Posted on 09/11/2007 5:33:05 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It's now leaking out that there was more going on than met the eye at the Security and Prosperity Partnership Summit in Montebello, Canada, in August. The three amigos - President George W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon - finalized and released the "North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza."
The "Plan" - that's what they call it, with a capital P - is to use the excuse of a major flu epidemic to shift powers from U.S. legislatures to unelected, unaccountable "North American" bureaucrats.
This idea was launched on Sept. 14, 2005, when Bush announced the "International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza." He was then speaking to the United Nations General Assembly.
We might have thought that idea had some merit because the influenza partnership called for "transparency in reporting of influenza cases in humans and in animals" and the "sharing of epidemiological data and samples." That's very different from the Security and Prosperity Summit, where transparency has always been conspicuously avoided like the plague.
This year's Security and Prosperity Summit in Canada morphed the Influenza Partnership into the North American Plan. Now we discover that the Plan is not only about combating a flu epidemic but is far-reaching in seeking control over U.S. citizens and public policy during an epidemic.
The Plan repeatedly features the favorite Bush word "comprehensive" - it calls for a "comprehensive, coordinated North American approach." The Plan would give authority to international bureaucrats "beyond the health sector to include a coordinated approach to critical infrastructure protection," including "border and transportation issues."
The Plan is a wordy 44-page document, much of which sounds innocuous. It is helpful to exchange information about disease and take precautions against letting foreign diseases enter the United States.
However, self-government and sovereignty are at risk when control over these matters is turned over to a newly created North American body headed by the representative of another country. It's an additional problem when the entire Plan is a spin-off of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, an arrangement created in secret solely by White House press releases, without Congressional approval or even oversight.
The 2007 Plan acknowledges that it is based not only on the Influenza Partnership, but also on the guidelines, standards and rules of the World Health Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health, the World Trade Organization, and the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The Plan sets up a "senior level coordinating body to facilitate the effective planning and preparedness within North America for a possible outbreak of avian and/or human pandemic influenza under the Security and Prosperity Partnership." The Plan identifies this Security and Prosperity Partnership coordinating body as "decision-makers."
The Plan then (ungrammatically) states: "The chair of the Security and Prosperity Partnership coordinating body will rotate between each national authority on a yearly basis." Thus, a foreigner will be the "decision maker" for Americans in two out of every three years.
What powers will this foreign-headed coordinating body exercise? The Plan suggests that these include "the use of antivirals and vaccines; ... social distancing measures, including school closures and the prohibition of community gatherings; ... isolation and quarantine."
Will this foreign-headed coordinating body respect the First Amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble"? Or will the rules of the Plan, Security and Prosperity Partnership, World Health Organization, World Organization for Animal Health, World Trade Organization and NAFTA take precedence?
In evaluating the Plan, it is instructive to recall the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, an anti-epidemic plan launched by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Oct. 23, 2001. Designed to be passed by all state legislatures, the model bill was primarily written by Lawrence O. Gostin, a former member of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's discredited Task Force on Health Care Reform, and was promoted by the Bush administration during its first year.
The proposed Emergency Health Powers Act would have given each governor sole discretion to declare a public health emergency and grant himself extraordinary powers. He would have been able to restrict or prohibit firearms, seize private property and destroy it in many circumstances, and impose price controls and rationing.
Governors would have been given the power to order people out of their homes and into dangerous quarantines. Children could have been taken from their parents and put into public quarantines.
Governors could even have demanded that physicians administer certain drugs despite individuals' religious or other objections. The Emergency Health Powers Act was based on the concept that decision-making by authoritarian bosses and unelected bureaucrats is the way to go in a time of crisis.
The proposed Emergency Health Powers Act roused a nationwide storm of protest because it was an unprecedented assault on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, as well as on the principle of limited government, and so it never passed anywhere in its original text. Will similar totalitarian notions now bypass legislatures and be forced upon us by Security and Prosperity Partnership press releases?
Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.
PING!
