U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

SPP does not equal UN. You shouldn't let your admiration for Corsi blind you, either.

Now, let's get serious. Someone please explain to me why the U.S. should not cooperate with Mexico and Canada regarding avian flu? Birds don't carry citizenship papers.

Sorry, I forgot to address this:

I will tell you this, I remember a whole lot of people on this website being upset when China dragged its feet about notifying the rest of the world about its SARS outbreak.

China didn't tell it's own people, why would they tell the world? We, the US, operates on a totally different value system. I expect MY GOVERNMENT to inform me about an outbreak-not the un.

Corsci's making a fuss about WHO, but he doesn't mind that the federal government allows the US Postal Service to take orders from the UN's Postal Union.

Why is one bad but the other ok?

if your next-door neighbor came down with smallpox, would you like to be informed about it, or would you respect his call for privacy?"

It's hard to believe that you and I are the only two freepers who want international coordination for the control of contagious deseases.

rb, are you blind? WHO and IHR ARE the un.

Corsi has nothing to do with the who, ihr or the un. You, for some obsessive reason that only you can understand, sees him as the anti-christ.

Someone please explain to me why the U.S. should not cooperate with Mexico and Canada regarding avian flu?

What has that got to do with what I'm pointing out to you? You're trying to change to debate. The debate is, you said:

Only if Corsi finding a 53 page document that contains "SPP," "NAFTA," "WHO," etc. and posting a link to it constitutes "investigative" journalism. He wants you to read it because he likely hasn't read it himself.

The White House said they're working with the SPP yet you keep twisting it as some master plan by Corsi.

You have a problem with every single article Corsi puts out. This one line in the article sent you on your personal vendetta against Corsi and the article it's self.

The "North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza" was finalized at the SPP summit last week in Montebello, Quebec.

They are all under the auspice of the un through the front groups of the WHO and the IHR.

Straw man alert!

“You’re trying to change to debate.”

Of course they are. Nothing more frightening to a couple of open borders econobots than threads on NAU/SPP.

Of course they are. Nothing more frightening to a couple of open borders econobots than threads on NAU/SPP.

It does get their boxers in a twist, doesn't it.

...haven’t I heard that “Corsci” name before?

Who knows what you have heard.

You need to fix those hearing aids of yours! ;-)

As for your spelling, that is likely going to require you use spell-check more often.

Perhaps you have also heard of the Hudson Institute. Or its CEO, Ken Wienstein. Or Dr. John Fonte. They were among the key speakers at an August 18 Policy Seminar in D.C. on the SPP, along Pastor et al.

Absolutely devastating admissions within their little conclave surfaced, totally confounding the talking points meant to dupe the "loud people".

Note this one from Ken Weinstein, CEO of Hudson Institute:

"And the lack of transparency has really denied us that ability to know whether what’s going on is something we should be alarmed about or not. And I think that opening this process up would really reveal, for the most part, that a lot of the areas are dull and they don’t affect us that much – or they’ll affect narrow interests but not more broadly."
"So I think if I were advising the administration, I’d say you have nothing really to fear by transparency. The extent of transparency would be good, and by bringing in Congress in, you have a way of achieving that , and that will give people – the average voter – a greater sense that this is being overseen. And having done that, yes, you’ll have some extra roadblocks; there’s no doubt. But by and large, your freedom of action won’t be much constrained that the governments will be able to proceed on every reasonable measure where they’re trying to do something. And so, I don’t think there’s really any reason to fear transparency.
But for some reason, it’s been there.
I don’t know whether the administration is thinking about it. I’m also curious if the Canadian and Mexican governments looking at this might want to say, for their part, United States, you really need to help us address this, because we realize this whole thing could die in the U.S. and we need things out of this process in Canada, Mexico, so it’s in our interest for you to deal with this as well."

Perhaps the covert operations approach is embraced because the end results are indeed not "reasonable measures", and are in fact significantly different from what Weinstein presupposes, or has been informed, as to what...ultimately...is going on.

NOTE: He is not in the "Loop." He reveals that when he says: "If I were advising the President...."

But he isn't. Pastor et al., likely won't be inviting either Ken Weinstein or John Fonte to a Presidential pow-wow any time soon, I suspect...

