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.

[jer33 3]

Yep, I should have read that sentence again before posting.

[Smartass]

Sorry I didn't get back sooner to all you good folks.  Had to go shopping and do some real government work, or else...lol, not eat.   Good to see the thread didn't die, is still alive and well with some worthwhile input.

Kenny Bunk's thread title is: "Corsi, Tancredo on Liddy to Challenge WH unauthorized work on 'North American Union." "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."

My take on the topic.   Sticking with Kenny Bunk's topic and theme, I believe Corsi and Tom Tancredo's questions may lie in the U.S. Constitution, of separation of powers and duties thereof authorized by same.   "In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law.   U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole executive agreements.   All three classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law.  The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification (by the 2/3rds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone) and their relationship to domestic law.   Also, since congress has control over the purse strings, the up and coming hearing will hinge on the patented questions of who, what, where, and when to determine the legality of the  SPP  office at post #304, and why congress was not informed of it's creation, and oversight.   Since NAFTA is by all definitions a treaty approved by two branches of our government (congress and executive), and signed by the governments of Canada and Mexico, therefore, any treaty expansion[s], changes, alterations of, must be re approved by the same branches of government that first conceived them.   It's called governmental checks and balances.   IMO, since this has been brougth up as such, and if  SPP  was in fact legally setup, there would not be any need of a congressional hearing[s].  Since the question has been raised, hence, a political flap.

 

 

[jer33 3]

Despite the growth in support, the issue once again receded, and discussions of monetary union faded into the background. There were several reasons, many economic, including the surge in value of the Canadian dollar, which in the second quarter of 2003 leapt above 77 cents U.S., the highest that it had reached in a decade. But it was also clear to many analysts that U.S. interest in a NAMU was muted at best. Security at the U.S.–Canada border continued to be their most pressing and enduring concern, and a NAMU offered little if anything in the way of mitigating these concerns. Thus, interest shifted toward presenting the United States with another kind of proposal, a ‘‘big idea’’ that could capture U.S. attention.6

The first such proposal emerged just weeks after the terrorist attacks. Michael Hart and Bill Dymond, both former trade officials during the CUFTA negotiations, argued for presenting the United States with a new Canadian initiative, much as had been donein the CUFTA negotiations of the 1980s (Hart and Dymond 2001, 1). They proposed deepening trade more incrementally than would a NAMU, but argued for including other items of interest to the United States in the mix, such as security and immigration. Only by linking economic and security concerns, they suggested, could a future ‘‘North America that is more open, more secure, and more prosperous’’ be ensured (ibid., 4).

The need for a ‘‘big idea’’ was reiterated in the first of the Border Series papers issued by the C. D. Howe Institute, a right-leaning research institute that published Courchene and Harris’s proposal for a NAMU. Wendy Dobson’s (2002) paper, Shaping the Future of the North American Economic Space, became a catalyst for discussions of North American integration. Like Hart and Dymond, she too recommends that Canada put forth a ‘‘big idea’’ to pique the interest of the United States. Her preferred model is a ‘‘strategic bargain’’ that would extend the liberalization of trade begun with CUFTA by implementing elements of both a customs union and a common market.

See more: The Inevitability of Integration?

[William Terrell]

I love how you ask 1000 questions but never bother to find out a single answer.

There are answers available that don't fit the mold of don't worry, be happy. Ok.

Let me ask one question.

What makes you think. . .,

1) When there is CRF working paper collaborated on by some no-doubt serious thinkers, and officially published

2) People in offices of honor, trust and profit say, in so many words, publicly, that their aims are consistent with the CFR document, including the chief executive

3) Our chief executive meets with chief executives of Mexico, and Canada and signs agreements to consolidate into one American sovereignty, consistent with the aims of the CFR document

4) There are actual actions being undertaken currently that execute the specific working requirements of the CFR document,

5) Other than extra watchers on the border, not having the power to interfere, there being no action to stem the flow of Mexicans, when executive action can remedy it completely on a relatively low budget,

Many of the statements in support of inaction on the Mexican border are routinely shown to be patently false on their face, meaning deeper motivations are implied

. . .that the changes at issue here are not being in fact carried out?

[Smartass]

It was summed up on page 17 of the "Postscript."

Many treaties that are as large and bold as NAFTA will have built in problems to work out.   However, with the passage of NAFTA, along with amnesty that was granted in 1986, both were suppose to correct the flow of illegal immigration, clearly that didn't happen. In fact there are 30 million or more reasons that it got worse.   What's being proposed now in S-2611 and heaped on the American people is DAMNESTY in it's worst form. It’s estimated that the Social Security system will be broke by the year 2020. Many younger people on this forum that aren't on social security yet, had better be saving up. Because if the present millions upon millions of illegal immigrants that will be included in that benefit, will accelerate the dry up that much quicker.

 

[AmishDude]

Read the document? READ THE DOCUMENT???

You posted over 1000 pages of documents. And I wasn't referring to just one question.

[AmishDude]

What's it like?

