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.

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.

Oh, no! A think tank, publishing papers??? What's next, a cable company distributing television shows?

So, you admit there is a published paper laying out the groundwork for an American union with northern and southern countries.

The phrase "so many words" means references to a proposed concept expressed in words other than one would use himself.

You've heard yourself the president refer in many ways to the concept of an an American union with our neighboring counties. You saw a bill passed in the Senate that virtually dissolves our border with Mexico, a border being to keep people outside from getting in. If no border, no country, you dig?

Over the past decade I've seen many references to a consolidation of the Americas into a regional union, which will form a regional sovereignty. I've heard Alan Greespan refer to it, Bush Senior, Bubba, and numerous bureaucratic functionaries in executive agencies.

Public papers and memoranda refer to it. And every word from the mouth of officials consistent with opening our southern border make reference to it. If you were of a reasonable age in the '50s and '60s, you would have a sense of the state of America at that time and have a reference point.

In the last six months, here on FR, there have been posted a lot of references to public official documents, available to anyone, with statements of intent by federal government officials of one level or another, and reports on peripheral issues that bear on the American consolidation quoting statements of intent of opening the Canadian and Mexican border. Surely you must have read them.

But, standing out from all the lesser, the chief executive has been working obviously to that end. This isn't a conspiracy, it's right out front, which is probably how you miss it. You're look for secret conspiracies.

And people are just beginning to understand what it means in their lives.

What the copulation are you talking about? You don't even know what sovereignty means, you're like Vizzini in The Princess Bride, using "inconceivable" over and over again. I posted a nice concise definition of sovereignty (hint, "sovereignty" is not whatever you decide it is), but I guess you were too busy to notice.

I'm talking about agreements executed by our president with the executives of Mexico and Canada. I believe several references to it are on this thread, with excerpts.

Sovereignty is the right, given by law or might, to make the final choice in a matter. Sovereignty is transfered from its natural source to a political entity by law and statute.

In America, it is acknowledged that sovereignty resides with the people. This is because any individual can make a final choice in any matter, unless he is restrained, or deterred.

A law against spitting on the sidewalk does not dry your mouth up. You may still choose to spit. That there may be sanction has nothing to do with it. The act is already done.

The transfer process must continually be exercised by the individual when in the presence of a sidewalk, the individual deciding to spit sometimes or not sometimes.

Sovereignty is on loan to any artificial entity like a government and can be withdrawn at any time. One person at the proper time and place can chose an action that can topple a nation, in spit of any custom, law, regulation or convention to the contrary.

What??? Only in your diseased mind. Where do you get this crap? There isn't anything "consistent with" anything here except your posts and manure. They're TRADE AGREEMENTS, you loony. You've started with a premise and now you'll be damned if you'll let facts get in the way.

Is it necessary to call me names like an ill raised child?

Trade powers are the backbone of a national and international entity, especially if there is a regulatory force outside our law which trumps our law in the areas covered.

It's been consistently the ruling of the courts that implied powers peripheral to a specified power are as real as the specified power. Therefore, any national pollicy, custom, regulation, or law that affects trade and is affected by trade are within the realm of the clauses of any trade agreement.

We have seen the effects of NAFTA, for example, and they are consistent with the breakdown of discrete nation of people. The effect advertised before passage were exactly opposite. It has to be presumed under those circumstances that the effects observed must be the effects planned.

Wording consistent with a common parameter border around the three countries and elimination of internal ones are found in these "trade agreements" and some posted to this thread.

They are somewhat more than "trade agreements" in their actual effects.

Actual actions, eh? Well, that shows me. Those virtual actions just don't have the same impact.

Yes, actual actions. Noninterference with illegal entry from Mexico, refusal of the executive to enforce the current laws that would eliminate illegal immigration, and, in some cases, facilitate it, the obvious working relationship between Bush and Fox with Fox demanding and Bush complying, construction of a very large corridor from Mexico to Canada where none is needed but to facilitate merging of the nations, hard work with congressmen and senators and even executive threats against same to craft legislation consistent with what the CRF document calls for, executive agencies created and administered to take action consistent with the initiatives of the working paper, and, in the last year or two outright, unhidden efforts along that line.

I can go on.

Think about what you are saying. You're saying, not the CFR, but a paper published by the CFR is now pulling the strings of everybody in government.

No, the policy crafted by many in the central government is being expressed and organized in the CRF document. Actions indicate that it's policies are being implemented.

Dude, I hope you don't try to order a Geno's cheesesteak, because there ain't no English in that incoherent nonsense.

Then read it more carefully. I said, "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."

The president put Guard troops on the border. You knew about that, right? They have no executive powers at all, all they can do is watch and be there.

