Asking U.S. to pull out of agreement gets OK [Security and Prosperity Partnership]

Deseret News ^ | February 7, 2007 | Deseret News

[hedgetrimmer]

The House on Tuesday approved a resolution urging the United States to pull out of a cooperative economic, security and public health agreement with Mexico and Canada.

Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, said he is sponsoring HJR7 because he sees the Security and Prosperity Partnership as potentially, "wiping away our borders and becoming a common nation with a common currency" similar to the European Union.

Before Tuesday's 47-24 vote, Rep. Scott Wyatt, R-Logan, questioned what the so-called SPP really entails. He pointed to the government's Web site, spp.gov, which describes the partnership as a "dialogue" and not a signed agreement.

"I don't know what I'm asking ... because I don't know what it is," Wyatt said.

The partnership was announced in March 2005, by President Bush and the presidents of Canada and Mexico, who all said, "we must develop new avenues of cooperation that will make our open societies safer and more secure, our businesses more competitive, and our economies more resilient."

Before the vote, Rep. Sheryl Allen, R-Bountiful, had unsuccessfully sought to substitute the resolution with one that would urge an evaluation of the SPP by Congress, and request Utah's congressional delegation report to the state on the findings.

Allen said the partnership is broader than trade and should be studied further so the Legislature can better understand the scope of the issue.

"Its goals related to protection of our public health are very important," she said. "The SPP significantly has improved the cooperation between these countries in preparation for avian and pandemic influenza. ... We won't have energy security without cooperation."

Sandstrom later said issues such as avian flu can be addressed without "an agreement that could potentially merge our economies."

HJR7 now moves to the Senate.

[wolfcreek]

I got into the habit of putting little innuendos of sarcasm in my posts. One day I decided I would reserve that for the people who really deserved it and made an effort to be more civil. I felt, by your insulting comments and name-calling, you were out of line. That's not debate, it just meanness.

[1rudeboy]

That's too bad. Rub some dirt on it.

[wolfcreek]

Whatever! You and I seem to have similar interests, since We seem to show up on the same threads. Too bad We don't have common ground to stand on.

[1rudeboy]

You're not stupid. We'd find something to talk about if we ever met. And as long as our friends could keep us separated at the end, it would be a pleasure. [grin]

[Czar]

Well, at least it's a start...

[hedgetrimmer]

A road running north-south in Texas is, frankly, not an issue for the legislature of Utah.

I suppose the open border in Texas is not an issue for Utahns either-- who cares about how tax money is spent, anyway?

[hedgetrimmer]

There has been a lot of work on border security resulting in the implementation of the requirement for passports.

Which NGO came up with the idea for passports? Or wait, which transnational corporation? Enquiring minds want to know.

[You Dirty Rats]

I said it was not an issue for the Utah legislature. I did not say it was not an issue for "Utahns".

[hedgetrimmer]

Human need not corporate greed!

Wow, did you write that one too?

[hedgetrimmer]

I said it was not an issue for the Utah legislature. did not say it was not an issue for "Utahns".

Who elected the Utah legislature anyway?

[You Dirty Rats]

The Utah legislature handles issues in Utah only, not in Texas. End of discussion.

[1rudeboy]

I pulled it off the sandwich-board you were wearing at the WTO riots in Seattle, silly. Or was it the anti-FTAA riots in Miami? The mind blurs.

[texastoo]

A day late and a dollar short! Transparency = smoke and mirrors

Actually,I haven't read too much about Arizona in all this.

Transparency is the key word for the free trade agreements. What a lie.

The new word now that we must all learn is stakeholder. Stakeholder goes along with "ministers, secretariat, tribunals" and any other UNAmerican word.

[texastoo]

The only people that use the term "corporatist" are long-haired, dope-smoking, hippie types. You should be embarassed that you are oblivious to it. Google "corporatist+ralph+nader."

I googled it and found 702,000 articles. However, I DID NOT google "Ralph Nader". It looks like you are the only one who thinks and acts like a "dem". LOLOLOL You are on the wrong site. LOLOLOL

[1rudeboy]

I've always found it funny that there are paleos (if that's what you are) who do not understand that their rhetoric exactly matches that of the farther fringes of the Left. Funnier that, unlike the smarter ones who accordingly adjust their behavior, they persist in it. Funniest of all that, when caught Red-handed all they can muster is "I am rubber you are glue, all you say bounces off me and sticks to you."

To return to your barking-moonbat raver of the Left suggestion that a free trade agreement would prevent us from closing our border in a medical emergency, it as if you argue 2 + 2 = 5, and when challeged, yowl "what are you, some sort of a mathemetician? You think and act like one . . . the correct answer is 5, look it up yourself."

[wolfcreek]

"You're not stupid"


WOW! That's quite a compliment coming from *The Rude One* Maybe We do have some common ground.

[1rudeboy]

I've never seen you suggest that our new biometric passports are a result of a diktat from an unaccountable, faceless, transnational, and maybe even corporatist NGO, as others do.

[hedgetrimmer]

LOLOL! The 'barking moonbat' dialectic is dragged out again! Only took a couple of posts! LOLOL

[1rudeboy]

Oh, yes . . . let me summarize:

NAFTA will kill us, and
biometric passports are globalist.

I'm not going to go back and find any others. Two will suffice.

[hedgetrimmer]

You know,I never thought to check out the corporatist NGOS, but since you suggested it...

A biometric passport is a combined paper and electronic identity document that uses biometrics to authenticate the citizenship of travelers. The passport's critical information is stored on a tiny RFID computer chip, much like information stored on smartcards. Like some smartcards, the passport book design calls for an embedded contactless chip that is able to hold digital signature data to ensure the integrity of the passport and the biometric data.

Norwegian biometric passportThe current staged biometrics for this type of identification system is facial recognition, fingerprint recognition, and iris scans. The International Civil Aviation Organisation defines the biometric standards to be used in passports. ICAO does not currently have plans to use retinal scanning.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation defines the biometric standards to be used in passports.

Which one is this, 1rudeboy? A unaccountable, faceless, transnational, and maybe even corporatist NGO? I vote for the latter.