Those of us who don’t listen to talk radio (the tinfoil hats interfere with the signal) have known about this since HillaryCare days. While the mechanics of her “task force” were rejected by congress (mostly because she was spending money without them), the actual protocols were accepted by several Federal Departments, and are mostly being slipped into the law even now. The SPP is only the public face of an incremental adoption of HillaryCare.
Gawd amighty! This reads like a sequel to Clancy’s “Rainbow Six!”
Hyperbole in the extreme. Garbage.
Schlafly has been right on some issues (e.g., ERA, family-related issues, abortion) in the past, but I've also noticed that she specializes in taking relatively benign things outside her area of knowledge and making absurd "end of the world" claims.
The plan is simply to have cooperative committees to handle a crisis that might strike and to try to coordinate a response. For example, if a plague broke out in Europe, the officials of the three countries could coordinate a technique to minimize the risk of the plague getting to North America.
None of the countries gives up their independence.
For Schlafly to say that "a foreigner will be the decision maker for Americans in two out of every three years" is absurd. Schlafly apparently does not understand the difference between the chair and the full committee.
The chair doesn't set policy. The chair of the Committee would not be the decision-maker. The chair simply calls the meeting ("meet in my country tomorrow at 1 pm") and does similar things.
If the full committee could override Congress (and they can't), even that would be a lot different than "a foreigner will be THE decision maker for Americans" [emphasis added] as Schlafly wrongly claims. The committee, i.e., the decision-makers of the countries, meet and try to adopt a crisis response such that one country's response doesn't increase problems for other countries.
Few people realize that in just about any country, the health department can overnight become the most authoritarian government agency there is. Essentially doctors directing men with guns, all the way up to the use of nuclear weapons to stop a major biological disaster.
The health department can disallow all constitutional rights, and there is no civil appeal. And this is not a new regime, but has existed for 100+ years. Before World War II and the invention of antibiotics, or even the widespread use of sulfa drugs, invented in 1932, quarantines were common and everyone learned to respect posted quarantine signs.
And yet, at the same time, politicians who would seek to increase their power during a medical crisis are in for a rude awakening. They are no longer in charge of things, nor are bureaucrats. It is a dictatorship of doctors.
And I think I can pretty well say that if medical doctors are in charge, it will be pretty hard to tell if they are American, Canadian or Mexican, because their concerns will be almost identical, and the execution will almost certainly be similar, and brutally objective.
Ironically, being under a technocratic regime of medical doctors is probably not too bad, specifically because they don’t *want* to be in charge, they *have* to be. And they want to return power to the civil authorities as soon as possible. This is not a bad quality to have in leaders.
And while initially, a large percentage of the population will stupidly and stubbornly resist their direction, they either become more cooperative, or they have a much better chance of becoming casualties.
But most epidemics like avian flu are like wildfires. Which means that they will pass through an area quickly. Strangely, though, in two waves. And between waves, and once it has done its worst, locally at least, things will quickly return to some degree of normalcy. The biggest after effect being that people remain standoffish and concerned with hygiene for some time. But otherwise, life will return to a great extent, to normal.
That depends whether the real objective of the leadership is to mitigate a plague, or to enhance their own power.
ping...
Well, why don’t we just build a wall and keep those sick birds out? How dare they think they can mess with the U.S. of A.? /s/
As far as I’m concerned, my fellow citizens’ constitutional right to move freely about the country ends when they’re carrying some bug that can kill my family.
We’re talking about contingency plans for a pandemic here, folks, and I, for one, am pleased to know that someone is thinking ahead. If perilous times require drastic measures to ensure public safety, I’m all for it.
Read the preamble if you don’t think that’s a legitimate government function.
Go to the library and read microfilm of newspapers in 1918 and think what life would be like if it happens again in this day of mass transit and multiplied population.
