Your links to prove that we are wrong are where. Please post your links proving we are wrong. Don't use this 2007 plan http://www.spp.gov/pdf/nap_flu07.pdf My suggestion to you is to look up and do your own research. I could care less what you believe.
The only link he can provide to claim that Schlafly is wrong, to back up his claims that she is wrong is here
nm, you brought back a reinforcement.
tt, why can’t I refer to the SPP Flu Plan language to dispute the accuracy of Schlafly’s claims? The main subject of her article is the SPP Flu Plan, not any of the other subordinate agreements such as the Agreement for Cooperation in Energy Science and Technology. Of course, she does mention other topics.
I did research after I got into this. I can read language. I can see that it doesn’t give legislative power to a foreigner, but have invited you both to show that it does by naming the power delegated and the language that delegates it.
Among other things, I read: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050323-2.html. Maybe that is the original SPP, but again I didn’t see any delegation of legislative powers to any foreigners.
On the logical fallacies, nm seems to know how to use most of them, especially poisoning the well by repeatedly falsely posting that I was “pro-NAU” and making other personal insults. Also, nm said that I, who long admired Schlafly for her work opposing ERA (but thought that she was wrong here), was engaging in character assassination against her. All while I tried to keep this debate focused on the key issue of whether the documents support the claim of U.S. legislative power transferred to a foreign official.
That wrong claim of legislative power transfer was my original point and all the red herrings were introduced by nm or others. That same wrong claim has been my focus throughout. I didn’t introduce quotes of Mexican leaders foolishly stating things. Those red herrings were yours.
Now on the burden of proof, I’m asserting that the SPP Flu Plan doesn’t do what Schlafly claims, specifically it doesn’t delegate U.S. legislative powers to a foreign official. So I read the document and there is no such delegation in the document. Therefore, if you insist that there is such a delegation, you should be able to easily say part 6a (or whatever) delegates power to tax (or another one of many Congressional powers) U.S. citizens in the U.S. to a Mexican or Canadian official, the burden is clearly on you to tell me where that is.
It’s like, I say that a home sales contract doesn’t cover the BBQ grill, but you say that it does. I look through the contract and say, “look it’s not there.” Now you need to say, “sure the BBQ grill is included in the contract here.”
Otherwise, it’s “game, set, match” that the contract does NOT include the BBQ and that SPP does NOT delegate legislative powers to a foreigner.