempt to put me on the defensive. Suddenly the issue is me and what I think.

[kaizen]

Check out www.spp.gov it tells about what is going on with this issue

[nopardons]

There is no proof, whatsoever, that there is, in actuality, some "MASTER PLAN" to turn the USA, Canada, and Mexico into one gigantic nation; or even something akin to the EU; which isn't working, BTW. This is tinfoil/black helicopter conspiracy junk and nothing more. It has nothing at all to do with ILLEGALS, yet that is what you "see" in it.

There has been NO "reasonable" discussion on the topic, by your side; neither has your side been "civil".

Unlike you and your ilk, who hijack every single thread on FR that you land on, attempting to make it about ILLEGALS, when the topic has less than nothing whatsoever to do with that, by any stretch of the imagination, I was pinged to this thread.....I did NOT "hijack" it in any way, shape, manner, or form. And your childish caviling about "the popular few", is baseless and petty; not to mention ridiculous.

If you really want a "civil discussion", then stop being INCIVIL and at least try to debate. You can begin by stating exactly HOW and WHEN and WITHOUT the populace's agreement, any president, let alone this one, could possibly get away with turning the USA into the "NORTH AMERICAN UNION"? Please explain how this is NOT tinfoil and don't forget to also explain why the Congress and the American people would just accept such a dictatorial move. And while you're at it, explain how the Canadians and the Canadian Parliament would sit still for it as well.

[freedumb2003]

Instead, I vote for "United Socialist States of America (USSA)."

I suspect "Personnes Unies Sin Gringos"

[Smartass]

GEE

For the sake of argument...
I wonder who, when, and where this was all agreed to?
Or is this to just ignored.

[EternalVigilance]

Still nothing of substance to add to the conversation, eh?

Well, at least you're predictable.

[AmishDude]

Well, I could cut and paste a bunch of two-year-old long articles, but I'll leave that to you. Actually, I'm making some very valid points that you have just done a very good job of proving to be true.