NAU PING
The Plan sets up a "senior level coordinating body to facilitate the effective planning and preparedness within North America for a possible outbreak of avian and/or human pandemic influenza under the Security and Prosperity Partnership." The Plan identifies this Security and Prosperity Partnership coordinating body as "decision-makers."ty for the ping, hedgie; I'll read this more thoroughly tomorrow, but, I don't like what I've skimmed here, at all. BumPing!!The Plan then (ungrammatically) states: "The chair of the Security and Prosperity Partnership coordinating body will rotate between each national authority on a yearly basis." Thus, a foreigner will be the "decision maker" for Americans in two out of every three years.
BTTT
Any opinions from a REAL conservative like Phyllis Schlafly are definitely worth reading.
Agreed!
I have wondered about this.
Ping for later.
Wanna make a bet? As Calderon said in his speech to Mexico, "where there is a Mexican there is Mexico."
For example, if a plague broke out in Europe, the officials of the three countries could coordinate a technique to minimize the risk of the plague getting to North America.
Now should this plague break out in Mexico, do you honestly think these officials would close the borders? The SPP agreement is to keep the borders open during a pandemic as money is more important to them than life. Free trade must go on come hell or high water. So therefore, we will have a world wide pandemic due to free trade.
And a free traitor globalist will do the 3rd year.
You raise a good issue, but it’s a different matter, one that’s separate from Schlafly’s misstatements.
Under current political reality, you are probably right that the border would unfortunately not be closed. However, it would be because U.S. officials (under the type of political pressure that produced the amnesty bill) were wrongly choosing to subordinate U.S. interests to Mexico’s. It would NOT be a result of the chairman of a coordinating committee being in the hands of Mexico, contrary to Schlafly’s contention.
When I said that the countries don’t give up their independence, I meant under the SPP. That was the context and what I was talking about, but it’s good to clarify that.
Bump. Correct.
It truly shows how little that "Security" has to do with the Security Prosperity Partnership.
As for BillF's argument that there is no abdication of sovereignty in the SPP, that would seem to be contradicted by the very secrecy surrounding these negotiations that never seem to have any tangible Congressional authority or work-product for the Senate to review and confirm in treaty-form.
Our nation's sovereignty flows from the PEOPLE. And since the People, inclusive of their representatives, are being kept in the dark, ignorant of the issues of the foreign discussions and policies... then it follows that they have already had their sovereignty violated.
Oh...good point, AuntB!
This comes from Schafly? Not the type to wear the tin foil propeller beanie.
This is pretty amazing.
I beg to differ. Schlafly is not incorrect, and the previous president of Mexico, who signed the SPP, said the following:
"Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes as important as the future prosperity of North America, and the freedom of movement of capital, goods, services and persons."
-- Vincente Fox, then President of Mexico
May 16, 2002 | Before the members of the "Club Century XXI" in the Hall Conferences of the Eurobuilding Hotel, Madrid, Spain
[full text: Spanish | English]
She's got volumes on information, accessible at Eagle Forum on the North American Union, the SPP, Globalism, and the NAFTA Corridor, among other related matters.
Not to worry....they’ll be hearing from PAHLENTY of us!
I beg to differ. Schlafly is not incorrect, and the previous president of Mexico, who signed the SPP, said the following:
"Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, . . . an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, . . . " -- Vincente Fox, then President of Mexico
My comments and yours don't conflict except that you say that you "beg to differ."
The EU model is the former Mexican President's "long term objective," but he realized that the SPP does NOT implement that plan. Schlafly does NOT realize that. Or, less charitably, she is trying to mislead others about that.
It is a legitimate concern that eventually they will modify SPP to set up an EU style central governing authority on dealing with these issues (plagues, etc.), but Schlafly has overhyped this as if SPP already follows the EU model. Clearly, it doesn't.
Schlafly incorrectly writes that "a foreigner . . [will be] . . THE decision maker for Americans in two out of every three years" [emphasis added]. That's just totally bogus.
