'Shadow' agency to issue N. American border passes

WND ^ | 9/27/06 | WND

[lonewacko_dot_com]

The Department of Transportation, acting through a Security and Prosperity Partnership "working group," is preparing in 2007 to issue North American biometric border passes to Mexican, Canadian, and U.S. "trusted travelers" according to documents released to WND columnist and author Jerome R. Corsi under a Freedom of Information Act request.

"The FOIA documents show the organizational chart and the composition of a 'shadow Department of Transportation' which includes formal membership from Mexico and Canada's Departments of Transportation," asserts Corsi.

"SPP has in effect created a fully-functioning trilateral Department of Transportation which will dictate policy to Mary Peters as soon as she is confirmed to replace Leon Mineta as U.S. secretary of Transportation."

..."Evidently SPP has decided to erase our internal borders with Mexico and Canada," Corsi told WND. "We have no trilateral treaty voted by two-thirds of the Senate that has authorized North American trusted traveler biometric cards to be issued to the citizens of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Yet this is exactly what the shadow administrative branch created within the Bush administration under the auspices of an SPP working group is doing."

[1rudeboy]

Good Lord, you are insufferable. Didn't I just get done observing that "you failed to answer my question(s), now guess what they were" isn't much of an argument? If you want a direct answer, ask the question again or direct me to it . . . God help you if I discover that I have answered it, and you simply did not accept the response.

[philman_36]

BTW, concerning #152, implication, cynicism and condescension posing as questions really isn't asking questions.

[1rudeboy]

So what was your "contribution" supposed to have been on the other thread?

If you mean this thread, then I counted three or four substantive responses on my part within the first fifty, including a link that I posted to the Border Security Act that everyone else has been studiously avoiding ever since . . . on this thread and the other.

[philman_36]

If you want a direct answer, ask the question again or direct me to it
I have and I did.
And you call me insufferable...
I'm nothing more to you than what you perceive to be 'the weakest link'. That's why you asked me over.

[1rudeboy]

". . . [I]f the implementation of a biometric passport system is some sort of an extra-Constitutional, international conspiracy to erase our borders now, was it then?" is a legitimate question which (it appears) you are unwilling to answer because it disturbed your delicate sensitivities.

[1rudeboy]

You have (maybe), you did (probably), and you won't (certainly). Sorry that you feel that way . . . I suppose we can get back to evading each other's questions again.

[philman_36]

And what of the responses after the first fifty when I joined the thread and challenged you on pastor being "simply another looney-left professor, of which we have many here in the U.S."
You appeared, IMO, miffed afterwards that I drew attention to him.

[philman_36]

"...after the first fifty when I joined the thread...
Well, I did join the thread before that. I should've said when I engaged you on the thread.

[1rudeboy]

Pastor is simply another loony-left professor that I do not fear. As a matter of fact, a thread posted today concerns a looney-left professor that I do fear more than Pastor. Have a look:

Erwin Chemerinsky: Legislating Violations of the Constitution.

[philman_36]

Awwww, did I see through what you were trying to do?
Did I ruin your "fun"?

[philman_36]

Pastor is simply another loony-left professor that I do not fear.
Due to your having spent so much time around leftist profs...yes, yes, we've been through all of that before on the other thread.
And in your statement is the silent implication, again, that I fear him when I don't.
Are you repeating this for my benefit or for yours and should I take your own expression of fear here to be "a general observation" or as something literal?

As a matter of fact, a thread posted today concerns a looney-left professor that I do fear more than Pastor.
What a weak person you must be to live in such fear.
BTW, that falls into the distraction aspect of the Alinsky method.

[1rudeboy]

Roughly 15 hours ago, you were thinking that I want this thread to die, yet here we are, at 190 comments and counting. It might be best if you laid-off the "I see what you're trying to do" comments. [chuckle]

[1rudeboy]

I
do
not
fear
Robert
Pastor.

Take the above any way you wish, literally, generally, or with mango salsa. There is no "silent implication" in the above.

[philman_36]

Yet you go out of your way to make note of your fear of Erwin Chemerinsky.

[1rudeboy]

I don't like spiders.

[philman_36]

[chuckle]
Just keeping it "fun" for you. LOL

[philman_36]

I don't like spiders.
Do you 'fear' them? Big difference...HUGE even!

[1rudeboy]

I killed a Brown Recluse two days ago. Yeah, spiders give me the creeps.

[philman_36]

I killed a Brown Recluse two days ago. Yeah, spiders give me the creeps.
Why the euphemism? Does "give me the creeps" translate to fear?
Some things 'give me the creeps' as well, but I don't live in fear of those things.

[JustPiper]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1711994/posts?page=116#116