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.

[1rudeboy]

Feel free to try and convince me, just don't use this writer and his contrived "evidence." Now do you get it?

[Calpernia]

I’m not sure I’m following what you are arguing. But I’ll be happy to come back and read when you ping me. Thanks.

[Man50D]

The thread has been moved to blogger.

That's interesting considering the thread fits FR's own definition of New/Activism is "News and discussion of current events." This is certainly a current news event and is not a non sourced thread. Could it be FR wants to cover up the fact George Bush is trying to destroy our national sovereignty?

[Man50D]

Do you understand how to use the track-back feature? Just curious. If you did, then you'd know that I have stated that Corsi went on and on for months about an allegedly secret list of participants in another conference, then published the list in its original form in his book.

So the question is, how long did Corsi have a document in his possession while he was claiming its contents were "secret?"

Again, why don't you cite the sources you repeatedly claim can refute Corsi's reports?

[1rudeboy]

It’s actually somewhat humorous for a Corsi-sceptic to have a discussion with a Corsi-believer, when the sceptic has read Corsi’s book, and the believer has not.

[Calpernia]

Would be nice if the moderators provided a reason for the move when they do this.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe because Corsi is a joke?

[kalee]

bttt

[Calpernia]

I see a number of reporters articles maintain news category status that are jokes. The story doesn’t qualify for blogger status. WND is not a blog.

[Admin Moderator]

Could it be FR wants to cover up the fact George Bush is trying to destroy our national sovereignty?

Cue spooky music!

Vast top-secret conspiracy moved to breaking news.

[processing please hold]

Looky, looky. His tag team partner showed up. He always does.

Designer, rudeboy and the toddster loathe Corsi. Just seeing Corsi's name unhinges them somehow. But they are fun to watch.

[processing please hold]

Tattletale! Bwwwwwaaaahahahaha.

[pissant]

The GOP shot America in the back by not giving this man the time of day.

[1rudeboy]

What the heck are you going on about?

[Calpernia]

I absolutely agree.

[processing please hold]

I would say read my comment # 71, but alas.......

[xtinct]

hmmmm...

Read Glenn Beck's book, "An Inconvenient Book." Last chapter is fascinating...

But I wasn't sure if that chapter was a conspiracy theory or not --> still thinking about it.

[Mr. Silverback]

It's much easier to do this than deal than confront those who seek to destroy our national sovereignty.

Could I offer some advice? Every time the NAU crowd accuses the NAU skeptics of being idiots or (especially) cowards or layabouts you do absolutely nothing to advance your cause, and plenty to damage it. Not being convinced doesn't make one a bad person, it makes them an unconvinced person, and treating them like a traitor, idiot or coward is just silly.

[tutstar]

BUMP

[Mr. Silverback]

Would you be *comfortable* with a One World Socialist Government? You know, as long as it didn't screw up your personal portfolio.

Do you really think you advance your cause by acting as if anyone who is skeptical about the NAU is a scumbag traitor who chases wealth at the expense of his country? Really?

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