I repeat that under the current version of SPP, any failure to close the U.S. border when required by U.S. interests upon a plague occurring in Mexico "would NOT be a result of the chairman of a coordinating committee being in the hands of Mexico, contrary to Schlafly’s contention." Although failure to close might occur "because U.S. officials (under the type of political pressure that produced the amnesty bill) were wrongly choosing to subordinate U.S. interests to Mexico’s," that problem is not because of SPP.
Please document your assertions; everything I have read, and all those whom I have pinged have read, which includes, but is not restricted to, the SPP document itself, contradicts your assertions.
Security and Prosperity Partnership indeed!!
Nic, I have not read this thread nor all of the article so can’t make any intelligent comments.
I am highly suspicious and concerned about this so called “partnership”. Strange things are happening.
Do you recall when we had the anthrax alarm and people were told to stock up on Cipro for inhalation anthrax? My daughters and I were in Mexico last week and were asked at the border if we were bringing in any Cipro.
Very odd as you are usually able to buy drugs and get a “prescription” for a 30 day supply of almost any drug. I had two nurses in the car with me and when they asked the border patrol about it he said Cipro was not being allowed to be brought in!!
The big question is WHY!! It is an antibacterial drug.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/cipro/
Off topic I know, but interesting.
As for BillF's argument that there is no abdication of sovereignty in the SPP, that would seem to be contradicted by the very secrecy surrounding these negotiations that never seem to have any tangible Congressional authority or work-product for the Senate to review and confirm in treaty-form.
What legal control or power did the U.S. delegate to another country? Wasn't this just an agreement have the respective countries' experts meet to consider issues such as plagues and to try to reach a consensus as to the best approach?
Even in the unlikely event that you maintain that the agreement was negotiated in secret, beyond usual security in negotiations, this doesn't confirm Schlafly's misreading of the contents of the agreement. Further, the Senate never votes on any executive agreements. Therefore, neither of these seems unusual. Certainly, neither factor is an indication as to the content of the agreement.
The big question is WHY!! It is an antibacterial drug.
Now, that is an interesting turn, is it not?!
BTTT!
Since the former President of Mexico made the quoted statement in 2002 (I didn’t realize the date before), his statement doesn’t show a realization about the SPP, which came later. However, Schlafly talks about a coordinating body, but then blows it out of proportion and says that a foreigner will be making decisions that legally bind Americans, as opposed to being part of a panel recommending procedures that U.S. officials have ultimate control over.
It’s not that I think that SPP is necessarily great or free of flaws. Nor do I believe that concerns over further agreements or modifications are misplaced. It’s just that Schlafly doesn’t support her overhyped claims.
For example, she wrongly said that, under SPP, “a foreigner will be THE decision maker for Americans in two out of every three years” [emphasis added].
Was Schlafly right or wrong about that? Do you believe that the chair of a committee decides for the whole committee? Thus, a Mexican chair could out-vote contrary positions of the Canadian and U.S. members of such a panel? How?
Do you have a link to the actual text of the SPP, as you’ve read it (where?)?
Would you be so kind as to point out something in there that shows a legal power (what legal power?) that is delegated to a foreigner?
What legal control or power did the U.S. delegate to another country? Wasn’t this just an agreement have the respective countries’ experts meet to consider issues such as plagues and to try to reach a consensus as to the best approach?
The SPP has been around for a while. Has a foreigner already made a decision legally binding on Americans in the U.S.? What decision?
You still have not provided me with any evidence to contradict anything Schlafly has said, except your opinions. Sorry, but I have a ton of respect for Schlafly, don't know you from a whole in the wall, and have lost ALL respect for Bush. I stop believing anything he says shortly after he began spitting on the conservatives who got him elected.
In the meantime, as I have earlier stated, I have read voluminous documents, bills, and proposed legislation, on government websites (read that US, Canadian, and Mexican) over the years, which includes those found at the White House, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Kansas City Smart Port, NAFTA, and the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as observing Bush's actions, including his current pushing for Mexicans to drive their trucks into the US, competing against American truckers who must comply with regulations (whereas, Mexicans do not)....along with a host of other documents that Schlafly has also read.
Until you offer more than your opinions and character assassinations against Schlafly, I'm putting you into the pro NAU/CFR/NWO crowd.
In the meantime, for the lurkers' benefit, they can find out more information about the attempts to undermine American sovereignty, via the SPP, here, on Dr. Daneen Patterson's website, "Stop the North American Union" (just one of MANY articles concerning this matter):
SPP.gov Myths vs. Facts . . . the Really Big LIE!Note, item number one on their list which states:
Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.
Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is NOT an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was EVER signed.
Their 'fact' does not hold up under scrutiny. It is basically a BALD-FACED LIE! It is propaganda in its boldest form. How do I know Because on a Canadian government website there was a statement made and signed by Prime Minister Martin which declares the following: "on March 23, President Bush, President Fox and I SIGNED the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America that establishes the way forward on our continental agenda for security, prosperity and quality of life."
The above quote can be found on page 2 of 5. It is the last sentence in the sub-section titled Canada in North America in a document signed by PM Paul Martin: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/cip-pic/ips/ips-overview2-en.asp.
That’s very interesting, potlatch!
It doesn’t make any sense.
It really doesn’t make any sense. Valium, pain pills, ampicillin and most meds can be brought in. Cipro is not something you would think of as being banned.
That was my thinking, as well.
Given their illegal drug smuggling, I’m
surprised they are worried about Cipro.
[I’m surprised they are worried about Cipro.]
Especially since it is a great aid in case of a terroristic anthrax threat again! Puzzling
“Puzzling” is correct, potlatch.
Lol, those guys are IMPRINTED in my memory!!
At least Charlie B isn’t hiding under there.... snicker
Please be so kind as to give me a link to the actual SPP text, which you read. (The actual SPP text doesn’t appear to be on the anti-NAU site that you quoted and linked to.)
I sure don’t want an EU style structure (NAU) over our current government, but I don’t see that the SPP, as currently existing, as setting up a NAU for us. Kindly show me the text and you may recruit another person to your cause.
I’ve given specific examples of where Schlafly, much as I respect her for opposing the ERA among other things, is wrong. You’ve not yet given any specific examples of how the text of the SPP vindicates the specific Schlafly statements that I’ve questioned.
I’m a pro-American conservative as numerous FReepers, who’ve met me in person since I attended the FR March for Justice in Oct 1998 (prior to my current FR membership date) and numerous stands against ANSWER, Code Pinkos, et al since then, can attest to.
Don’t put me in the NUA crowd where I sure don’t belong, just be so kind as to point me to the specific SPP text so I can be illuminated.
Please be so kind as to give me a link to the actual SPP text, which you read. (The actual SPP text doesn’t appear to be on the anti-NAU site that you quoted and linked to.)
I sure don’t want an EU style structure (NAU) over our current government, but I don’t see that the SPP, as currently existing, as setting up a NAU for us. Kindly show me the text and you may recruit another person to your cause. http://www.spp.gov/pdf/nap_flu07.pdf
Go to page 11 of 53, the last paragraph which starts with "Although influenza will not physically damage critical infrastructure......
I’ve given specific examples of where Schlafly, much as I respect her for opposing the ERA among other things, is wrong. You’ve not yet given any specific examples of how the text of the SPP vindicates the specific Schlafly statements that I’ve questioned.
You have not quoted or given any direct links, only your opinions. Certainly since you have been here since 1999 you don't need to be spoon fed. But I'll give you one more link then go to the article and get the links for yourself.
http://www.state.gov/g/avianflu/91271.htm
Annex 2: Terms of Reference for the Coordinating Body on Avian and Pandemic Influenza
Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs August 2007
Overview`
Canada, the United States and Mexico have established a senior level Coordinating Body to facilitate the effective planning and preparedness within North America for a possible outbreak of avian and/or human pandemic influenza under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). This Coordinating Body will serve as the senior level contact group in the event of an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza or a novel strain of human influenza outbreak and, as such, could be used as a model for regional collaboration.
