 |
Well, some reporting is best done by making shapes in local wheat fields . . . |
Posted on 07/19/2006 6:04:00 AM PDT by conservativecorner
The U.S. Department of Commerce appears to be stonewalling a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain complete disclosure of a congressionally unauthorized plan to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that apparently could lead to a North American union.
The plan is being implemented through an office within the Department of Commerce as the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," under the direction of Geri Word, who is listed as working in the department's North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, office.
As WorldNetDaily previously reported, the White House has established executive branch working groups documented on the Commerce website SPP.gov. The Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, was issued as a joint press statement by President Bush, Mexican President Vincente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005.
Commerce has missed a statutory requirement to respond to the FOIA request, filed by author Jerome R. Corsi, within 20 businesses days.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
How does this end up in chat?
Good question.
I asked in any case. Commerce is outside the law under FOIA, and it's not news? LOL! Unbelievable is all I can say. No one says you have to agree with the FOIA request, but you ought to at least be able to ask the question, and when they refuse to answer it's NEWS!
Conspiracy theories are not news, thus they are chatted. Factual news concerning conspiracy theories are therefore also chatted.
Conspiracy theories? I'm reporting on the Commerce Dept. flipping a finger at Americans who have a right to the information under the FOIA. This is a fact, and not conspiracy.
PRICELESS...LOL! I will say no more after this beauty because I don't know how to argue an oxymoron.
Ummm, because it's more
silly nutty lunacy
from WorldNutsDaily?
|
Well, some reporting is best done by making shapes in local wheat fields . . . |
 |
Certainly, but if you ask your questions like this THEY see them better from THEIR satellites and will immediately send out black copters to hover over your house and beam THEIR response right into your brain. |
I notice bs in your moniker. Now I know where it comes from. Have a great day.
I alomost forgot to include this because I'm your's so worried about crop circles that you don't do much reading.
Moniker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A moniker (or "monicker") is a pseudonym, or cognomen, which one gives to oneself. The meaning is distinct from nickname, in that a nickname is generally given to one by another, and not chosen for oneself.
(as slang "moniker" can mean simply "name")
Typically, this title is used as a professional name, instead of the person's given name for works of art, music, books, or performances.
Monikers can also name groups of people, but typically the name is creative and not descriptive.
Also commonly used on internet message boards.
[edit]
Monicker in Clowning
The word "monicker" or more rarely, "monikker" (among clowns, most often intentionally misspelled, with a 'c') in accordance with clown tradition that some words are inherently funny (and hence to be preferred over 'unfunny' words) has been widely embraced by the "clown world" as equivalent to a stage name or pseudonym. A monicker is considered by a professional clown to be sacrosanct by the traditional code of non-infringement. The monicker is considered to be an attribute of the character of the clown and not of the performer. Monicker, in clown usage, can generally be considered synonymous with the terms "clown name" and "Professional name". In declining use, it may mean a clown performer's personal nickname, (eg. "Joseph Grimaldi's monicker was Joey.") rather than the name of the performer's clown.
LOL, owned!
When did Prof. Corsi file his FOIA request? Last week?
Author Jerome Corsi filed a Freedom of Information Act request yesterday asking for full disclosure of the activities of an office implementing a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada . . . .
June 20, 2006
ROFLcopter!
It's kind of like writing an FOIA request about the government's pink unicorn breeding program. We shouldn't be suprised if we don't get a response, should we? =)
Harlan Ellison
once speculated somewhere
that there must exist
tramp, slut unicorns
that can only be touched by
non-virgin women . . .
It's good to see that the "conspiracy theory" is being taken seriously by the chairman of a subcommittee. Let me know when we get enough questions by the House Leadership to make this news and not chat. SHEESH!!
I wonder why a Congressional committee passed a joint resolution that would stop something that doesn't exist?
Resolution urges U.S. to withdraw from a North American union
A House committee unanimously passed a joint resolution Tuesday that urges the president and Congress to withdraw from the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, now moves to the House floor for a vote.
The SPP, while not an institution, is harshly criticized by some Utah groups. Resolution supporters told the committee Tuesday that the purpose of the SPP is to remove sovereignty from the United States and give it to a North American union, similar to the European Union. The SPP involves the United States, Mexico and Canada.
I wonder why a Congressional committee passed a joint resolution that would stop something that doesn't exist?
You'll have to remind me of the Congressional Resolution. I know nothing about it. I know Mr. Corsi received the documents he requested (albeit late) sometime in 2006. He hasn't mentioned it since.
Actually, it's a Resolution passed out of committee in Utah, and waiting for a floor vote in Utah.
 |
Maybe the theory is Elders in red longjohns run America! |
I wonder why a (State) Congressional committee passed a joint resolution that would stop something that doesn't exist?
House resolution opposes North American Union
Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has introduced a House resolution expressing congressional opposition to construction of a NAFTA Super Highway System or entry into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
Goode said the goal behind House Concurrent Resolution 40, introduced Monday, is "to block a NAFTA Superhighway System and to indicate the opposition of the Congress to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America that was declared by President Bush, Mexico's then-President Vicente Fox, and Canada's then-Prime Minister Paul Martin, at the conclusion of their summit meeting in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005."
I wonder why Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has introduced a House resolution that would stop something that doesn't exist?
If by "something" you mean the NAU, I'll note that even Rep. Goode's H.CON.RES.40, now languishing in committee, mentions it only twice and begs the question1 whether it exists in both cases. I have to post the text below because for some reason the Library of Congress won't let me link directly to it:
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada. Whereas the United States Departments of State, Commerce, and Homeland Security participated in the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, representing a tri-lateral agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico designed, among other things, to facilitate common regulatory schemes between these countries; Whereas reports issued by the SPP indicate that it has implemented regulatory changes among the three countries that circumvent United States trade, transportation, homeland security, and border security functions and that the SPP will continue to do so in the future; Whereas the actions taken by the SPP to coordinate border security by eliminating obstacles to migration between Mexico and the United States actually makes the United States-Mexico border less secure because Mexico is the primary source country of illegal immigrants into the United States; Whereas according to the Department of Commerce, United States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly increased since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); Whereas the economic and physical security of the United States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA and the SPP; Whereas the regulatory and border security changes implemented and proposed by the SPP violate and threaten United States sovereignty; Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union to facilitate trade between the SPP countries; Whereas the State of Texas has already begun planning of the Trans-Texas Corridor, a major multi-modal transportation project beginning at the United States-Mexico border, which would serve as an initial section of a NAFTA Superhighway System; Whereas it could be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would likely increase the insurance rates for American drivers; Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities; and Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would likely include funds from foreign consortiums and be controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
(1) the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;
(2) the United States should not allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to implement further regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and
(3) the President of the United States should indicate strong opposition to these acts or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.
It's really a shame about Rep. Goode, a stalwart conservative in other matters. Perhaps he'd have greater success introducing a resolution declaring the bald eagle not worthy of being our national symbol, because its habitat includes Canada and Mexico?
_____
1If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question.
I guess it's now a "conservative" value to give up United States sovereignty?
I learn so much from this site.
You bore me.
Maybe there's a "Rudy is the Second Coming" thread you would be more interested in.
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.