Posted on 09/11/2007 5:33:05 PM PDT by 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.
The burden of proof is upon you to provide something other than your own opinions to support your position that Schlafly is incorrect.
Using repeated hyperbole, logical fallacies *you are employing throughout this thread*, subject-changing, false accusations (again, without evidence), table-turning, etc., etc., etc., do not qualify as “supporting your position that Schlafly is incorrect,” or even your claims concerning Vincente Fox’s position concerning the SPP.
Oh, btw, your “arguing style” is similar to every other globalist shill in FR and elsewhere.
How many shillings are YOU getting paid?
I believe you should have asked how many pieces of silver. I believe the asking rate was 20 in the past.
What is legislative power? Just a vote.
A legislative power is the power allocated to the legislature by the fundamental law (Constitution of U.S. or state, city charter, etc.).
Most common legislative powers are law making (governing criminal and civil matters), taxing, and spending.
Under each of those powers, details are often delegated to others and this may cloud the answer to your other question (great question, btw) which was who makes policy?
Here's an example. A city council passes a law requiring nightclubs to post signs such as "maximum capacity 100 people" and the same law delegates to the city fire marshal the power to establish maximum capacities for each night club, to issue capacity certificates to such establishments, and to fine the establishments if they exceed the max.
The delegated power to the fire marshal is usually considered a regulatory power, not a legislative power. In this case, the policy is set by the city council (legislative branch), but the executive branch official (fire marshal) is implementing the details.
Legislatures often effectively delegate legislative powers such that executive branch officials really are policy makers. Thus, Congress established the FCC and gave it the power to regulate communications "in the public interest and necessity." Given such a wide-open mandate, the FCC is setting policy, albeit within broad factors set up by Congress.
It's a legitimate concern that overly broad delegation of legislative powers will put government beyond reach of the consent of the governed. This is especially true if, God help us, something as terrible as an EU-style NAU was implemented.
Now, if that legit concern is over-hyped in the case of an agreement or series of agreements that are detailed blueprints for cooperation and that don't delegate any legislative power, the credibility of anti-NAU forces will be demolished.
To avoid hurting the political strength of those of us who want to protect U.S. sovereignty, vague and unsupported charges against SPP and subordinate agreements or frameworks should be avoided.
As you will see in the thread-long debate, others questioned my disagreement with Schlafly's contention that the SPP Flu Plan delegated legislative powers to a foreigner. I looked through the documents and haven't seen such a delegation. (Mind you, if it's not there, it's not there.)
Others insist delegation of legislative power to a foreigner is there, but they won't say where. I asked for the specifics. It should be easy to say, "part 6a delegates power to determine legal chicken feed to a Mexican or Canadian" or some other such power, IF THAT WERE TRUE, BUT IT ISN'T.
After providing an explanation showing that the SPP Flu Plan doesn't delegate as Schlafly says, I've been slandered as "pro-NAU" by a person whose silly, unsupported arguments play right into the hands of those who want the God-awful NAU. He's probably not a mole out to destroy U.S. sovereignty by using silly arguments and logical fallacies to open anti-NAU forces to ridicule, but he sure doesn't know how to answer a simple question or argue consistently.
The burden is upon YOU to prove that Schlafly is wrong, not upon me to prove that I agree with what she claims.
You disagree....YOU provide the evidence which supports YOUR position.
Your opinions, as well as your logical fallacies, do not count as evidence.
30 pieces of silver.
With these people, however, I believe they accept “shillings.”
My mistake, you are absolutely correct. I wonder how much money that would be in our inflated currency.
Not much; but some are more than willing to be sell-outs for “free” as they have selfish interests, i.e., as in those who have illegally hired illegals, are married to illegals, etc., etc., etc.
Special Visas for Illegal Aliens Who Become Crime Victims. As yorkie noted in post #47 of that thread,
The list keeps growing: Free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, free legal representation, commit crimes, get deported, come back again.But American citizens receive no protections from illegals who commit crimes, as they are let back out on the streets, roaming at will, continuing their murders of Americans while they drive drunk, rape, molest American children, etc.
So will a pandemic be created to justify the destruction of freedom?
Here in hoosierland we have people hired solely to deal with the pandemics; and a lot of their training and concerns is on CONTROLLING the movement of other people, transportation, food, mandatory injections (of exactly what?) and the general mindset is that the government must take control of everything when, not if,a pandemic occurs.So will a pandemic be created to justify the destruction of freedom?
Interesting that you mention that; I recently came upon an article on the North American Union posted in Sourcewatch, stating that very thing.
North American Emergency Management (NAEM) is one of the priority initiatives set forth in the March 31, 2006, White House news release and the fact sheet posted on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America website.The function of NAEM would be similar to that of FEMA's operations during Hurricane Katrina. In his September 20, 2005, article "Glimpse Into The Future Of Global Collectivism - FEMA: Katrina," Chris Gupta wrote:
"The primary job of the military, FEMA, and Homeland Security is not to protect the American people in times of emergency but to protect the government in times of emergency and keep it functioning. Their primary assignment is, not to rescue people, but to control them. Their directive is to relocate families and businesses, confiscate property, commandeer goods, direct labor and services, and establish martial law. The reason FEMA and Homeland security failed to carry out an effective rescue operation [for Hurricane Katrina] is that this was not their primary mission, and the reason they blocked others from doing so is that any operations not controlled by the central authority are contrary to their directives. Their objective was to bring the entire area under the control of the federal government - and this they succeeded in doing very well. They did not fail in New Orleans. They were a huge success. Once this simple fact is understood, everything that happened in the wake of Katrina becomes understandable and logical."If there are new terrorist attacks against the United States or Great Britain (or any other country), what we witnessed in New Orleans may have been a glimpse into the future of global collectivism."
My tag line.
Yep. That’s what is happening.
Our so called public servants need to remember what little dogs do to big wheels. :0)
: )
Neither was.
North American Union to Replace USA?
In Corsi's article he linked to the CFR's 2005 report. Do a search on "SPP". SPP (or its future manifestations) and the NAU go hand-in-hand.
Whether Schlafly sufficiently makes her argument against SPP is moot to me.
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.