Skip to comments.
Corsi, Tancredo on Liddy to Challenge WH unauthorized work on 'North American Union'
World Net Daily ^
| June 14, 2006
| WND
Posted on 06/14/2006 1:22:02 PM PDT by 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.
TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: 1getalifekooks; amishdudelies; barkingmoonbats; bedlam; bellevue; boobbait; buchananparkdeux; buildtheroad; conspiracynuts; corsi; cuespookymusic; doooooooooooooomed; economictreason; emporerhasnoclothes; farah; fox; ggordonliddy; globalistsundermybed; hedgeisaknucklehead; insane; kookism; kooks; koolaid; leftistmoonbats; libertarians; mexico; moonbats; morethorazineplease; nafta; namericanunion; nau; northamericanunion; notthiscrapagain; nutcases; nutjobs; paranoia; preciousbodilyfluids; prosperity; sellout; sovereignty; spp; stupidity; tancredo; theboogeyman; theskyisnotfalling; tinfoil; tinfoilhats; tinfoilnuttery; us; wnd; workinggroup
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660, 661-680, 681-700 ... 741-756 next last
To: texastoo; jer33 3; Czar; nicmarlo; WestCoastGal; Kenny Bunk; who knows what evil?; ...
That's absolute insane fiscal policy, and more like fleecing the U.S. treasury to bail out the rich that invested into a corrupt Mexico. And all done at the expense of Joe Taxpayer, under the watchful eye of the Clinton administration. Follow the money, and you'll always find the Clintons building a nest for themselves! When Clinton ran, NAFTA was a huge election issue, he claimed he was against it. However, when he got into office, he obviously lied to the American people, which wasn't an anomaly, and signed it into law. NAFTA started another wave of human Mexican tsunami. Clinton, the globalist that he pretended not to be, didn't do squat to close or control the border either. We find out now, that Clinton attended a few Bilderberg meetings prior his presidency.
661
posted on
06/17/2006 10:45:25 PM PDT
by
Smartass
(Believe in God - And forgive us our trash baskets as we forgive those who put trash in our baskets)
To: hedgetrimmer
I guess Hillary's Health Care Task Force would have qualified as a working group.
662
posted on
06/18/2006 8:54:49 AM PDT
by
tertiary01
(Soviet style debating tactics invented tinfoiling the opposition.)
To: Smartass
NAFTA isn't a treaty. It is an AGREEMENT.
663
posted on
06/18/2006 8:56:08 AM PDT
by
tertiary01
(Soviet style debating tactics invented tinfoiling the opposition.)
To: tertiary01
I guess Hillary's Health Care Task Force would have qualified as a working group
In the context of this discussion, I believe you are right. By its very structure, this group was set up to be facilititated to come up with a predetermined outcome.
History White House Health Care Interdepartmental Working Group
As a part of his Health Care Reform initiative, President Clinton simultaneously created the Task Force on National Health Care Reform and the White House Health Care Interdepartmental Working Group on January 25, 1993. The cabinet-level Task Force, chaired by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was given primary responsibility for providing advice and making recommendations to the President regarding the national health care reform package.
The Interdepartmental Working Group, a separate entity from the Task Force, was created to gather information on previous health care reform initiatives, generate ideas and formulate alternative options in meetings, and present those options for consideration by the Task Force. The scope of their research included state and international health care policies. Both the Task Force and the Interdepartmental Working Group were given instructions to fulfill their duties in consideration of President Clintons goal to have a comprehensive national health care reform bill passed within the first hundred days of his administration.
The Interdepartmental Working Group was loosely organized into a hierarchical structure of cluster groups, working groups, and subgroups. The Working Group included over 500 participants from both the public and private sector. The participants represented federal agencies, state agencies, congressional offices, non-profit organizations, health care professionals and activists.
The concept of membership in working groups was loosely defined and extremely fluid; individuals moved from one group to another or new participants were added when their knowledge on an issue was needed. Overall responsibility for the organic design of the Interdepartmental Working Group rested with Ira Magaziner, White House Senior Domestic Policy Advisor. Later, Magaziner took a role as an advisor to the working groups, a sounding board for new ideas from various participants, and a representative who forwarded the working groups final proposals to the Task Force.
664
posted on
06/18/2006 9:15:44 AM PDT
by
hedgetrimmer
("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
To: tertiary01
"
NAFTA isn't a treaty. It is an AGREEMENT
My post must have gone over your head.
There is little or no difference between the two.
