Posted on 06/24/2007 1:11:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Lawmakers in Canada appear to be paving the way for "deep integration" with the U.S. and Mexico with a proposed measure that advances the controversial Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America promoted by the Bush administration, notes WND columnist Jerome Corsi.
It's an issue Corsi has fully investigated for his newest book, "The Late Great USA."
The conservative minority government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is pressing for "The Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement", which would enable a Canadian company to challenge laws in provinces that block the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Murray Dobbin, a Vancouver author and journalist critical of SPP, argued in an article titled, "The Plan to Disappear Canada – 'Deep Integration' comes out of the shadows," the secretive trilateral bureaucratic working groups organized under the auspices of SPP are "harmonizing" virtually every important area of public policy with the U.S., including "defense, foreign policy, energy (they get security, we get greenhouse gases), culture, social policy, tax policy, drug testing and safety and much more."
The proposed legislation would allow companies that believe provincial laws and regulations harm their NAFTA rights to demand up to $5 million in compensatory damages for each violation.
When fully implemented, Dobbin argues, "TILMA would allow challenges to the location and size of commercial signs, environmental set-backs for developers, zoning, building height restrictions, pesticide bans, and green space requirements in urban areas. It also would allow challenges to restrictions on private health clinics, halt stricter rules for nursing homes and almost certainly overturn the current ban on junk food in British Columbia schools."
The controversy over SPP broke into the mainstream in Canada last month when Tory Member of Parliament Leon Benoit walked out of a House of Commons International Trade Committee hearing in protest to a leftist professor who wanted to air his objections to "deep integration" with the U.S.
The professor, Gordon Laxer of the University of Alberta, was about to explain to the committee his theory that SPP involves a U.S. grab of Canada's energy resources when Benoit adjourned the meeting and bolted out of the room, preventing the Canadian mainstream press from hearing and reporting the professor's arguments.
Laxer, nevertheless, published his testimony in the nationally read Globe and Mail newspaper.
Laxar has objected to the closed-door meeting roundtables of Canadian business and corporate elite held in Calgary by the Washington-based think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS, as part of its "North American Future 2025 Project."
WND previously reported two activist groups, the Council of Canadians and the Coalition for Water Aid, are protesting that the CSIS research project involves a massive grab by the U.S. of Canadian fresh water, estimated to be one-fifth of the world's supply.
WND also has reported the CSIS, chaired by former Sen. Sam Nunn and guided by trustees including Richard Armitage, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Harold Brown, William Cohen and Henry Kissinger, is planning to present its "North American Future 2025" final report to the governments of Mexico, Canada and the U.S. by Sept. 30. The report is expected to recommend the benefits of integrating the U.S., Mexico and Canada into one political economic and security bloc.
Canadian activists are preparing to protest the third summit meeting of the SPP, scheduled for Aug. 20 and 21 in Montebello, Quebec.
There’s a reason I call it World Nut Daily.
that’s another tactic you all use when you can’t refute information....
Argumentum ad Hominem “Translation: “Argument against the man”
Alias: The Fallacy of Personal Attack
Type: Genetic Fallacy Exposition:
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate. Exposure:
Ad Hominem is the most familiar of informal fallacies, and—with the possible exception of Undistributed Middle—the most familiar logical fallacy of them all. It is also one of the most used and abused of fallacies, and both justified and unjustified accusations of Ad Hominem abound in any debate.
The phrase “ad hominem argument” is sometimes used to refer to a very different type of argument, namely, one that uses premisses accepted by the opposition to argue for a position. In other words, if you are trying to convince someone of something, using premisses that the person accepts—whether or not you believe them yourself. This is not necessarily a fallacious argument, and is often rhetorically effective. Subfallacies:
* Abusive: An Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition—such as appearance—is offered as evidence against her position. Such attacks are often effective distractions (”red herrings”), because the opponent feels it necessary to defend herself, thus being distracted from the topic of the debate. * Circumstantial: A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent’s position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: “Of course, that’s what you’d expect him to say.” The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument’s acceptance.
This form of the fallacy needs to be distinguished from criticisms directed at testimony, which are not fallacious, since pointing out that someone stands to gain from testifying a certain way would tend to cast doubt upon that testimony. For instance, when a celebrity endorses a product, it is usually in return for money, which lowers the evidentiary value of such an endorsement—often to nothing! In contrast, the fact that an arguer may gain in some way from an argument’s acceptance does not affect the evidentiary value of the argument, for arguments can and do stand or fall on their own merits. * Poisoning the Well * Tu Quoque
Cute. What’s the term for “refusal to provide evidence?” LOL
So their desires and intentions for world domination didn't actually end in world domination? I guess the CFR is scarier than Marx? How many countries did the CFR control? All of them? LOL!
You have more faith in the "bread and circus" consuming Sheeple than I do.
I look at my friends and family and project that over the rest of the country. That's why I'm not worried. You look at your friends and family and project that over the rest of the country. That's why you're worried.
You should know....you won’t provide anything but your own personal opinions or logical fallacies.
nic: I claim A.Well, what about the fact that your contention it's my opinion is your opinion? What is this, some sort of quasi-existential Daoist "Mystery of the Butterfly" exercise?
1rb: Prove A.
nic: Here, find it yourself.
1rb: You haven't proved A.
nic: That's your opinion.
I wonder how many Freepers bought an autographed copy of Corsi’s new book?
That’s your opinion.
nic: I claim A.
1rb: Prove A.
nic: Here, find it yourself.
If you’d READ what I posted, you wouldn’t make such a claim.
I linked EVERYTHING I posted to my comments...and stated why I made my claims.
As I said, get back to me when you feel like reading/posting comments based upon something other than you willful ignorance and empty opinions.
You did mention logical fallacies, so I'll add a comment about them here. I've given you three or four admitted results of the SPP agreement, that are not evidence of "conspiracy to form the NAU" (unless you argue otherwise--I'm waiting). That is standard rhetorical procedure when engaged in a logical argument. Just what exactly are you waiting for . . . you cannot shrug them off as my "opinion." So if you want a logical argument, get on with one.
The fact that I've not only done so, but gone way beyond doing so, speaks volumes about your dishonesty.
The fact that you CONTINUE to post NOTHING but your empty opinions, the fact that you continue to post NOTHING but sweeping and broad generalizations about a post which took HOURS to put together and contains my opinions, supported by cites and links to documents evidencing, with specificity, how my conclusions and connections were made, from and between each document, speaks to YOUR: 1) inability to COMPREHEND anything past 2nd grade reading ability; or, more likely 2) you're a paid shill whose job it is to do nothing but post empty, unsupported opinions for the sole purpose of discrediting the fact that this government intends, incrementally, to put into place the blueprint laid out by the Council on Foreign Relations: forming an NAU.
At least 100 million.
Does the incomplete implementation mitigate their deaths?
No.
The existence of the Communist Manifesto and the existence of a report by the CFR are equally useless as proof of the existence of the NAU.
No, I live in Mexifornistan. I see the defacto unification of Mexico and the country I love unfolding all around me on a daily basis.
But that doesn’t really worry me. It does not cause an elevated response of my sympathetic nervous system. I deal with it by building bridges where I can.
What does irritate me, however, are carpet bagging centrists who would enslave others with the tyranny of their own appetites.
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.