Mandate
The Coordinating Body will support and facilitate the coordination of SPP-related activities in North America with a bearing on planning and preparedness for avian and pandemic influenza, much of which will be incorporated into the North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza including:
Ensuring the development and implementation of a comprehensive, coordinated and science-based North American approach to plan for and manage the threat of an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza and/or human pandemic influenza;
Ensuring the development and implementation of standard operating procedures (SOPs) to strengthen North America’s ability to prevent and mitigate, prepare for, respond to and recover from an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza or a human pandemic influenza;
Ensuring that previous tasks related to avian influenza and human pandemic influenza, SOPs, policies, protocols and any subsequent actions reflect the principles outlined in the North American Cooperation on Avian and Pandemic Influenza agreement and the principles agreed to by the leaders in the March 2006 Cancun Summit;
Ensuring the completion in a timely manner of all tasks agreed to by leaders in Cancun and any subsequent tasks; Identifying and prioritizing additional activities, gaps or areas of collaboration required to ensure North American preparedness;
Promoting cross-sectoral integration of preparedness activities (e.g. human health, animal health, transportation, borders, communications, surveillance, emergency response, etc.);
Encouraging the exchange of information on each government’s avian and pandemic influenza plans and intentions; and
Encouraging the development of comprehensive, multi-sectoral business continuity plans that address North American considerations.
Chairs
The chair of the SPP Coordinating Body will rotate between each national authority on a yearly basis.
Membership
Membership will include senior officials from the following departments and agencies: Canada:
Public Safety Canada Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Public Health Agency of Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency United States:
U.S. Department of State U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Department of Agriculture Mexico:
Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Health Ministry of Foreign Affairs Representatives from other agencies/departments can join future discussions in accordance with the agenda. Working Groups
Where possible, existing SPP working groups, governmental structures or trilateral/bilateral mechanisms will conduct the analysis and develop policies and procedures that inform all levels of government in their ability to deal with the North American, cross-sectoral impacts of avian and pandemic influenza, avoiding where possible duplicating efforts Administrative Support
Administrative and logistical support for the SPP Coordinating Body is the responsibility of each national authority.
Frequency of Meetings Quarterly or as called by the chairs; in person or by teleconference.
If you go to the second link you will note it is from the State Department.
Tinfoil is contagious. Fortunately I live within the protective shield of HAARP.
No truer words have eer been spoken. We have lost a certain amount of sovereignty since the republicans took over and are in danger of losing it all with these yahoos in charge. Still hard to believe.
If you will read down into the 2007 you will rellize this is but another UN boondoggle. It is sickening to let these 2 bit thugs have any authority over an American.
http://www.spp.gov/pdf/nap_flu07.pdf
The big blunder of the Bushies was the use of the word comprehensive instead of interdependency. I have already seen here on FR where some "conservatives" free traitors think that we can't live without Mexico and their oil. What cowards! When 9/11 happened we didn't need Mexico, when the anthrax scare happened, we didn't need Mexico, when Katrina happened, we didn't need Mexico. Now some free traitor thinks we need Mexican 18 wheelers on our over crowded highways or the pavement will just roll up and shrink away without a Mexican.
You have given some excellent links. Thanks!
Cipro is one of the drugs of choice in the treatment of anthrax. Probably the best. The U.S. didn’t want a run on the drug by people who didn’t have and symptoms of anthrax poisoning but would have to wait until some doctor decided and then even he couldn’t get the drug. They were keeping t he drugs for the la-de-dahs.
[They were keeping t he drugs for the la-de-dahs.]
I think there’s a big ‘pay off’ involved somehow. It just doesn’t make sense to ban Cipro when many ‘controlled’ drugs can be brought back with a ‘Mexican prescription’.
This is the logical end-game of the welfare state...
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants;it is the creed of slaves”.
William Pitt, 1783
bump
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.