I suggest you read it over, and also read:
Treaties and Agreements
665
posted on
06/18/2006 11:45:29 AM PDT
by
Smartass
(Believe in God - And forgive us our trash baskets as we forgive those who put trash in our baskets)
To: hedgetrimmer
OMGLOL
The DPW deal was a transaction between a British firm and a UAE firm. LOLOLOL
To: Smartass
I'm sorry I posted before reading you great posts! Since I had inquired about this at the beginning of thread I had hoped I would be pinged instead of having to wade through the thread. Again, I appreciate your posts.
667
posted on
06/18/2006 11:59:14 AM PDT
by
tertiary01
(Soviet style debating tactics invented tinfoiling the opposition.)
To: DLfromthedesert
I looked all over for photos of that convoy of flatbeds loaded with UN trucks on some Interstate somewhere. The kooks were out in force the day that photo was posted here.
To: AmishDude
I am astounded that one can go hours, if not days, flapping one's arms and squawking about "working groups," and when one finally gets a response, ignores it and proceeds with the argument on would've made in the first place. Absolute genius.
To: hedgetrimmer
By its very structure, this group was set up to be facilititated to come up with a predetermined outcome . . . . Thus the name, "working group." Amazing, isn't it?
To: tertiary01
No apologies necessary. There is a lot of information to wade through alright. The topic and subject matter is neither small, nor trivial. What some of us are attempting to do, is to not spend time in unnecessary argument, but instead to pool or share our information to keep better informed.
671
posted on
06/18/2006 12:17:08 PM PDT
by
Smartass
(Believe in God - And forgive us our trash baskets as we forgive those who put trash in our baskets)
To: William Terrell
672
posted on
06/18/2006 12:23:36 PM PDT
by
AmishDude
(I am the King Nut.)
To: AmishDude
Does it hurt? Why, yes, it does. Trying to educate rockheads is always painful. Thanks for asking.
673
posted on
06/18/2006 1:12:38 PM PDT
by
William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
To: Smartass
""There has been no indication of public interest in the publication of these agreements."What they mean is: "There can be no uproar over, or condemnation of, what we are doing, as long as we keep it hidden from the public."
Every paragraph is a study in bureaucratic denial, stonewalling and bobbing and weaving, to keep as much as possible away from American citizens.
Yet Washington wonders why public distrust of the federal government is so high.
674
posted on
06/18/2006 2:03:33 PM PDT
by
Czar
( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
To: Smartass
"Follow the money, and you'll always find the Clintons building a nest for themselves!"One certainty in an uncertain world...
675
posted on
06/18/2006 2:14:47 PM PDT
by
Czar
( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
To: Czar
Exactly. I saved and read the material once, and will read it again. I also have to get into some mentioned statutes. But in all appearances, other then terrorist related agreements and secret arms sales, there are a number that they want hidden from public view, or scrutiny. I find this part of the report also troubling:
"We note that the Department already forgoes the reporting of such agreements to Congress when they involve grants of less than $25 million. The Department will continue to report to Congress those letters of agreement and memoranda of understanding for bilateral assistance over $25 million."
Just under 25Mil isn't exactly chump change. I've always said, that government at all levels, have to much easy taxpayer dollars to unaccountably play with. All monies expended should be accounted for.
676
posted on
06/18/2006 2:23:28 PM PDT
by
Smartass
(Believe in God - And forgive us our trash baskets as we forgive those who put trash in our baskets)
To: Smartass
""We note that the Department already forgoes the reporting of such agreements to Congress when they involve grants of less than $25 million."So a sneaky bureaucrat might decide to promulgate a number of these kinds of agreements, risk free, knowing that he dosen't have to report anything unless it exceeds $25M. That's why a dollar trip-switch to determine reporting requirements for certain kinds of transactions is dangerous. The substance and significance of the underlying transaction is far more important than mere dollar amounts.
It isn't set up this way by accident.
Can you say, "plausible deniability"?
I knew you could...
677
posted on
06/18/2006 2:44:47 PM PDT
by
Czar
( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
To: Czar
I think a good comparison coulde be, that when we file our income tax returns, totals are rounded to the dollar. Our benevolent "Bilderberg" related politicians want to round out there reporting at plus or minus 25 million. Yes, "plausible deniability" would be a fair chartacterization term.
678
posted on
06/18/2006 2:54:29 PM PDT
by
Smartass
(Believe in God - And forgive us our trash baskets as we forgive those who put trash in our baskets)
Comment #679 Removed by Moderator
To: William Terrell
Thinking does usually flummox those with a room temperature IQ.
If you want me to respond to your paranoid delusional inanity, I will do it, but I need to be assured that your head will not explode.
680
posted on
06/18/2006 4:34:46 PM PDT
by
AmishDude
(I am the King Nut.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660, 661-680, 681-700 ... 741-756 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson