November 26, 2006
Yeah, Yeah, I Know...
... I'm still harping on such issues that you say will never come to fruition, such as a North American Union or a Global legislature.
The agenda items of particular interest to NHF at this meeting included discussions on the World Health Organization’s Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, nutrient risk assessment, health claims and Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs), the latter of which currently seems the most likely candidate to replace Recommended Daily Allowances of vitamins and minerals on food, dietary supplement and functional food labels. The NHF has been taking an active part in the Working Group on risk assessment, a discipline which is set to become the key scientific justification for potential future bans on dietary supplements. Current risk assessment methods are flawed and biased, so methodologies that are scientifically rational are urgently required, and were central to the NHF's interventions during this year’s meeting.
So what's happening here? It sure looks to me like we're allowing foreign countries to have a say in our nutritional policies. Does this mean that, in short order, someone in northern Greenland who lives on whale blubber will be allowed to tell me I can't dine on a porterhouse, or that the Stresstabs vitamins I take every day are verboten because they contain too much Vitamin B-12? The United States is a sovereign country based on personal liberty, why are we talking to other countries about what's best for us?
An international organization that proposes a global taxation system and is critical of the U.S. tax structure receives nearly one-fourth of its $400 million budget from the American taxpayer, a situation one Republican senator hopes to end."It's ridiculous that we would support such a group," Sen. Jim Inhofe said Friday of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based grouping of 30 of the world's most developed nations.
In a press release, the Oklahoma senator said the OECD "receives 25 percent of its budget from the U.S." and has used that money "to encourage and support higher taxes on the American taxpayer."
We are being pressured into a world government situation by socialist entities, led by the U.N. Do we really want this?
I, for one, don't!
H/T Cubed
Posted by Seth at 09:49 PM | Comments (6) |
October 21, 2006
As If There Weren't Enough....
.... to be concerned about, we now have the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership looming on a horizon of uncertainty.
The stated goals of this entity are to "enhance security, prosperity and opportunity" for the North American community. Hmmm.
According to the Welch Report,
The CFR Task Force calls for the “creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March, 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders (of the three nations) that ‘our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.’ Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within the movement of people, products and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe.”To those ends, the CFR report called for establishment of a common security border perimeter around North America by 2010, along with free movement of people, commerce and capital to be facilitated by the establishment of a North American Border Pass that would replace a U.S. passport for travel between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Also envisioned by the CFR task force include a North American Court, a North American inter-parliamentary group, A North American Executive Commission, a North American Military Defense Command, a North American Customs Office and a North American Development Bank.
The task force report is important to the debate over the official Security and Prosperity Partnership because the language used in the CFR task force report and SPP documents, so far, have proven to be nearly identical. Clearly the CFR task force report is being used as the blue print to establish the North American Union.
CFR is the U.S. Committee on Foreign Relations.
That doesn't sound like there is a whole lot of remaining room in the deal for any picayunes, like, perhaps, U.S. sovereignty, does it? It sounds more like that economic failure across the Atlantic, there, the one they call the European Union. In fact, the only difference I can see is the number of countries involved.
The name Security and Prosperity Partnership is employed, obviously, because North American Union would be a whole lot less palatable to Americans who have already seen what such a compromise of national political determination and sovereignty has done for to the countries of Europe.
I had known about this for some time, at least peripherally, but only seen a few brief articles on it -- the entire project has thus far excluded the media and Congress, has been a "private" project of President Bush and the leaders of Mexico and Canada. Yesterday, while following a link on an unrelated matter, courtesy of informed and astute commenter Civil Truth, I ran across the above link at the same site and that clinched it, I felt the need to look at it more closely.
What we are looking at here is a plan, to be fully executed in less than half a decade, to incorporate the United States, Canada and Mexico in the same way the EU has incorporated the nations of Europe. If you read the "myths" dispelling page of the SPP website, also linked above, you'll find the same sort of bland, you-American-voters-are -stupid-people-so-believe-this language the administration used to try to convince us that amnesty for criminal aliens would be the best thing that could ever possibly happen to the American people.
This plan would place yours and my freedoms in the hands of Canadian socialism and Mexican whatever it is they have down there that doesn't work. Billions of dollars of our tax money would be invested in Mexico to try to fix their failed economy that doesn't work only because they have a corrupt government that is only interested in the richest of the rich and couldn't care less about the common man, and because their citizens, at least those who aren't wealthy enough to buy them, don't enjoy the rights we do here in America. Politicians of that same government would have a say in our lives and our rights.
