Uh, the very first PAGE states the following:
North American PlanHow can you continue to state that the "flu" plan is independent and separate from the SPP plan?
For Avian & Pandemic Influenza
Developed as Part of the
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
August 2 0 0 7
PREMEDITATED MERGER
U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency
Bush's SPP power grab sets stage for military to manage flu threats
Jerome Corsi | August 28, 2007
the U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, has created a webpage dedicated to avian flu and has been running exercises in preparation for the possible use of U.S. military forces in a continental domestic emergency involving avian flu or pandemic influenza.With virtually no media attention, in 2005 President Bush shifted U.S. policy on avian flu and pandemic influenza, placing the country under international guidelines not specifically determined by domestic agencies.
The policy shift was formalized Sept. 14, 2005, when Bush announced a new International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza to a High-Level Plenary Meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, in New York.
I never posted any such statement.
My last post started by calling it the "SPP Flu Plan." I just used "Flu Plan" as shorthand to refer to it later in that same post. I never said that it was independent and separate from the SPP plan. I sure wouldn't have called it the "SPP Flu Plan" initially if I was stating that it was independent and separate from the SPP plan.
I said that neither you or texastoo are citing the actual SPP text. Therefore, I showed how specific statements of Schlafly are inaccurate characterizations of the SPP Flu Plan.
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. They are agreements or frameworks adopted under the SPP (there are four such subordinate documents on the official site). Where is the actual SPP agreement? Are you bluffing or have you read it? Where?
You claim that Schlafly's over-hyped claims are true, but won't name one legislative power delegated to any foreign official.
If her outlandish claims were true, it would be simple enough to give an example. If you could say truthfully that "this Mexican official decided to outlaw feeding chickens a particular food and this was legally binding on U.S. chicken farmers, without any U.S. official(s) taking regulatory or legislative action," it would show that Schlafly's outlandish claim of foreign officials getting U.S. powers would be justified. There is nothing in the SPP Flu Plan that authorizes the delegation of such power to a foreign official.