[Czar]

Very good reference sources.

[Smartass]

Thank you...
There's been a host of FReepers that have done an excellent job on this thread, to research the topic, and keep things in proper perspective.

 

[nygoose]

What are we waiting for?

[texastoo]

Congress knows what is going on and are fully aware of these treaties and agreements. Congress may not be aware or fully informed after this bill is passed.

I found this the other night and can see the dangers in this bill passing.

Public Notice 5402: Proposal to update the regulations implementing 1 U.S.C. 112a and 112b, May 18, 2006

[Federal Register: May 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 96)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 28831-28835]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18my06-22]

snip...

``United States Treaties and Other International
Agreements'' or in the Treaties and Other International Acts series.
These categories of agreements are of a highly technical or specialized
nature and are of limited interest to the public. Further, the
regulations are proposed to be amended to reflect adjustments to
certain internal procedures within the State Department on the
reporting of international agreements to Congress

snip....

(2) The public interest in such agreements is insufficient to
justify their publication, because (A) as of the date of enactment of
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995,
the agreements are no longer in force; (B) the agreements do not create
private rights or duties, or establish standards intended to govern
government action in the treatment of private individuals; (C) in view
of the limited or specialized nature of the public interest in such
agreements, such interest can adequately be satisfied by an alternative
means; or (D) the public disclosure of the text of the agreement would,
in the opinion of the President, be prejudicial to the national
security of the United States; and

snip...

In selecting the following categories of agreements, the Department
has focused on four areas comprising a large volume of agreements that
are rather specialized and do not appear to be of general public
interest.

snip....

There is little, if any,
public interest in these agreements.

snip....

there has been no indication of public interest in their substance.

snip....

There has been no indication of public interest in the publication of
these agreements.

snip....

Finally, the Department proposes to add a new section 22 CFR 181.9
that implements an Internet publication requirement. Public Law 108-458
specifically added subsection (d) to 1 U.S.C. 112a, establishing that
``[t]he Secretary of State shall make publicly available through the
Internet Web site of the Department of State each treaty or
international agreement proposed to be published in the compilation
entitled `United States Treaties and Other International Agreements'
not later than 180 days after the date on which the treaty or agreement
enters into force.

http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/66501.htm

[Smartass]

Thanks for the Ping...

"There has been no indication of public interest in the publication of these agreements."

Gad, I wonder why? Out of sight, out of mind, huh!
From the sound of your post, the State Department
makes changes, then informs Congress after the fact.
An a$$backwards way of doing business.

 

[texastoo]

Read the bill. This bill is about treaties and agreements and the publics right to know.

Yea, I know, the excuse will be terrorism.

[DLfromthedesert]

I heard someone call Art Bell a few years back all freaked out because he saw a convoy on I 10 in AZ LOL

[Smartass]

:o)

 

[Mojave]

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2005/Mar/23-209281.html

[texastoo]

I appreciate your posts and the information you have looked up.

NAFTA had just been passed when the Mexican crisis happened. It was always rumored that Washington insiders and the Clinton WH knew about this. Clinton acted like this was a surprise to him but rumors were that the peso had to be devalued for NAFTA. Prior to the crisis, the peso traded 2 to 3 to the dollar. Right afterwards the peso traded about 5 to 6 to the dollar. Now it is 11 to the dollar. Lloyd Benston the Sec. of Treasury negotiated a $6 billion bailout in the NAFTA agreement. Lloyd Benston resigned right before the peso crisis.

Supposedly, Mexico implemented reforms immediately.

Los Angeles Times reported: "Three weeks after it started receiving one of the biggest and most controversial credit packages in U.S. history, the Mexican government has spent a fifth of the $20 billion in promised U.S. loans to pay off American insurance companies, mutual fund investors, Wall Street brokerage houses, Mexican banks and the richest of Mexico's rich."The U.S. sent an initial instalment of $5.2 billion to Mexican accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York on March 15. "Much of the money never left New York, where it was used to redeem the high-profit bonds, held primarily by major American institutions, Wall Street speculators and wealthy Mexicans who bought the securities largely through non-taxable offshore corporations."As of early April, as much as 90 percent of the securities the Mexican government had bought back went into the bank accounts of U.S. investors or Mexicans living abroad.

snip...

Goldman & Sacks reported loses on $5.17 billion in Mexican securities; J.P. Morgan underwrote $2.01 billion in securities (Warnock 1995: 6-7). Bankers Trust, the seventh-largest bank in the U.S. was forced cut 1,400 jobs due to major losses in the first quarter of 1995 due to the downturn in Latin markets. The bank lost a total of $157 million between January and March 1995,compared with a profit of $164 million a year earlier.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:UddonNU_obgJ:www.yorku.ca/cerlac/documents/Cameron.pdf+mexican+peso++float+1993&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=12#15

[texastoo]

Read (2) (D) in my above post.

[Smartass]

Will do...I saved it, and will read it all later.

 

[William Terrell]

LOL. You're fun. I want to think you for being involved in this thread. You've been of great service.