Perhaps you would also take exception to the Hudson Institute. Undoubtedly just a bunch of confabulatory loons eh, who hear black helicopters? You would be full of it if you do. These guys are defense stalwarts from its founder to the current day, as credible as the Rand Foundation's scholars. From an August 18 Conference they hosted on the SPP two weeks, their own Dr. John Fonte reported as follows:

Panel 3: After Montebello:
The View from the Summit, and Where We Go From Here
Dr. John Fonte

My vision of the future of North America is rather different from the one you have heard. I see a 21st century North American consisting of three independent democratic nation states, the United States, Canada, and Mexico. There would be reasonable cooperation and security and trade, but as sovereign democratic states, they would rule themselves. For example, American border security would be determined by Americans. Canadian trade, economic, and energy policies would be determined by Canadians. And if some of those – America didn’t like some of those policies, well, that is called democracy.
Mexican education and cultural policy would be determined by Mexicans. Thus, Mexican schools, for example, would continue to promote Mexican identity to Mexican students, not, as recommended by the Council on Foreign Relations, to, quote, give students a greater sense of North American identity. I would expect that most ordinary citizens in the United States, Canada and Mexico, would prefer their educational institutions focused on their own national identity and history. Now, let’s look at some broad – what I see as broad problems with the SPP in general. One is conceptual, philosophical. There is in a sense a democracy deficit in terms of process. And, two, in terms of the substance of the policies themselves, which I’ll look at – examine that: border security, immigration, and how it meshes with the traditional American concept of the assimilation of immigrants, what we used to proudly call Americanization.
On the first point, democracy deficit, the SPP has some very far-reaching goals: the harmonization of regulation, standards, border immigration policies. The legal and constitutional authority for SPP is supposedly in the fine print in NAFTA. But, as has been pointed out, there is no congressional authorization for SPP. There have been no funds appropriated by Congress directly for SPC – SPP. There is little oversight or congregational hearings, no real public involvement. It is not a treaty, no real transparency, except for the material released reluctantly after freedom-of-information requests.
Actually, just as an aside, I was rather astounded by the last panel when the question was, should we know who was actually attending these meetings, and the person on the panel said, well, that really wouldn’t serve any purpose if you essentially know who is coming or not. This tells us something about the mindset at work.
In short, the SPP contains none of the regular procedures of American constitutional democracy. As the Anderson-Sands paper points out, there has been a lack of response to Congress by the Bush administration.
Now, unlike some, I don’t believe a conspiracy is at work; nevertheless, the North American integration process, the NSPP, is deeply flawed both conceptually and administratively. Obviously there are areas of cooperation that are being pursued by SPP and others that make sense in health regulations, trade, intelligence cooperation and so on. However, the issue is a border security, in immigrations, that are issues in America that will be decided by the Congress of the United States, not delegated to executive branch officials and transnational corporate executives.
Let’s look at some specifics: border security. It’s clear that the SPP document, as it states, the immediate number-one priority is, quote, “to facilitate the movement of people across borders of North America.” Now, unlike Adam Smith in “The Wealth of Nations,” SPP does not put – does indeed put commerce over security. Remember Adam Smith put security over commerce in the "Wealth of Nations."
Jim Edwards writes in a background paper for the Center for Immigration Study – I urge you to read that, along with the Judicial Watch’s Freedom Information Note, which are very interesting on what – of some of the reports on some of the meetings. Edwards says the SPP reports prioritize speed over security. I think that is right. We’ll give you an example here. The North American Competitiveness Council report of February 2007 have the following recommendation: Develop and adopt a low-cost, easily attainable ID and citizenship-verification document as an alternative to a passport. And that is almost an invitation to fraud given what we know about fraudulent documents in the immigration business in the last 10 years.
These priorities are vaguely written and ambiguous, but implicit is the suggestion there should be one border for all of North America. Indeed, there is a discussion by the traveler screening system working group of one card, and this has been – this is the suggestion. It is somewhat ambiguous in SPP. Well, this is an absolutely crucial issue. Are we talking about one border for North America, or when you cross the Mexican- Guatemalan border, are you in the United States, in which case our security is dependent on Mexican-border security.
The implication of in SPP is a yes, but, as I say, it’s ambiguous. It would make much more sense in terms of border security and the war on terror if we had a layered system of borders. Sure, a North American outer border would be fine, but then even tougher borders – U.S.-Mexican border and the U.S.-Canadian border – tougher as the administration is now belatedly saying the last few weeks that it plans on doing.
One of the problems is this process has been dominated by corporate special interests and not by the national security interests, by border security interests of the United States. And I believe that overall that proposals in SPP would actually weaken border security.
Let’s look at immigration, labor mobility. SPP document states temporary work entry – quote, “The three countries have forwarded a trilateral document setting out each country’s domestic procedures to modify NAFTA’s temporary appendix of professionals, providing a mechanism for more North American professionals to be given temporary entry.” Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez said, quote, “Work must continue to formalize a transnational labor force that could work in any North American country.”
Well, all of this immigration policy, which is not a technical issue, as we have heard. This is absolutely not a technical issue. It’s decided in our constitutional system not by the secretary of commerce in consultation with the Chamber of Commerce and foreign governments – by the Congress of the United States of America. And as we have witnessed recently, in the United States Senate, a bipartisan majority, 37 Republicans, 15 Democrats or so have very different ideas from the Bush administration and from business about what immigration and security policy should and should not consist of. Now, Ambassador Jones is right, that Congress does listen to the American people. He is also right to suggest that interior enforcement is crucial. However, SPP moves in the opposite direction.
Let me pick a bone with Ambassador Jones, listening to his previous discussion here – labor and mobility. Labor and mobility is a euphemism. That is immigration policy. What are we talking about? The labor mobility – the suggestion in SPP and the others is to continue massive, low-skilled immigration to the United States – Mexico and South – Central America. The Heritage Foundation has suggested over the long term the folks – the low-skilled people would cost about 20,000 a year in terms of what they would require in benefits and what they would pay in taxes. So it would be a cost to the taxpayer.
So in any case, that is an immigration debate. What we have often in SPP, in North American discussion is an end run around an immigration debate. Now, there is intellectual framework, and Mr. Pastor will be talking about this I’m sure for a North American vision.
I want to look briefly at the Council on Foreign Relations’ report. No, it’s not technically part of SPP, but it’s certainly part of the intellectual framework, part of the vision. And a lot of the same people are involved. There is two permanent things here that I want to talk about.
One is a trade – the trade tribunal and the other is the promotion of North American identity.
Let me just – before we get to that, let me just discuss the whole question of a trading – of trading bloc. Is that what we really, really want? In a way, having the world divided into different trading blocs is a negative on free trade to an extent.
Then if we were looking for partners, there are other partners suggested. My colleague John O’Sullivan has talked about an Anglosphere, closer trade relations between the English-speaking peoples, the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and India. Get India out of the Asian bloc and into an Anglosphere bloc.
I mean, there are other ways of looking at trading blocs. We’re going to have a trading bloc. Is North America the strongest way of doing it with Mexico and Central America perhaps being a drag as opposed to having something with an Anglosphere where we can include India? That is just another way that – I don’t think they have clearly thought this through.
Let’s look at what has been suggested by the North American – I’m sorry, by the Council on Foreign Relations to establish – they recommended establishing a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution because the current ad-hoc panels are not capable of building institutional memories or establish precedence. As demonstrated, quote, “by the WTO appeals process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage, faster, more consistent, more predictable resolution disputes.” Well, that is exactly the problem. The structure of the World Trade Organization is different from the GATT, the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs.
It’s more transnational and less international. Cornell University professor Jeremy Rabkin, a lot of you know, writes that the appellate of the World Trade Organization should be taken seriously as a threat to Sovereignty. Rabkin – why? Why is that the case? Well, Rabkin says the AB of the WTO, the appellate body, could build a body of case law from the international treaties the United States did not sign, as standards for setting trade disputes.
It’s already building a constituency of transnational actors, not just global corporation but – (inaudible) – activist NGOs that could in large measure, through courts, bypass the legislative decision-making process of the democratic nation states. Indeed, this is exactly what happened in the European nation states. Look at the writing of Alec Sweetstone, a British expert, generally favorable to the EU, but he describes the history of what happened in Europe over a 20-year period. The European Court of Justice established a body of independent case law, became the arbiter not just of trade but of social policy, and gradually, step by step, achieved dominance over democratically elected European parliaments. That is the history of the last 40 years in Europe.
The Council of Foreign Relations report, “Building American – North American Community” also recommends building North American identity. It says, quote, “encourage – we should encourage in imaginative ways to build North American connections, have research institutes, engage in new concepts such as the North American community, developing curricula that would permit citizens of our three countries to look at each other in the past in different ways.
Now, for those of us who have spent years examining history curricula, the subtext of this is clear enough. This is historical revisionism. Let’s rewrite the history of American history not as a story of the American people but as a story of North America. The Council on Foreign Relations also recommends, quote, “developing training programs for elementary and secondary teachers who would give some students a greater sense of North American identity.”
Again, these are code words that are clear enough: translation, promoting new North American identity that will challenge the allegedly outmoded conceptions of American, Canadian, or Mexican identity.
Another CFR recommendation: greater effort should be made to recruit Mexican language teachers to teach Spanish in the United States and Canada. Well, on the contrary, most Americans would like to see greater efforts at assisting immigrants learn English. The CFR recommendation is in direct conflict with U.S. national interests and our traditional policy of Americanizing newcomers into the mainstream of American civic life by promoting the U.S. of the English language. This is a direct challenge to the goal of assimilation.
Well, there is a lack of popular support. The leaders of the SPP project admit such, that their vision of North America doesn’t quite have the popular support now. Notes from the Banff meeting (of the North American Forum) state the following: quote, “Most people are not compelled – they don’t find the North American integration vision compelling, so there is a need to demonstrate the concept’s success.” Another SPP document declares, while a vision of an integrated North America is appealing, working on the infrastructure might yield more benefit and bring more people on board: evolution by stealth, evolution by stealth indeed.
One could ask why government funds are used for propaganda purposes to promote North American integration, which is simply one vision of North America. They are others, and this is a particular partisan vision – it’s a particular, let’s say, elite vision. There is no wonder that many members of Congress and the general public are suspicious of the project.
In conclusion, I would say to my friends who are promoting this particular vision, you guys need to go back to square one, get congressional authorization, and come up with some more modest goals focused on cooperation and sovereignty – cooperation among three sovereign nations that are issues are mutual concern, and not the type of extended integration that is not supported by the three publics in any of these countries at the present time or probably I would imagine ever.
Thank you.