Their orders could have been otherwise, allowed by Posse Comitatus. I thought this was pretty clear in the way I phrased it. How would you have said it?

The President of the United State of America is the chief executive. There are many ways the chief executive can use the laws of the US to discourage and eliminate any large population of illegal entrants.

An executive agency dedicated to examining and prosecuting employers, and correcting mistakes made in specific prosecutions for the success of future prosecutions (think of the IRS and its evolution) can be established at a fraction of the cost of any other executive agency, and the illegals would deport themselves withing a half decade, dwindling to the point that the funds needed to run the agency diminish.

No duh, Sherlock, but Bush can't come out and say, "Yes, we would like very much that the Commie not win in the June elections in Mexico." That is playing a minor role in all of this, if you've been paying attention. Unless, of course, you are in favor of the Communists...

I could care less who runs Mexico so long as they resist commingling of our nations.

But I was talking about reasons like "We can't deport them all." , while no one asked for that; deport them piecemeal over time and do things that make them want to leave, "Illegals do jobs Americans won't do." noting that I did those jobs when I was younger, and students and migrant types here in the country will do them, and students look for summer work. There have been other, more complicated, statements, but these are the top two.

You know, the weird sentence structure is supposed to sound erudite but it just makes you sound like a kid playing grown up.

Sorry you don't like my phrasing.

Do you know why they put canaries in mines? Well, there is the analogue of canaries in the American population, and that's what you're hearing on this thread.

Edmund Burke said to the English Parliament during the rebellion of the American colonists,

"This study (reading law) renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterious, prompt in attack, ready in defense, full of resources. In other countries, the people, more simple and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill principal in government only by an actual grievance; HERE THEY ANTICIPATE THE EVIL, AND JUDGE OF THE PRESSURE OF THE GRIEVANCE BY THE BADNESS OF THE PRINCIPAL. They augur misgovernment from a distance, and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze."

He was talking about canaries. The canaries are chirping now, and you, as a miner, should listen.

So, you admit there is a published paper laying out the groundwork for an American union with northern and southern countries.

First, I don't know that it says what you claim it says. The fact is, setting up a whole new country is kinda technical. Second, IT'S A FREAKIN' PAPER! What is wrong with you?

You've heard yourself the president refer in many ways to the concept of an an American union with our neighboring counties.

No. And not even with the word "countries", either. Sorry.

You saw a bill passed in the Senate that virtually dissolves our border with Mexico, a border being to keep people outside from getting in. If no border, no country, you dig?

From stupid premise to idiotic hyperbole. Where to begin? It doesn't "virtually dissolve our border with Mexico", bad as it is. If you are going to string facts together to draw a conclusion, you can't go around making things up.

Over the past decade I've seen many references to a consolidation of the Americas into a regional union, which will form a regional sovereignty.

Where? Oh, wait...

Are you a regular listener to the George Noory program?

Oh, what does sovereignty mean?

If you're getting "regional union" to mean a superstate from Alan Greenspan (who is retired now, if you have been paying attention), you're simply an imbecile. "Union" doesn't necessarily mean a sovereign state, you know. NATO is a union. SEATO is a union.

Sovereignty is the right, given by law or might, to make the final choice in a matter.

No. Sorry. Thanks for playing.

In America, it is acknowledged that sovereignty resides with the people. This is because any individual can make a final choice in any matter, unless he is restrained, or deterred.

No, no, no, no. This is idiocy that you are just making up.

Is it necessary to call me names like an ill raised child?

You believe that the sky is plaid. Unless you realize you are either an idiot or insane, you will end up doing very bad things to very good people.

refusal of the executive to enforce the current laws that would eliminate illegal immigration

I'm sure nobody in your bunker is an actual (legal) immigrant, but I've known quite a few and I can tell you that INS has been a problem since time immemorial.

the CRF document

What the hell is CRF? Or are you a paranoid dyslexic, on top of everything else?

Wording consistent with a common parameter border around the three countries

Wow. You apparently passed up a career in rocket science for whatever it is you're doing now in your mom's basement. I think you mean "perimeter border," Einstein.

and elimination of internal ones are found in these "trade agreements" and some posted to this thread.

Duh. Do you think the words, "You think you Canucks could stop importing so many jihadis?" might help a bit with national security stuff? Or maybe trade itself?

I can go on.

No kidding.

No, the policy crafted by many in the central government is being expressed and organized in the CRF document.

"crafted"? "many"? And what the hell is the "central government"? I'm not up on my Paranoid Wacko lately, but I'm taking a Berlitz course.

"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."

Tell you what, diagram that sentence, scan it in and post it, because there ain't no subject and there ain't no verb.

