Posted on 09/11/2007 5:33:05 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Oh...good point, AuntB!
This comes from Schafly? Not the type to wear the tin foil propeller beanie.
This is pretty amazing.
I beg to differ. Schlafly is not incorrect, and the previous president of Mexico, who signed the SPP, said the following:
"Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes as important as the future prosperity of North America, and the freedom of movement of capital, goods, services and persons."
-- Vincente Fox, then President of Mexico
May 16, 2002 | Before the members of the "Club Century XXI" in the Hall Conferences of the Eurobuilding Hotel, Madrid, Spain
[full text: Spanish | English]
She's got volumes on information, accessible at Eagle Forum on the North American Union, the SPP, Globalism, and the NAFTA Corridor, among other related matters.
Not to worry....they’ll be hearing from PAHLENTY of us!
I beg to differ. Schlafly is not incorrect, and the previous president of Mexico, who signed the SPP, said the following:
"Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, . . . an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, . . . " -- Vincente Fox, then President of Mexico
My comments and yours don't conflict except that you say that you "beg to differ."
The EU model is the former Mexican President's "long term objective," but he realized that the SPP does NOT implement that plan. Schlafly does NOT realize that. Or, less charitably, she is trying to mislead others about that.
It is a legitimate concern that eventually they will modify SPP to set up an EU style central governing authority on dealing with these issues (plagues, etc.), but Schlafly has overhyped this as if SPP already follows the EU model. Clearly, it doesn't.
Schlafly incorrectly writes that "a foreigner . . [will be] . . THE decision maker for Americans in two out of every three years" [emphasis added]. That's just totally bogus.
I repeat that under the current version of SPP, any failure to close the U.S. border when required by U.S. interests upon a plague occurring in Mexico "would NOT be a result of the chairman of a coordinating committee being in the hands of Mexico, contrary to Schlafly’s contention." Although failure to close might occur "because U.S. officials (under the type of political pressure that produced the amnesty bill) were wrongly choosing to subordinate U.S. interests to Mexico’s," that problem is not because of SPP.
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.
Security and Prosperity Partnership indeed!!
Nic, I have not read this thread nor all of the article so can’t make any intelligent comments.
I am highly suspicious and concerned about this so called “partnership”. Strange things are happening.
Do you recall when we had the anthrax alarm and people were told to stock up on Cipro for inhalation anthrax? My daughters and I were in Mexico last week and were asked at the border if we were bringing in any Cipro.
Very odd as you are usually able to buy drugs and get a “prescription” for a 30 day supply of almost any drug. I had two nurses in the car with me and when they asked the border patrol about it he said Cipro was not being allowed to be brought in!!
The big question is WHY!! It is an antibacterial drug.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/cipro/
Off topic I know, but interesting.
As for BillF's argument that there is no abdication of sovereignty in the SPP, that would seem to be contradicted by the very secrecy surrounding these negotiations that never seem to have any tangible Congressional authority or work-product for the Senate to review and confirm in treaty-form.
What legal control or power did the U.S. delegate to another country? Wasn't this just an agreement have the respective countries' experts meet to consider issues such as plagues and to try to reach a consensus as to the best approach?
Even in the unlikely event that you maintain that the agreement was negotiated in secret, beyond usual security in negotiations, this doesn't confirm Schlafly's misreading of the contents of the agreement. Further, the Senate never votes on any executive agreements. Therefore, neither of these seems unusual. Certainly, neither factor is an indication as to the content of the agreement.
The big question is WHY!! It is an antibacterial drug.
Now, that is an interesting turn, is it not?!
BTTT!
Since the former President of Mexico made the quoted statement in 2002 (I didn’t realize the date before), his statement doesn’t show a realization about the SPP, which came later. However, Schlafly talks about a coordinating body, but then blows it out of proportion and says that a foreigner will be making decisions that legally bind Americans, as opposed to being part of a panel recommending procedures that U.S. officials have ultimate control over.
It’s not that I think that SPP is necessarily great or free of flaws. Nor do I believe that concerns over further agreements or modifications are misplaced. It’s just that Schlafly doesn’t support her overhyped claims.
For example, she wrongly said that, under SPP, “a foreigner will be THE decision maker for Americans in two out of every three years” [emphasis added].
Was Schlafly right or wrong about that? Do you believe that the chair of a committee decides for the whole committee? Thus, a Mexican chair could out-vote contrary positions of the Canadian and U.S. members of such a panel? How?
Do you have a link to the actual text of the SPP, as you’ve read it (where?)?
Would you be so kind as to point out something in there that shows a legal power (what legal power?) that is delegated to a foreigner?
What legal control or power did the U.S. delegate to another country? Wasn’t this just an agreement have the respective countries’ experts meet to consider issues such as plagues and to try to reach a consensus as to the best approach?
The SPP has been around for a while. Has a foreigner already made a decision legally binding on Americans in the U.S.? What decision?
You still have not provided me with any evidence to contradict anything Schlafly has said, except your opinions. Sorry, but I have a ton of respect for Schlafly, don't know you from a whole in the wall, and have lost ALL respect for Bush. I stop believing anything he says shortly after he began spitting on the conservatives who got him elected.
In the meantime, as I have earlier stated, I have read voluminous documents, bills, and proposed legislation, on government websites (read that US, Canadian, and Mexican) over the years, which includes those found at the White House, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Kansas City Smart Port, NAFTA, and the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as observing Bush's actions, including his current pushing for Mexicans to drive their trucks into the US, competing against American truckers who must comply with regulations (whereas, Mexicans do not)....along with a host of other documents that Schlafly has also read.
Until you offer more than your opinions and character assassinations against Schlafly, I'm putting you into the pro NAU/CFR/NWO crowd.
In the meantime, for the lurkers' benefit, they can find out more information about the attempts to undermine American sovereignty, via the SPP, here, on Dr. Daneen Patterson's website, "Stop the North American Union" (just one of MANY articles concerning this matter):
SPP.gov Myths vs. Facts . . . the Really Big LIE!Note, item number one on their list which states:
Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.
Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is NOT an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was EVER signed.
Their 'fact' does not hold up under scrutiny. It is basically a BALD-FACED LIE! It is propaganda in its boldest form. How do I know Because on a Canadian government website there was a statement made and signed by Prime Minister Martin which declares the following: "on March 23, President Bush, President Fox and I SIGNED the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America that establishes the way forward on our continental agenda for security, prosperity and quality of life."
The above quote can be found on page 2 of 5. It is the last sentence in the sub-section titled Canada in North America in a document signed by PM Paul Martin: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/cip-pic/ips/ips-overview2-en.asp.
That’s very interesting, potlatch!
It doesn’t make any sense.
It really doesn’t make any sense. Valium, pain pills, ampicillin and most meds can be brought in. Cipro is not something you would think of as being banned.
That was my thinking, as well.
Given their illegal drug smuggling, I’m
surprised they are worried about Cipro.
[I’m surprised they are worried about Cipro.]
Especially since it is a great aid in case of a terroristic anthrax threat again! Puzzling
“Puzzling” is correct, potlatch.
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.