Corsi was one of the Swifties.

Question: Corsci was pro-Bush in '04 or anti-Bush? Did he change his mind since?

Straw man alert!

If straw man is misquoting someone's position in weak terms to make refuting easy, why is WHO bad and UNPU ok --or are they both bad? Just say what you mean; like, maybe I already agree with you but I'm just not following what you're saying.

Nothing more frightening to a couple of open borders econobots than threads on NAU/SPP.

Yeah, that's why they should be bumped. Wait a minute . . . .

What has that got to do with what I'm pointing out to you?

Well, from your citation, you appear to be arguing that the U.S., Mexico, and Canada should not cooperate on avian flu because you think its a threat to our sovereignty.

Some irony that you would post that on a thread regarding an article that states:

Following the Montebello summit last week, the SPP North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza was published on a made-over SPP homepage redesigned to feature agreements newly reached by trilateral bureaucratic working groups.

It's hard to believe that you and I are the only two freepers who want international coordination for the control of contagious deseases.

Which should make you wonder if we are truly "open borders econobots." If we were, we should be arguing for the free and legal movement of pandemics across borders with minimal governmental interference.

Question: Corsci[sic] was pro-Bush in '04 or anti-Bush? Did he change his mind since?

I would say he was more anti-Kerry than anything.

Straw man alert!

That was someone else's comment.

...trilateral bureaucratic working groups

Dang! There goes my tinfoil right through the ceiling again.

...more anti-Kerry than anything.

Ah, Corsky's an "anti", he's not pro anything or anyone ---thanks; and thanks also for the spelling correction too, I've updated my spell checker.

Ah, Corsky's an "anti", he's not pro anything or anyone

When it comes to politics, why is that a bad thing? Almost everybody sucks. Corsi played a significant part in bringing down the guy who sucked worse in '04 and for that I'll be forever grateful.