Inside the hush-hush North American Union confab

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | March 13, 2008 | Jerome R. Corsi

[Man50D]

WASHINGTON -- A largely unreported meeting held at the State Department discussed integration of the U.S., Mexico and Canada in concert with a move toward a transatlantic union, linking a North American community with the European Union.

The meeting was held Monday under the auspices of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy, or ACIEP. WND obtained press credentials and attended as an observer. The meeting was held under "Chatham House" rules that prohibit reporters from attributing specific comments to individual participants.

The State Department website noted the meeting was opened by Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs Daniel S. Sullivan and ACIEP Chairman Michael Gadbaw, vice president and senior counsel for General Electric's International Law & Policy group since December 1990.

WND observed about 25 ACIEP members, including U.S. corporations involved in international trade, prominent U.S. business trade groups, law firms involved with international business law, international investment firms and other international trade consultants.

No members of Congress attended the meeting.

The agenda for the ACIEP meeting was not published, and State Department officials in attendance could not give WND permission under Chatham House rules to publish the agenda.

[ElPatriota]

And we though BUSH was ONE OF OURS!... This idiot is a Full fledge GLOBALIST!... Perhaps we should start thinking of a new currency and a new Flag? of the "North American Union?" :)

I am disliking this man more everyday...

[xjcsa]

Although FR is a bin that has its share of loonies, the Admin Mod moved it into breaking news as a joke.

Thanks for pinging me to that...I always knew the mods had a sense of humor...

[gondramB]

>>The meeting was held Monday under the auspices of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy, or ACIEP. WND obtained press credentials and attended as an observer. The meeting was held under “Chatham House” rules that prohibit reporters from attributing specific comments to individual participants. “

Is this not a violation of the Federal “Sunshine Laws”?!!<<

What an odd way for WND to say “the meeting was open to the public”

But I guess that would have blown their conspiracy angle.

[1rudeboy]

You're really not that bright, are you? Are you expecting me to refute Corsi's report that this conference did not occur? I'm calling Corsi a yellow journalist and his fixation on the Chatham Rule as an example of yellow journalism.

It's as if the USS Maine lies at the bottom of Havana harbor, and you expect me to prove otherwise in order to establish Randolph Hearst didn't actually want to see a war between the U.S. and Spain.

[Calpernia]

I don’t know. I’m a bit overwhelmed working a congressional campaign and have been missing pings.

[Calpernia]

>>>The comment was directed at Man50D.

Then why ping me? Why folks in plural?

[xjcsa]

Since when does FR consider a recognized news source as a blog?

WND is a "recognized news source"? Ninety percent of the stories I see here from WND are actually stories about stories from a real news source (i.e. "President Bush will sign a bill, blah blah blah, the Associated Press reported Tuesday"), and the rest are tinfoil hat crap like this from people like Jerome Corsi.

[wolfcreek]

“Here's a tip: It makes you look like a nut.”

Sometimes I feel like a nut. Sometimes this subject makes me nutty. But, I guarantee, I don't look like a nut nor, did I call anyone *a scumbag traitor who chases wealth at the expense of his country*. I do believe there are people who do and feel everyone needs to be aware of them. Got a problem with that?

[Man50D]

I would guess this was preparatory meeting for the meeting in July ACIEP has held for last 10 years (at least) where an assistant Secretary of State thanks the ACIEP for making the nominations for the Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence (ACE) and to update the ACIEP members on economic developments like G-8 and World Economic summit. That meeting is usually in July.

Guessing is far from knowing. It also ignores what we do know as fact is they did discuss the SPP. Per Corsi's report: "The meeting agenda included topics reviewing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, and the U.S.-EU Transatlantic Economic Council, or TEC."

We also know per Corsi's report the purpose of the SPP. "The SPP, declared by the U.S., Canada and Mexico at a summit meeting in 2005, has 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups that seek to "integrate and harmonize" administrative rules and regulations on a continental basis." That just socialist spin for dissolving national sovereignty.

It makes me wonder did WND know all this and not publish it or do they know even less about the ACIEP’s schedule than I do?

It makes me wonder why if the scenario you present is accurate then why would they invoke the "Chatham" Rules" for something so harmless?