To date, Congress has passed no specific legislation to authorize the activities of the SPP, nor to funds it is spending. Congress has had no official involvement in the process and has no oversight.Congressman Tom Tancredo, (R-Colo) has demanded that the Bush Administration fully disclose the activities of the SPP working groups, including revealing the names of the members of those groups. No answers to his demands have yet been received from the Bush Administration, though the activity continues to move forward. NAFTA Super Highway Quietly, the Bush Administration is working to advance a plan to build super highways through the heart of the United States to transport goods from Mexico and Canada. The highways are part of the original North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA). The plan is now being advanced through an operation called “North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc” (NASCO). Since being exposed to the general public, NASCO is now denying it is building the highways, but plans go forward.
Beginning at the southern tip of Mexico, passing through Laredo, TX, the highway heads to an “inland port” in Kansas City, where a “Sentry System” will electronically inspect the cargos, before they head East or West, or continue on North through Duluth, Minnesota and into Canada.
The Super Transnational System includes multiple lanes for cars and trucks. Speed limits will be relaxed as well as safety inspections for vehicles from Mexico and Canada. Trucks will be allowed to carry extra tonnage and be extra long. A Railway system will travel up the center of the highway.
Several such highways are contemplated. Environmental impact studies have already been completed. In Texas, efforts are already underway as 584,000 acres have been targets for takings through Eminent Domain.
Emphasis mine.
An OpEd at Renew America observes,
Recently, Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez Baustista floated a "trial balloon" during a speech at the University of Texas, ominously revealing a possible answer. According to Baustista, Mexico and the United States should eventually become "integrated," thus forming what can only be construed as the hub of a "North American Union," no doubt eventually including Canada as well.President Bush has indicated a disturbing sympathy towards such thinking, refusing to characterize Mexican immigrants as "illegal." In contrast, he implies illegality by the "Minutemen" who now protect the border, having described them as "vigilantes."
Conversely, he discusses the actions of the "undocumented immigrants" as "pursuing their dreams," seemingly indifferent to the fact that Americans will be forced to shoulder the burden of fulfilling those dreams, ultimately at the expense of their own.
In a Canadian perspective, from Global Research,
If the existing system were being respected, why would the planning and implementation be so secretive, and government statements not supported by facts? And if it’s for our benefit, why aren’t politicians, who love to show how much they are achieving for their constituents, promoting it in glowing terms? DeWeese concludes, "The United States is the most unique nation on earth. We were created out of a radical idea that free people, with their freedoms protected by the government would be happy and prosper beyond imagination. The idea worked. Now, the Bush Administration is ignoring this historic fact to “harmonize” us with Canada and especially Mexico, which is not a free country; has no [right of] property and has just proved its unworthiness of conducting free and fair elections. At risk are our culture, our wealth, and the once proud American way of life."
Further citing the same sort of stealth among Canadian officials,
Government Secrecy: Canadian officials silentOrganizers of the event in Canada were the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, an elite club of Canada’s richest CEOs, and the Canada West Foundation, a very right-wing and pro-SPP think-tank based in the Alberta oil patch.
We Canadians have been encountering total stonewalling from our own government on the subject. Even recent and current Prime Ministers, who know perfectly well what is going on, have refused to discuss it. And because they have not permitted the issue to arise during any recent election, there is certainly no mandate from the Canadian public to negotiate an agreement to terminate the country.
Stockwell Day, a former leader in the Conservative (or as it was then called, Alliance) party, and now Minister of Public Safety in the Conservative federal government, was an active participant in Banff. His office is flatly refusing to answer questions from journalists.
This was disclosed by the founder of the citizen watchdog group Council of Canadians, Maude Barlow, who has pointed out that it’s the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) which lobbies the government and continually pushes the notion that because the economies of the two countries are already partly integrated, Canadian “domestic laws are essentially redundant.” (Ref. 12). Her concern is that the idea of redundancy of our laws will be extended to the government itself, and that because its government is seen as redundant, Canada itself will be made to disappear.
Now, while I am not a fan of Canada's political make-up, I will be the first to say that they are an ethical bunch who look out for their citizens' interests.
Mexico, on the other hand... well, the same way I don't believe in giving amnesty to people whose very presence on our soil has been a violation of our laws, I wouldn't even consider giving a government that encouraged its citizens to sneak into our country illegally, just to shed themselves of people they had no interest in helping themselves, a seat at the table where laws and rights in this country are concerned. If the Mexican government has no respect for American laws, who in their right minds would want them to have a say in making laws for us?
And make no mistake, the only way a North American Union could play out would be, in order to consummate a smooth flow of inter-union commerce and security proceedures, if laws in all three member states were adjusted to be on the same page.
We're definitely running out of time here....
How's that for something else to be concerned about?
Posted by Seth at 10:55 AM | Comments (16) |
