U.S. self-government is in peril (SPP Alert)

Townhall.com ^ | September 10, 2007 | Phyllis Schlafly

[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.

[yorkie]

Great links! Thank you for ‘cleaning our glasses’ on the subject of what will happen if our country *does* find itself in a bird flu pandemic. I have so many questions, now. Look out, Google - here I come!

[BillF]

You're hilarious! Irony is your strong suit.

You start a debate, many posts ago, by first posting to me that I beg to differ. Now, after a debate with numerous back and forth exchanges, you post I refuse to ‘debate’ with people like you who are pro-NAU . . . , after we've been debating forever and after I said that I opposed any NAU.

Your penultimate post to me includes I have little time to post right now as it is,. . . Had I time to post, that would be yet another reason I wouldn’t expend it on you.

Then, just after your statement that I wouldn’t expend [time to post] on you, you reply to me again 11 minutes after my reply is posted. Not only did you reply when you said you wouldn't expend the time, but you did so within 11 minutes after saying you had "little time." If you can reply with 11 minutes when you have "little time," you would probably be really fast if you weren't so time-pressed.

Even though you last posted that you refuse to ‘debate’ with people like [me], I'm thinking that your flair for irony and self-contradiction will force you to continue the debate by responding again.

Then again, in case you prove my last judgment about you wrong by NOT posting again when you claim not to have the time or desire to do so, I'll thank you for the dialogue. It was fun. If you do respond, my reply might be delayed as I catch a flight on one of the below. :)

[nicmarlo]

There's been no "debate." You've posted only your OPINIONS, claiming your character assassinations against Schlafly should be given weight. They deserve NONE. If you're going to character assassinate Schlafly, who has proven herself more than knowledgeable about the goings-on with this Administration, the NAU, and the SPP, you better step up to the plate to show that YOU have any credibility. Upon WHAT do you rely to condemn her or her claims and statements? That is what I first asked you to provide: evidence to back up YOUR opinions and accusations.

You have YET to do so; and that is where the game ENDS with you: game, set, match.

[nicmarlo]

yw yorkie.

[BillF]

Thanks for your kind and speedy reply after only about 8 minutes after my post when you didn't have time to post and deemed me unworthy of your valuable time. Thanks especially that you did so, in spite of posting previously that you didn't play "YOUR GAMES."

And thanks for yet another funny display of your proven flair for unintended irony and self-contradiction you declare "game, set, match." But, but, you don't play games.

I never condemned Schlafly or attacked her character. I said that she was prone to misstatements or exaggerations and I backed that up with specific quotes from her. I then compared her quotes with the SPP Flu Plan as you refuse to provide the actual, initial, and original SPP itself.

No matter how many times you reply, you can't do something that would be an easy way to confirm the Schlafly statements questioned by me, if it were possible.

You can NOT link or cite the actual text of the original 2005 SPP (even though you claim to have read it) and you can NOT cite one example of a legislative power delegated to a foreign official as claimed by Schlafly.

Your serve or did your "little time" of several posts back require you to leave the court? :)

[nicmarlo]

You’ve posted nothing but your empty opinions...again.

Get back to me when you have something credible to state (hint: your opinions are NOT credible).

[nicmarlo]

You can NOT link or cite the actual text of the original 2005 SPP (even though you claim to have read it) and you can NOT cite one example of a legislative power delegated to a foreign official as claimed by Schlafly.

I don't have time, and, therefore, refuse to do YOUR homework, though you claim to be knowledgeable and all-knowing about the SPP, you obviously only intend to post on this thread to attack and character assassinate Schlafly.

For this reason, I REFUSE to provide links to anything FOR you. You are playing a game, and I won't be played. Therefore, the game you are TRYING to play was over from the beginning: game, set, and match. We all got your number from the get go.

[BillF]

Thanks for your latest kind responses. Two responses in less than 5 minutes after my last post. Your speed when you have "little time" is impressive, but not as impressive as if you had kindly responded to a straightforward question.

If I was in error in saying that "Schlafly's claim of such a delegation of U.S. legislative powers to a foreigner is wrong," that would be easy to show by pointing to specific SPP language that gives such a legislative power to a foreigner. It would have taken a lot less time than you're spent, but you can't do it, thus confirming that Schlafly is wrong about that.

You say that you won't do it (i.e., point to specific SPP language that gives a legislative power to a foreigner), but it's clear that you can't do it. If you could, this would be over.

You've the one, not me, who claimed to be well-read on the SPP, but you are unable to answer the simplest question about it.

Your next post, if any, will again inadvertently confirm that there is no specific SPP language that gives a legislative power to a foreigner. Indeed, every additional time that you post, it confirms that no such delegation of a legislative power is given to a foreigner under SPP. Otherwise, you would simply list the power and the language that delegates it.

[nicmarlo]

Your speed when you have "little time" is impressive, but not as impressive as if you had kindly responded to a straightforward question.

If you think that responding to your drivel requires much effort, exertion, or time, you not only have over-exaggerated the importance of your opinions, but your self-absorbed posts, as well.

As I stated earlier, get back to me when you have something of importance to state, like, linking/posting any kind of evidence to back up your character assassinations against Schlafly.

[BillF]

Thanks for proving my last post and prediction:

Your next post, if any, will again inadvertently confirm that there is no specific SPP language that gives a legislative power to a foreigner. . . . Otherwise, you would simply list the power and the language that delegates it.

Kindly get back to me when you are willing to list the legislative power and the SPP language that delegates it.

[nicmarlo]

Right after you provide something other than your own opinions that Schlafly, as you claim, is in err or wrong.

So far, you’ve documented nothing to back up your claims, as I requested, since my very first post to you.

[nicmarlo]

To: BillF; texastoo; Kimberly GG; WorkerbeeCitizen; potlatch; hedgetrimmer but he [Calderon] realized that the SPP does NOT implement that plan.

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.

28 posted on 09/12/2007 7:28:00 PM EDT by nicmarlo a

Still waiting, since 9/12/07 at~7:30 p.m. Glad I'm not holding my breath.

[BillF]

I went through the SPP Flu Plan language, comparing it to Schlafly's claims, in my #51.

(You ignored that by falsely claiming that I had argued that the Flu Plan was "independent and separate from the SPP plan.")

Therefore, I documented my argument with reference to the SPP Flu Plan language.

Now since no one (not even a self-described expert like you) seems to be able to show the initial SPP language of 2005 and it doesn't appear on the official site or numerous others that I checked, I need you or another to link to that original, initial SPP language of 2005 (if you really did read it) before I can further respond.

The Great Carnac: "The person who responds to this post."

After opening envelope, Carnac reads question: "Who claims to be an expert on a topic, but can't answer a simple question about it?"

[texastoo]

You claimed to have read the SPP documents, but the only official SPP documents that you reference are not the basic, initial, original SPP itself.

Your links to prove that we are wrong are where. Please post your links proving we are wrong. Don't use this 2007 plan http://www.spp.gov/pdf/nap_flu07.pdf My suggestion to you is to look up and do your own research. I could care less what you believe.

[nicmarlo]

Your past dozen posts or so are all called logical fallacies, such as (and are but transparent attempts for you to continue side-stepping the repeated demands that you post something other than your opinions to back up your claims concerning Calderon, your claims that Schlafly's opinions are incorrect or misguided or over-exaggerated or in error):

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh. Description of Appeal to Ridicule The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form: 1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim). 2. Therefore claim C is false. Burden of Proof Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form: 1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. 2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. Poisoning the Well This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form: 1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. 2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false. Red Herring A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: 1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). 3. Topic A is abandoned.

[nicmarlo]

Your links to prove that we are wrong are where. Please post your links proving we are wrong. Don't use this 2007 plan http://www.spp.gov/pdf/nap_flu07.pdf My suggestion to you is to look up and do your own research. I could care less what you believe.

The only link he can provide to claim that Schlafly is wrong, to back up his claims that she is wrong is here

[nicmarlo]

I documented my argument with reference to the SPP Flu Plan language.

As I said, you're documenting your claims that Schlafly is wrong with...........your own opinions. Provide something other than links to your own posts and opinions that sides with your claims as to the meaning of the documents....links to the documents are not "evidence" to dispute what Schlafly herself opined about the very same documents.

[nicmarlo]

Your past dozen posts or so are all called logical fallacies, such as (and are but transparent attempts for you to continue side-stepping the repeated demands that you post something other than your opinions to back up your claims concerning Calderon, your claims that Schlafly’s opinions are incorrect or misguided or over-exaggerated or in error):

(in more legible form)

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” This line of “reasoning” has the following form:

1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.

Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise.

Poisoning the Well

This sort of “reasoning” involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This “argument” has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

[BillF]

nm, you brought back a reinforcement.

tt, why can’t I refer to the SPP Flu Plan language to dispute the accuracy of Schlafly’s claims? The main subject of her article is the SPP Flu Plan, not any of the other subordinate agreements such as the Agreement for Cooperation in Energy Science and Technology. Of course, she does mention other topics.

I did research after I got into this. I can read language. I can see that it doesn’t give legislative power to a foreigner, but have invited you both to show that it does by naming the power delegated and the language that delegates it.

Among other things, I read: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050323-2.html. Maybe that is the original SPP, but again I didn’t see any delegation of legislative powers to any foreigners.

On the logical fallacies, nm seems to know how to use most of them, especially poisoning the well by repeatedly falsely posting that I was “pro-NAU” and making other personal insults. Also, nm said that I, who long admired Schlafly for her work opposing ERA (but thought that she was wrong here), was engaging in character assassination against her. All while I tried to keep this debate focused on the key issue of whether the documents support the claim of U.S. legislative power transferred to a foreign official.

That wrong claim of legislative power transfer was my original point and all the red herrings were introduced by nm or others. That same wrong claim has been my focus throughout. I didn’t introduce quotes of Mexican leaders foolishly stating things. Those red herrings were yours.

Now on the burden of proof, I’m asserting that the SPP Flu Plan doesn’t do what Schlafly claims, specifically it doesn’t delegate U.S. legislative powers to a foreign official. So I read the document and there is no such delegation in the document. Therefore, if you insist that there is such a delegation, you should be able to easily say part 6a (or whatever) delegates power to tax (or another one of many Congressional powers) U.S. citizens in the U.S. to a Mexican or Canadian official, the burden is clearly on you to tell me where that is.

It’s like, I say that a home sales contract doesn’t cover the BBQ grill, but you say that it does. I look through the contract and say, “look it’s not there.” Now you need to say, “sure the BBQ grill is included in the contract here.”

Otherwise, it’s “game, set, match” that the contract does NOT include the BBQ and that SPP does NOT delegate legislative powers to a foreigner.

[endthematrix]

I’ll BUMP with some questions. What is legislative power? Just a vote.

Who institutes policy?