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

I know they are disappointed to be in the bottom of the minority barrel on these issues that are in opposition to Bush, but thats no excuse to constantly be getting away with this b.s.

Did you ever consider the possibility that these posters you reference are involved in these little 'projects', or stand to profit from them? There are PLENTY of people out there who would GLADLY put the pursuit of profit and power ahead of their country, their Constitution, and their G-d.

Actually, I'm making some very valid points that you have just done a very good job of proving to be true.

Funny, as hard as I search, all I kind find is personal attack and groundless claims in your posts on this thread.

Sovereignty means what it has always meant: A monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Duh.

And do you notice that your question was an attempt to put me on the defensive

An attempt to establish a common vocabulary to discuss this issue puts you on the defensive?

You cannot counter the "points" of someone who thinks the sky is plaid

370 posted on 06/15/2006 2:19:49 PM PDT by AmishDude (I am the King Nut.)

Suddenly the issue is me and what I think.

An attempt to establish a common vocabulary to discuss this issue puts you on the defensive?

Why do you ask? Once again, no points to be made by you and your ilk. Just long articles and questions of me.

O-K. I -- w-i-l-l--s-a-y--t-h-i-s--v-e-r-y--s-l-o-w-l-y--s-o--y-o-u--w-i-l-l--u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d--i-t.

Some are claiming there is no issue of sovereignty with these agreements. Others do. Lets work from one definition of sovereignty and see who is right.

You post your opinion, but you don't want people to ask how you arrived at it? Why would you bother?

There is no proof, whatsoever, that there is, in actuality, some "MASTER PLAN" to turn the USA, Canada, and Mexico into one gigantic nation.

There is proof, whatsoever, that there is, in actuality, some "MASTER PLAN" to turn the USA, Canada, and Mexico into one gigantic "free trade" zone. The FTAA through NAFTA and CAFTA.

No there isn't ONE as you say, there are multiple plans being executed by multiple government agencies, including the department of commerce, the department of transportation, the USTR office, the US department of State and the Treasury department, USA NADBank, Inter-American development bank ad nauseum. So you are correct in that statement there's no one plan, but incorrect in its substance.

Gee, I wonder who, when and where an agreement was made to change our money? Or, our we to ignore this too? Are all of these people, like Jerome Corsi, Ann Coulter, Robert Novak on Human Events etc., just a bunch of liars? I don't think so!

Immigration

The Plan to Replace the Dollar With the 'Amero'

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted May 22, 2006

The idea to form the North American Union as a super-NAFTA knitting together Canada, the United States and Mexico into a super-regional political and economic entity was a key agreement resulting from the March 2005 meeting held at Baylor University in Waco, Tex., between President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin.

A joint statement published by the three presidents following their Baylor University summit announced the formation of an initial entity called, “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The joint statement termed the SPP a “trilateral partnership” that was aimed at producing a North American security plan as well as providing free market movement of people, capital, and trade across the borders between the three NAFTA partners:

We will establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our borders.

A working agenda was established:

We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has produced a SPP website, which documents how the U.S. has implemented the SPP directive into an extensive working agenda.

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.

The North American Union is envisioned to create a super-regional political authority that could override the sovereignty of the United States on immigration policy and trade issues. In his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Pastor, the Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, stated clearly the view that the North American Union would need a super-regional governance board to make sure the United States does not dominate the proposed North American Union once it is formed:

NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual bilateralism, driven by U.S. power, continue to govern and irritate. Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance that rules, not power, will resolve problems.

This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new North American Advisory Council. Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European Commission, the Commission or Council should be lean, independent, and advisory, composed of 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation. Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the implementation of the resulting agreements.

Pastor was a vice chairman of the CFR task force that produced the report “Building a North American Union.”

Pastor also proposed the creation of a Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment with the view that “a permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” The intent is for this North American Union Tribunal would have supremacy over the U.S. Supreme Court on issues affecting the North American Union, to prevent U.S. power from “irritating” and retarding the progress of uniting Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. into a new 21st century super-regional governing body.

Robert Pastor also advises the creation of a North American Parliamentary Group to make sure the U.S. Congress does not impede progress in the envisioned North American Union. He has also called for the creation of a North American Customs and Immigration Service which would have authority over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security.

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.

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.

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.

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

Link to SSP.gov

SPP

It's a shame that so many FReepers are in the dark
or better put, want to accept fantasy? There's a
ton of information to support any argument on the
NWO, or North American Union.

Lets work from one definition of sovereignty and see who is right.

I am.

Some are claiming there is no issue of sovereignty with these agreements.

There isn't.

"There is no proof, whatsoever, that there is, in actuality, some "MASTER PLAN" to turn the USA, Canada, and Mexico into one gigantic nation."

To: nopardons...is the subject matter below... true or false?
And, please thoroughly research the info before you answer.

Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010

March 14, 2005
Council on Foreign Relations

Press Release: French| Spanish

March 14, 2005 - Three former high-ranking government officials from Canada, Mexico, and the United States are calling for a North American economic and security community by 2010 to address shared security threats, challenges to competitiveness, and interest in broad-based development across the three countries.

Former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of FinanceJohn P. Manley, former Finance Minister of MexicoPedro Aspe, and former Governor of Massachusetts and Assistant U.S. Attorney General William F. Weld make policy recommendations to articulate a long-term vision for North America in a Chairmen's Statement of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.

Chief Executive of the Canadian Council of Chief ExecutivesThomas d'Aquino, President of the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales Andres Rozental, and Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University Robert A. Pastor serve as vice chairs of the Task Force. Chappell H. Lawson, associate professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the director.

The statement was released in Washington, DC today in advance of the upcoming North American Summit on March 23 in Texas with President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and Mexican President Vicente Fox. It reflects the consensus of the chairs and vice chairs. In the spring, the Task Force will release its complete report, which will assess the results of the Texas summit and reflect the views of the full membership.

Findings and recommendations:

Build a North American economic and security community by 2010. To enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity for all North Americans, the chairs propose a community defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.

Create the institutions necessary for a North American community. The chairs propose annual summit meetings among the three countries and the creation of a North American Advisory Council to prepare for and implement the decisions made at the summits.

Enhance North American competitiveness with a common external tariff. Over the last decade, nations around the world, from China to India to Latin America to the expanded membership of the European Union, have become increasingly integrated into the global market. To meet these challenges to North American competitiveness, the chairs recommend that the three governments negotiate a common external tariff on a sector-by-sector basis at the lowest rate consistent with multilateral obligations: "Unwieldy rules of origin, increasing congestion at ports of entry, and regulatory differences among the three countries raise our costs instead of reducing them."

Develop a border pass for North Americans. The chairs propose a border pass, with biometric indicators, which would allow expedited passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout North America. "The governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically reducing the need for physical scrutiny of traffic, travel, and trade within North America."

Adopt a unified Border Action Plan. The three governments should "strive toward a situation in which a terrorist trying to penetrate our borders will have an equally hard time doing so no matter which country he elects to enter first. "First steps should include: harmonized visa and asylum regulations; joint inspection of container traffic entering North American ports; and synchronized screening and tracking of people, goods, and vessels, including integrated "watch" lists. Security cooperation should extend to counterterrorism and law enforcement, and could include the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence center and joint training for law enforcement officials. On the defense front, the most important step is to expand the binational North American Aerospace Defense Command to make it a multi-service Canada-U.S. command with a mandate to protect the maritime as well as air approaches to North America. Canada and the United States should invite Mexico to consider closer military cooperation in the future.

Narrow the development gap with Mexico. While trade and investment flows have increased dramatically, the development gap between Mexico and its two northern neighbors has widened. "Low wages and lack of economic opportunity in parts of Mexico stimulate undocumented immigration, and contribute to human suffering, which sometimes translates into violence." Mexico must increase its rate of economic growth and decide on the steps it will take to attract investment and stimulate growth. As a matter of their own national interests, the United States and Canada should assist Mexico by establishing a North American Investment Fund, designed to channel resources for the purpose of connecting the poorer parts of the country to the markets in the north.

Develop a North American energy and natural resource security strategy. Canada and Mexico are the two largest oil exporters to the United States; Canada alone supplies the United States with over 95% of its imported natural gas and 100% of its imported electricity. The three governments should expand and protect energy infrastructure, fully exploit continental reserves, conserve fossil fuels, and reduce emissions. "Regional collaboration on conservation and emissions could form the basis for a North American alternative to the Kyoto protocol."