I could care less who runs Mexico so long as they resist commingling of our nations.

Pro-commie. Right. Gotcha.

Do you know why they put canaries in mines?

They're brainless creatures who don't know any better?

Well, there is the analogue of canaries in the American population, and that's what you're hearing on this thread.

I was right.

Edmund Burke said to the English Parliament..."judge of an ill principal in government only by an actual grievance; HERE THEY ANTICIPATE THE EVIL, AND JUDGE OF THE PRESSURE OF THE GRIEVANCE BY THE BADNESS OF THE PRINCIPAL."

Burke was a learned man. I don't quote people more intelligent than myself because it's quite impossible, but if I were to do so, I would spell the words correctly ESPECIALLY IF I PUT THEM IN CAPS!"

Yes, that's right: You were searching for the word "principle".

First, I don't know that it says what you claim it says. The fact is, setting up a whole new country is kinda technical. Second, IT'S A FREAKIN' PAPER! What is wrong with you?

Read it or read those who've read it and excerpted it. The Declaration of Independence, all the state constitutions and federal constitution are freakin' papers, too.

No. And not even with the word "countries", either. Sorry.

That's where that "in do many words" phrase comes in. Landfill project instead of garbage dump, right?

It doesn't "virtually dissolve our border with Mexico", bad as it is. If you are going to string facts together to draw a conclusion, you can't go around making things up.

This is why I clarified the purpose of borders. Borders are to keep people out. They define the limits of a unit. That's why many foods come in cans. The thin steel walls keep out the destructive forces.

If you let people in wholesale, which is in the Senate bill, give them rights and benefits, which is in the Senate bill, just those, regardless of the many other things in the Senate bill, destroy the purpose of the border, therefore dissolving the actual border.

Are you a regular listener to the George Noory program?

No, I don't know the gentleman. I do know that to administer an efficient, or even practical global government, the sovereignties of the world must be rationalized. I don't like the concept of a world government, so I would like to stop any effort to place my country in a position where regionalization can occur.

This doesn't concern you because you don't believe that anyone is working toward global governance. Well, when one piece of the cave falls, then another, then another, then another, you must, at some time, admit the possibility the cave is caving in.

If you wait until you're absolutely sure, you're under a pile of rocks. It's a lot wiser to get out of the way of the rocks then it is to dig yourself out. the same principle is used for preemptive strikes.

Oh, what does sovereignty mean?

You didn't understand the words I wrote?

Is it necessary for you to use personal insults? Have I personally insulted you?

No, I'm talking about regionalization. Countries, conglomerates, and all kinds of political units are "unions", too, because they are made up of people doing a thing together, and groups of people doing group things together.

No. Sorry. Thanks for playing.

Well, thank you for playing, too. If a nation is "sovereign", then it has the final choice in what happens within it, against other nations who may want something different. That sovereignty can be acquired by right or might, on the world stage being exclusively might, a it should be. Therefore, sovereignty is "the right, given by law or might, to make the final choice in a matter.

No, no, no, no. This is idiocy that you are just making up.

You can't be serious. There is law against stealing. Can an individual choose to knock off a 7-11?

You believe that the sky is plaid. Unless you realize you are either an idiot or insane, you will end up doing very bad things to very good people.

Therefore it's OK to attack me personally while we discussing an idea?

I'm sure nobody in your bunker is an actual (legal) immigrant, but I've known quite a few and I can tell you that INS has been a problem since time immemorial.

This sentence didn't make a lot of sense to me. But I think you're trying to say that, since the INS is not efficient or is bureaucrat-bound, we should just let anyone who can break into the country do so. Is that right?

What the hell is CRF? Or are you a paranoid dyslexic, on top of everything else?

You really don't know what the Council on Foreign Relations is?

I think you mean "perimeter border," Einstein.

Well, thank you. I did misspell the word.

"crafted"? "many"? And what the hell is the "central government"? I'm not up on my Paranoid Wacko lately, but I'm taking a Berlitz course.

The "central government" of the United States is the the federal government with with some and increasing national powers. The rest you wrote here didn't make any sense, unless it's just another personal attack. If it's not, please rephrase and repost it.

Tell you what, diagram that sentence, scan it in and post it, because there ain't no subject and there ain't no verb.

Yes, the sentence was grammatically incorrect, but it was from two posts back and I clarified in the post you're answering now. Didn't you read it?

They're brainless creatures who don't know any better?

No, miners use canaries in mines to warn them of gas and other hazards. The canaries are more sensitive to those bad elements and are affected before the miners are, so if a bird shows negative effects, the mine can be evacuated.

You should listen to the canaries.

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.