[gondramB]

>>That just socialist spin for dissolving national sovereignty.<<

If you are in favor of free trade while blocking smuggling and drugs then coordinating with our two largest trading partners to make sure the bureaucracies work together is not socialist. Now, Mexico has a conflict of interest because they don’t really want border security the way rational Americans do - but that’s self interest rather than socialism.

>>It makes me wonder why if the scenario you present is accurate then why would they invoke the “Chatham” Rules” for something so harmless?<<

Probably it means the meeting was open to the public, like the similar meeting last year was. But either way, the intent is likely that the government can get feedback either from the general public or from specific people. For example,at Dick Cheney’s energy meetings, he got more honest feedback if the attendees were not gonna be quoted in the paper the next day.

[mo]

“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”

So basically the identities of the corporate entities driving this nonsense remain camouflaged to the American Public. That would precisely seem to be a conspiracy...unless you have information otherwise.

[Man50D]

You're really not that bright, are you? Are you expecting me to refute Corsi's report that this conference did not occur?

You're rebuttals are getting more pathetic with each successive post. I've either given you too much credit to understand a simple question or your desperation has hit a new low due to your refusal to answer a very simple and clear question. If all you took from the article, despite its title, is that the meeting occurred than why do you refer to such a simple claim as yellow journalism? If you understood and dispute Corsi's claim in the article the meeting was premised on the SPP/NAU and their goal to dissolve our national sovereignty then why don't you produce your specific sources claiming the contrary?

It's as if the USS Maine lies at the bottom of Havana harbor, and you expect me to prove otherwise in order to establish Randolph Hearst didn't actually want to see a war between the U.S. and Spain.

No, It's as if you have backed yourself into a corner because your are unable to find sources to rebut Corsi's claim the meeting was premised on advancing the SPP and NAU. LOL!!!!!

[wolfcreek]

See post #16

I’ve gotten away from the name calling. It seems to be more productive in finding where others actually stand on these issues.

[ExSoldier]

Bush did not give a NWO speech at the UN.

I'll concede that point since I did see it live. I guess my mind fogged as to the location after I heard variations on NEW WORLD ORDER or New Order for the Age several times. That was enough of the Book of Revelation for me, even to have mentioned it once!

[wolfcreek]

Thanks Rude! Your *human* side is making me blush. LOL!

[1rudeboy]

Not that familiar with the fallacy of asking someone to prove a negative, I see. That’s ok, there was a meeting that Corsi attended and can write about, but since he can’t identify individuals, it’s evidence of Bush’s conspiracy. Got it.

[gondramB]

>>“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”

So basically the identities of the corporate entities driving this nonsense remain camouflaged to the American Public. That would precisely seem to be a conspiracy...unless you have information otherwise.<<

That’s the argument the Democrats made about Dick Cheney’s energy policy meetings - that if the executive branch gets advice and they don’t publish that advice its a conspiracy.

The executive branch makes the argument that need honest input and that having a way to get input without the people being quoted ion the papers the next day is important.

The weird thing about that argument being applied here are that the ACIEP meetings are generally open to the public - that’s a pretty lousy way to run a conspiracy.

It is possible that this meeting was not open to the public if the ACE nominees are secret until announced by the Secretary of States office.

But still, you have to assume bad intent to see a conspiracy here. And if every time the executive branch gets private advice its a crime- that would lead impeaching the President - I just don’t follow that line at all.

[ExSoldier]

Every time he alluded to the state of the world in this new era or in mentioning the words new "era" is (in my book) an allusion to the NWO and I count SEVEN TIMES, minimum. That's probably concurrent with the number of times I felt my blood chill. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

[Ben Ficklin]

"the corporate entities driving this nonsense remain camouflaged"

NACC has a website and you can find out more there than from the conspiracy weavers because Corsi wants you to know only so much.

You also need to realize Corsi's motivation is that he is a union man and he is displeased that Bush has let only business/industry participate. In the article that he wrote in the Dallas News, just prior to the Texas primary, Obama said they he would bring the unions and the enviros into the SPP discussions. Which is what Corsi wants.

[1rudeboy]

In this case, you simply don’t want “journalists” such as Corsi (or Kinsolving, WND’s man at the White House) playing gotcha-games. I can see it now, “Mr. President? Joe Blow of Evil Corporation said ‘blah blah blah’ at a meeting at the State Department. Do you stand by those comments?”