You and your ilk have been posting rehashes of the same crap from Corsi and you complain because I ask you to post a thread on a completely different issue?
Sovereignty!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
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.
You and your ilk have been posting rehashes of the same crap from Corsi and you complain because I ask you to post a thread on a completely different issue?
Sovereignty!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Sovereignty means that the American people rule.
You got a problem with that, punk?
No it does not.
Sure it does, ultimately. If you devoted as much time to actual thought as you do to acting like an egotistical punk, you'd realize it.
I bet you get beat up alot in school.
That is not sovereignty. Just to give you an example, North Korea has sovereignty, but nobody but the potbelly has any say there.
Obviously, you're not familiar with our form of government or its premises.
Here's a fact: There is not now, nor will there be, a North American Superstate. It is all the product of Corsi's imagination.
I am familiar with sovereignty. I know how it is defined and it is not defined in the way you want it to be defined.
As a matter of fact, no. Although it wouldn't surprise me if you might relate well to school, having spent a couple of decades there.
It is in America. Maybe you should study that instead of North Korean communist dogma?
Ever hear of "We the people", or "the consent of the governed"?
Even then, legitimacy should work the way you describe, but a cynical mind would say that this is not always the case.
But Black's Law Dictionary has nothing to do with national sovereignty, it has to do with conflicts among individuals under the rule of a larger -- sovereign -- state body.
Sorry.
Hogwash.
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.