Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Toddsterpatriot; 1rudeboy; Mase

Wait a second, haven’t I heard that “Corsci” name before?


7 posted on 08/29/2007 5:04:55 AM PDT by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: expat_panama
Wait a second, haven’t I heard that “Corsci” name before?

Isn't he the guy who's selling lots of books thereby proving how right P.T. Barnum was?

12 posted on 08/29/2007 5:55:12 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: expat_panama

So, you’re ok with the US being under UN law?


14 posted on 08/29/2007 6:19:51 AM PDT by Kimberly GG (INVEST IN THE FUTURE - DUNCAN HUNTER '08.....(NO MORE CFRers))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: expat_panama
...haven’t I heard that “Corsci” name before?

Who knows what you have heard.

You need to fix those hearing aids of yours! ;-)

As for your spelling, that is likely going to require you use spell-check more often.

49 posted on 08/29/2007 11:56:52 AM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: expat_panama
Perhaps you have also heard of the Hudson Institute. Or its CEO, Ken Wienstein. Or Dr. John Fonte. They were among the key speakers at an August 18 Policy Seminar in D.C. on the SPP, along Pastor et al.

Absolutely devastating admissions within their little conclave surfaced, totally confounding the talking points meant to dupe the "loud people".

Note this one from Ken Weinstein, CEO of Hudson Institute:

"And the lack of transparency has really denied us that ability to know whether what’s going on is something we should be alarmed about or not. And I think that opening this process up would really reveal, for the most part, that a lot of the areas are dull and they don’t affect us that much – or they’ll affect narrow interests but not more broadly."

"So I think if I were advising the administration, I’d say you have nothing really to fear by transparency. The extent of transparency would be good, and by bringing in Congress in, you have a way of achieving that , and that will give people – the average voter – a greater sense that this is being overseen. And having done that, yes, you’ll have some extra roadblocks; there’s no doubt. But by and large, your freedom of action won’t be much constrained that the governments will be able to proceed on every reasonable measure where they’re trying to do something. And so, I don’t think there’s really any reason to fear transparency.

But for some reason, it’s been there.

I don’t know whether the administration is thinking about it. I’m also curious if the Canadian and Mexican governments looking at this might want to say, for their part, United States, you really need to help us address this, because we realize this whole thing could die in the U.S. and we need things out of this process in Canada, Mexico, so it’s in our interest for you to deal with this as well."

Perhaps the covert operations approach is embraced because the end results are indeed not "reasonable measures", and are in fact significantly different from what Weinstein presupposes, or has been informed, as to what...ultimately...is going on.

NOTE: He is not in the "Loop." He reveals that when he says: "If I were advising the President...."

But he isn't. Pastor et al., likely won't be inviting either Ken Weinstein or John Fonte to a Presidential pow-wow any time soon, I suspect...

50 posted on 08/29/2007 12:06:51 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson