Yeah, I’m bluffing.
I routinely post on threads about which I have no information or knowledge, and claim I know what’s in the documents I’ve claimed to have read.
I don’t have time to spoon feed you. I have little time to post right now as it is, and what little time I do have, is certainly not going to be expended on trying to educate or spoon feed you....not when you could easily do so yourself. Google can be a great friend. I’ve already posted enough information on this thread, links to documents, and other websites. You, OTOH, continue to post only your opinions, sans nothing else, in an attempt to discredit the conservative, well-read, and informed, Phyllis Schlafly.
As I said earlier, as well, you seem only to posting on this thread to cast aspersions against her. Had I time to post, that would be yet another reason I wouldn’t expend it on you. I’ve crossed paths too often with those who are like you: throwing mud at people who are against what Bush is doing with the NAU rather than accept that what these folks are saying has greater credibility than the Bush & Co. propaganda.
Thanks for confirming, albeit indirectly through your sarcasm, that you can NOT link or cite the actual text of the original 2005 SPP (even though you claim to have read it) and that you can't cite one example of a legislative power delegated to a foreign official. You have thus proven my point that Schlafly's claim of such a delegation of U.S. legislative powers to a foreigner is wrong.
If she was right, a well-read person like you, could have easily supported her claim by naming the legislative power, without resort to personally disparaging me as part of some group that hurt your feelings in the past.