Posted on 02/07/2007 7:21:45 AM PST by 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.
Brainfever strikes another legislature. When will it end, stay tuned.
Gosh, you are obtuse. The person who believes it is the person who you pinged yourself in your reply. See why I say you all are just plain funny?
The person who believes it is the person who you pinged yourself in your reply.--The epitome of an obtuse statement. LOLOLOL
You said so yourself --
biometric passports are globalist
39 posted on 02/08/2007 6:39:30 AM PST by 1rudeboy
Adjust your fire it was apparently misdirected.
She's shelling her own troops. [chuckle]
"The person who believes it is the person who you pinged yourself in your reply."--The epitome of an obtuse statement. LOLOLOL [quotation marks added, as that portion of the comment is mine]Note that the subject at hand is the murderous nature of NAFTA, as you acknowledge in your comment #41. Note also that you ping the holder of that view in your replies.
45 posted on 02/08/2007 9:35:08 AM CST by hedgetrimmer
_____
Gosh, you are obtuse. The person who believes it is the person who you pinged yourself in your reply. See why I say you all are just plain funny?
44 posted on 02/08/2007 9:14:49 AM CST by 1rudeboy
_____
NAFTA will kill us,
If you think that, why are you always defending it? LOLOL!
41 posted on 02/08/2007 9:11:00 AM CST by hedgetrimmer
_____
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.
39 posted on 02/08/2007 8:39:30 AM CST by 1rudeboy
_____
So if an epidemic breaks out in Mexico City, we won't close our borders (heaven forbid we interfere with the failure, NAFTA). We must even the playing field and give everyone a chance at the pandemic. Sarcasm/ Oh, the stupidity of the free traders.
4 posted on 02/07/2007 9:34:03 AM CST by texastoo [excerpted]
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you two are allies, but rather that she's having a "ready, fire, aim" moment.
Are you saying that I'm mischaracterizing the murderous nature of NAFTA, as posited by someone else, by describing it as a "NAFTA will kill us" reaction? Please, walk me through your reasoning . . . I need the laugh.
I just looked and didn't see anything backing up your assertion. I don't suppose you have a link?
It's right there, just after the section on vitamin supplements.
Funny you should mention Stakeholder. I just attended a Stakeholder meeting here on the railway. It's all about transparency(farce). There were about thirty attendees there and we heard a railway presentation, a power point.
To ask a question you are to write it down on a form and it will be adressed at the next Stakeholder meeting..in 3 weeks.
One landowner asked verbally, "Will the Union Pacific be signing options for easements during this three week period?"
Answer by "Port Authority": "Write that down on your slip of paper. That's a real good question."
The reason you haven't heard about Arizona is Arizona doesn't even know about it. That's how transparent this is. We would not have known a thing if it wasn't running right through us!
ROFL
If I understand correctly, one can't fight the railroad as they basically have eminent domain rights to your property from years ago. Will this in Arizona involve foreign ownership and toll roads?
The rail is backed by Chinese $$$ like the port.
An LLC is going to own the power plant in Mexico.
I don't know who is backing the natural gas line, but a Canadian Company is planning it.
Roads in Arizona are still to be figured out on how to finance them. Tolls are possible, so is long term financing. The state is looking into various ways to pay for the roads. The article never ever mentioned CANAMEX though.
If Mexican customs on TTC is in Kansas City, I wonder where Mexican customs will be on the CANAMEX.
Kill it now.
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.