Posted on 03/13/2008 4:09:15 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Officials warned NAFTA trucks threatened bridge.I got a good chuckle out of the headline. Who could imagine that NAFTA could be blamed for the Minnesota bridge collapse? And were the trucks armed?
“I think more people would take the threat more seriously if it wasn’t yellow journalism”
‘Yellow journalism’ being taken QUITE seriously!!
United States Congress: House Concurrent Resolution 40 - introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Virgil Goode of Virginia
Alabama: Senate Resolution 30 - introduced by Senator Beason (Currently in the Senate Rules Committee). Contact the Office of Senator Beason: (334) 242-7794.
LATEST UPDATE - Currently in the Senate Rules Committee
Arizona: Senate Concurrent Memorial 1002 - introduced by Senator Johnson.
LATEST UPDATE - Passed Senate by a vote of 17-11 with 2 not voting, passed a House Committee by a 7-3 vote on March 26, 2007, still awaiting a final House vote.
Colorado: House Resolution 7 - introduced by Representative Stafford on April 23, 2007 (Currently in the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, the bill has been postponed indefinitely and cannot be reintroduced until next year). Contact the Office of Rep. Stafford: (303) 866-2944
LATEST UPDATE - Currently in the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, the bill has been postponed indefinitely and cannot be reintroduced until next year.
Georgia: Senate Resolution 124 - introduced by Senators Schaefer, Rogers, Douglas, Hill, and Chapman
LATEST UPDATE - Currently in the House Committee on Insterstate Cooperation.
Hawaii: Senate Concurrent Resolution 96 - introduced by Senator Hanabusa.
Senate Resolution 60 - Introduced by Senator Hanabusa.
LATEST UPDATE - Currently in the Senate Committee on Intergovernmental and Military Affairs/Senate Committee on Transportation and International Affairs, and the Subcommittee on Judiciary and Labor.
Idaho: House Joint Memorial 5 (HJM-5). Sponsored by Representatives JoAn Wood, Cliff Bayer, Marv Hagedorn, and Senators Shirley McKague, Monte Pierce and Mel Richardson
LATEST UPDATE - Passed the House by a voice vote - Passed by the Senate on March 22, 2007 by a vote of 24 -10.
Illinois: House Joint Resolution 29 - introduced by Representative Black
LATEST UPDATE - Assigned to the International Trade and Commerce Committee on February 27, 2007.
Missouri: Senate Concurrent Resolution 15 - sponsored by Senator Barnitz (Currently in the Senate Committees on Rules, Joint Rules and Resolutions and Ethics)
House Concurrent Resolution 33 - sponsored by Representative Guest (Passed the House Committee on Rules by a 5-3 vote, awaiting final floor vote)
Montana: House Joint Resolution 25 - introduced by Representative Rice of Montana
LATEST UPDATE - Passed by a vote of 94-5and has been transmitted to the Senate and was assigned to the Committee on the Judiciary, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 7-5 on April 10, passed in the Senate by a vote of 32-18 on April 18th, 2007.
Oklahoma: Senate Concurrent Resolution 10 introduced by Oklahoma State Senator Randy Brogdan
LATEST UPDATE - Passed the Senate Business and Labor Committee by a vote of 7-1 on April 2nd, 2007, passed the full Senate with no dissenting votes on April 23rd, 2007, transmitted to the House on April 24, 2007, adopted by the House on May 15th, 2007, with a unanimous vote of 97-0.
Oregon: Senate Joint Memorial 5 - sponsored by Senators George, Starr, and Whitsett and Representatives Boquist, Krieger, Nelson and Thatcher
LATEST UPDATE - The resolution failed to meet a May 1st, 2007 deadline for a hearing, the resolution may be introduced in the next legislative year.
Pennsylvania: House Resolution 278 - introduced by State Representative Surraa (Referred to the House Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs on May 18, 2007). Contact the Office of Honorable Surra - (717) 787-7226
LATEST UPDATE - Referred to the House Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs on May 18th, 2007.
South Carolina: Senate Concurrent Resolution 416 - introduced by Senator Fair (Resided in the Senate Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry). House Concurrent Resolution 3185 - introduced by Representative Davenport
(Resides in the House Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions)
South Dakota: Senate Concurrent Resolution 7 - introduced by Senators Kloucek, Apa, Lintz, and Maher and Representatives Nelson, DeVries, Gassman, Jerke, Kirkeby, Noem, and Betty Olson
LATEST UPDATE - Resides in the State Affairs Committee.
Tennessee: Introduced SJR-88 on February 21st, 2007.
LATEST UPDATE - Resides in the Finance, Ways and Means Committee, a hearing is scheduled for April 10th 2007, adopted by the Senate on April 26th 2007, transmitted to the House on April 26th 2007, assigned to the House Committee on Commerce on April 30th 2007, assigned to the House Rules Committee on May 16th 2007.