Deepen educational ties. "Given its historical, cultural, political, and economic ties, North America should have the largest educational exchange network in the world." To that end, the chairs recommend expanding scholarship and exchange programs, developing Centers for North American Studies in all three countries, and cross-border training programs for school teachers.

Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, national membership organization and a nonpartisan center for scholars dedicated to producing and disseminating ideas so that individual and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens in the United States and other countries, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments.

The Mexican Council on Foreign Relations(COMEXI) is the only multi-disciplinary organization committed to fostering sophisticated, broadly inclusive political discourse and analysis on the nature of Mexico's participation in the international arena and the relative influence of Mexico's increasingly global orientation on domestic priorities. The Council is an independent, non-profit, pluralistic forum, with no government or institutional ties that is financed exclusively by membership dues and corporate support. The main objectives of COMEXI are to provide information and analysis of interest to our associates, as well as to create a solid institutional framework for the exchange of ideas concerning pressing world issues that affect our country.

Founded in 1976, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives is Canada's premier business association, with an outstanding record of achievement in matching entrepreneurial initiative with sound public policy choices. A not-for-profit, non-partisan organization composed of the chief executives of 150 leading Canadian enterprises, the CCCE was the Canadian private sector leader in the development and promotion of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement during the 1980s and of the subsequent trilateral North American Free Trade Agreement.

Source: Click Here

I find it amazing that you think that posting an overly long article that no one will read will make your point more persuasively.

Oh, this won't do...it's from the CFR website, and EVERYONE knows they "don't exist".

"I find it amazing that you think that posting an overly long article that no one will read will make your point more persuasively.

The question is very simple...no hidden meanings, just a true or false will do?

:o)

It is true in the sense that the Council on Foreign Relations

Ooooooeeeeeoooooooo

published it.

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.

Some of those articles and press releases were made in the last few months from our own government websites. You have yet to make one comment that would even sway me to your perspective. Might your factless comments mean that your guns are empty?

You start with a premise: A secret plan to make a North American Superstate and then publish articles from .gov sites talking about dipomatic rubber chicken conferences. That's kind of the definition of a paranoid.

http://www.focal.ca/pdf/NorthAmerica.pdf

Overcoming Obstacles on the Road to North American
Integration: A View from Canada
by Stacey Wilson-Forsberg, Policy Analyst FOCAL
Page 4

http://www.ccd21.org/news/north_american_community_pastor.htm

A North American Community
3 April 2006

In an editorial in the March 27 international edition of Newsweek, CCD Board Member and Vice President of International Affairs at American University, Robert Pastor, calls for the US, Canada, and Mexico to form a North American Community for economic and security reasons.

The formation of a North American Community, Pastor argues, offers the only real long term solution to illegal immigration to the US. He asserts that until jobs pay more in Mexico, Mexicans will continue the journey to the United States looking for work. Pastor explains, “Roughly 90 percent of all Mexican illegal immigrants leave jobs to come to the United States; they seek higher wages. Illegal immigration is unlikely to shrink until the income gap begins to narrow.”

Pastor urges North Americans to learn from the experiences of the EU regarding immigration. He writes,

When the European Union added Greece, Spain and Portugal as member countries in the 1980s, it channeled massive amounts of aid to these newcomers and Ireland to narrow the income gap separating them from more-prosperous nations like Germany and France. About half of the $500 billion in aid was spent unwisely; the best investments were in roads and communications linking these four countries to richer markets. Between 1986 and 2003, the per capita GDP of the four nations rose from 65 percent of the average EU member country's economic output to 82 percent. Spain spent much of the $120 million it received on new roads that boosted commerce and tourism. As a result, Spanish immigration to other EU countries all but ceased. Ireland now ranks as the second richest member of the EU in per capita terms—and for the first time in its history, it is actually receiving rather than sending immigrants.

Pastor suggests that the Mexico, the US and Canada should spend $200 billion to improve the infrastructure of southern Mexico in order to connect it to broader markets. Half of the funding would come from Mexico, 40% from the US, and ten percent from Canada. Pastor maintains that investment in Mexico will “also benefit the U.S. economically”, and notes that the $80 billion would be equivalent to just one third of the Iraq War’s costs.

Additionally, he argues that a North American Community could provide enhanced security. The creation of a broader security perimeter around the entire region “would… supplement rather than replace existing border-protection systems.”