Bump. Correct.
It truly shows how little that "Security" has to do with the Security Prosperity Partnership.
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.
Our nation's sovereignty flows from the PEOPLE. And since the People, inclusive of their representatives, are being kept in the dark, ignorant of the issues of the foreign discussions and policies... then it follows that they have already had their sovereignty violated.
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.
No truer words have eer been spoken. We have lost a certain amount of sovereignty since the republicans took over and are in danger of losing it all with these yahoos in charge. Still hard to believe.
If you will read down into the 2007 you will rellize this is but another UN boondoggle. It is sickening to let these 2 bit thugs have any authority over an American.
http://www.spp.gov/pdf/nap_flu07.pdf
The big blunder of the Bushies was the use of the word comprehensive instead of interdependency. I have already seen here on FR where some "conservatives" free traitors think that we can't live without Mexico and their oil. What cowards! When 9/11 happened we didn't need Mexico, when the anthrax scare happened, we didn't need Mexico, when Katrina happened, we didn't need Mexico. Now some free traitor thinks we need Mexican 18 wheelers on our over crowded highways or the pavement will just roll up and shrink away without a Mexican.