Texas: House Bill 3647 - Introduced by Representative Kolkhorst (a bill that would require the attorney general to produce a report on how NAFTA/SPP/NACC/WTO/GATS would effect state law) (Referred to the Committee on Border and International Affairs, passed in the Hosue on May 11, 2007, passed in the Senate on May 23, 2007, signed in the House on May 24, 2007, signed in the Senate on May 25, 2007, sent to the Governor on May 26, 2007) Contact Office of Representative Kolkhorst: (512) 463-0600 ext. E2.318
Utah: House Joint Resolution 7 - introduced by Representative Sandstrom and Senator Fife (Passed in the House by a vote of 47-24 and was killed in the Senate for the remainder of the Congressional year)
LATEST UPDATE - Passed in the House by a vote of 47-24 and was killed in the Senate for the remainder of the Congressional year.
Virginia: Senate Joint Resolution 442 - introduced by Senators Lucas and Hawkins (Resides in the Senate Committee on Rules)
Senate Joint Resolution 387 - introduced by Senator Reynolds (Bill emphasis on the NAFTA Superhighway) (Resided in the Senate Committee on Rules)
Washington: - Senate Joint Memorial 8004 - introduced by Senators Stevens, Swecker and Benton & House Joint Memorial 4018 - introduced by Representatives Roach, Dunn, McCune and Hurst.
LATEST UPDATE - Resides in the Committee on Economic Development, Trade and Management.
19 states are working on legislation going AGAINST the SPP/NAU!!! 19 States CAN’T be WRONG!
Heck, I have this congressional bill posted:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1984944/posts?page=102#102
It is like no one here on the thread even looked at it.
I’m going to take a flyer here and guess that you don’t understand what yellow journalism is.
And 102 too. Duncan Hunter is a co-sponsor.
It’s not a bill, it’s a resolution. Meaning that, it’s nearly meaningless.
I’m not play symantics as to the definition of the document. I was using it as a source to support Kimberly’s post.
On more thing. Corsi does not claim in this article the purpose of the meeting was to advance the NAU. Did you read it? Why are you expecting me to disprove something the author did not say? Corsi has said elsewhere that George W. Bush has a secret plan to dissolve the United States. That I can easily find. I might just do so, because it's another example of yellow journalism.
I’m just pointing out there’s a difference, and that when you post your document in the future, you should keep that in mind if you are interested in accuracy.
I can do that if you would like to share with me what the difference is. I know it as a hard source for reference.
Basically, the difference is that a bill (ultimately) gets presented to the President for approval, whereas the resolution requires no presidential action.
- H.R. (followed by a number) = bill
- H.Con.Res. (followed by a number) = concurrent resolution
>>>Basically, the difference is that a bill (ultimately) gets presented to the President for approval, whereas the resolution requires no presidential action.
Thank you. I wasn’t getting that much looking up generic net definitions.
It all sounds so rational doesn't it? Until you ask WHO is to write and enforce that law and how does that reflect government by consent of the people.
The international system that is evolving is fully capable of completely ignoring the will of the people because the folks with the dough want it that way (as our open borders attest). That is why it is concerning that the people do not have representatives at this meeting but nameless corporations do. It is a system that rigs regulations preferable to the big guys without accountability to the people. Hence Corsi's concern.
Important issue. Has it been getting much press?
>And it’s not just President Bush either.<
:) No, this goes much deeper and over many more years than GWB. Tangible evidence of it in America began early in the 20th century with Woodrow Wilson. Actually, GHWB was the first president I can recall who openly referred to what has been tagged, The New World Order.
If anyone wants to study prehistorics, read “The New World Order”, by Pat Robertson. It is extremely well written, and completely documented. I was impressed by the book, as one of the best I’ve read on the matter over the past forty plus years.
No, gentlemen, WND did not make it all up. :)
PING
The video clip, by the way, is not the UN unless they have changed the backdrop behind the lectern. He's addressing the joint Congress and the nation on Jan 19, 1991, to announce the beginning of the Gulf War. It's ironic that GW-1 was the start of Oil For Food, which destroyed the concept of a “credible UN”.
Prior to ordering our forces into battle, I instructed our military
commanders to take every necessary step to prevail as quickly as
possible, and with the greatest degree of protection possible for
American and allied service men and women. I've told the American people
before that this will not be another Vietnam, and I repeat this here
tonight. Our troops will have the best possible support in the entire
world, and they will not be asked to fight with one hand tied behind
their back. I'm hopeful that this fighting will not go on for long and
that casualties will be held to an absolute minimum.
This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great
progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before
us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a
new world order—a world where the rule of law, not the law of the
jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful—and we
will be—we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in
which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill
the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.
We have no argument with the people of Iraq. Indeed, for the
innocents caught in this conflict, I pray for their safety. Our goal is
not the conquest of Iraq. It is the liberation of Kuwait. It is my hope
that somehow the Iraqi people can, even now, convince their dictator
that he must lay down his arms, leave Kuwait, and let Iraq itself rejoin
the family of peace-loving nations.
Thomas Paine wrote many years ago: ``These are the times that try
men's souls.’’ Those well-known words are so very true today. But even
as planes of the multinational forces attack Iraq, I prefer to think of
peace, not war. I am convinced not only that we will prevail but that
out of the horror of combat will come the recognition that no nation can
stand against a world united, no nation will be permitted to brutally
assault its neighbor.
>I wish Corsi was still a FReeper, we could ask him.<
You mean they banned him, too?
I don’t know if he was banned, requested to be terminated, or simply stopped posting.
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.