CAFTA threatens sovereignty

Ag Weekly ^ | Jul 08 2005 | Cathy Roemer

[Torie]

It is a matter of contract, subject to termination at any time. It is done for prudential economic and policy reasons.

[ran15]

Definately economic reality has a way of going around politics one way or another. Sort of like the Soviet Union was defeated.

We see as America stalls with special interest groups financing opposition to DR-CAFTA, foreign nations like China are moving into the region.

[ran15]

Also a factor was the revolutionaries didn't overthrow England's property ownership in America. If you look at British worldwide investment returns from about 1750-1900, slightly over 50% were made in America.

[Torie]

Indeed, the protection of that investment, and America as a future trading partner, tended to deflect the British army from a scorched earth policy, in an attempt to starve them into submission policy. They were unable to demonize and dehumanize Americans into mere objects. Their heart was just not really into it.

[investigateworld]

Anyone who thinks they have an economic policy to lift Latin American out of the economic cesspool is A. Nuts B. BS'ing themselves C. Has an agenda that does not bode well for this nation.
These 1000 page trade agreements are nothing more than the lobbyists flexing their muscle and showing off that the cash given them is well spent.
Buy American, the job you save will be your own!!!

[hedgetrimmer]

It is a matter of contract, subject to termination at any time. It is done for prudential economic and policy reasons.

You really didn't answer the question at all. But let me ask you this-- when did the government tell the citizens of this country they would lose their rights to representative government when the "free trade" agreements were signed? Did they ever? Do you think that a government that is supposed to protect the rights of individuals should be contracting those rights out to international tribunals and foreign governments without their permission? What you just told me is that the government signed a contract with a foreign entity that gives away citizen rights, but its OK because its only a contract subject to termination? You obviously think that the federal goverment can trade away our rights and sovereignty at their pleasure. Maybe thats the conspiracy going on in our government, it certainly is at the heart of the corruption we are seeing at every level. Problem is, I just don't think the American people put so little value as you think on their rights. They are going to want them back. Then what chaos or war will ensue because of your beliefs and the actions of the globalists that have infected our government?

Oh I get it now. "Free trade" means the government is free to trade away our rights. OK got it.

[hedgetrimmer]

Maybe this will help.

"Free trade" means the government is free to trade away our rights. Thats it in a nutshell.

[proudofthesouth]

Could it be that the Bilderberg Group are really the ones running our country?

[Iscool]

Economics simply overwhelms any rampart, always has, always will. Putting your finger in the dike is futile.

You mean money is your god and nothing like patriotism, freedom or liberty will stand in your way to get your fingers on as much of it as you can...

[Torie]

The comment was meant to be more macro than micro Iscool. I will make good money either way. I'm a lawyer. I work off the frictions in the system, any system. In that sense, my economic interests are catholic. It has nothing to do with me.

[opinionator]

Wow! This reads like a DU thread. Maybe it's true that the political spectrum is shaped like a horseshoe, where those on the extreme right and those on the extreme left end up sounding a lot like each other.

[A. Pole]

Maybe it's true that the political spectrum is shaped like a horseshoe, where those on the extreme right and those on the extreme left end up sounding a lot like each other.

And what is the difference between Clinton and GWB in matters of "free" trade?

[hedgetrimmer]

foreign nations like China are moving into the region

The Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine prevented this for many years.

Then the globalists decided that China should be built up. Nixon started it, Carter rolled out the red carpet to China to the Panama canal. It was decided by the globalists that China need to have its trade capacity built up so that the United States would no longer be the only superpower. They funneled billions if not trillions of dollars into a communist nation to build power plants, roads and subsidized tech manufacturers like Motorola to relocate there.

Now they are telling the American people to take it in the teeth because if we don't give up our sovereignty to an international trade tribunal and the CAFTA nations, China will get into the central American manufacturing base.

No lucid person can believe that what the globalists are doing is good for American.

[raybbr]

From another thread:“Cross-border trade in services or cross-border supply of services means the supply of a service…by a national of a party in the territory of another party.” The agreement goes on to say that the U.S. must ensure that, “measures relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services,” and are “not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service.”

This also means that licensing standards here in the U.S. that any foreigner deems "unnecessary barriers to trade in services" will be challenged in the court of international law.

This opens the door for all plumbers, electrician, HVAC, doctors, teachers, nurses, etc. that think that our licensing standards constitute a barrier to their finding a job will challenge them. And, probably win. Do you want a Guatemalan wiring your home? Or an Ecuadoran nurse taking care of you in ICU? Neither of which have passed any kind of testing of their knowledge here in the U.S.?<

Tancredo Blasts CAFTA’s Back Door Immigration Provisions

[hedgetrimmer]

This reads like a DU thread

You would be the expert on that, not me.

But tell me, on the DU threads do they defend representative government and freedom of association?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Snyder said the agreement will no doubt be decided "by as little as three or four votes."

Hopefully this time it's on the side of the American people and not the globalists.

[_Jim]

Wow! This reads like a DU thread. Maybe it's true that the political spectrum is shaped like a horseshoe, where those on the extreme right and those on the extreme left end up sounding a lot like each other.

Sad, but true by observation I would say.

Take for instance a 'raving nutter' we used to have around here prior to Y2K named "Uncle Bill". He posted relentlessly about "Y2K Internment Camps" and federal takeover of business!

[_Jim]

No lucid person can believe that what the globalists are doing is good for American.

Um, 1) who are "the globalists" and 2) what is their stated purpose?

3) Are they under every rock?

(Some of us have been busy lately and may have missed the memo on that one ...)

[investigateworld]

Thank you for that honesty. Now quick.... name an industry that insures high pay for it's member by restricting entry into the craft via use of legislative authority?
Free Trade ...? I'll give you a hint. The HMFIC name is Robert Grey

[_Jim]

Wait - I found this while doing a quick Gooooogle search:

The Globalists and the Islamists:

Fomenting the "Clash of Civilizations" for a New World Order

At www.redmoonrising.com/Ikhwan/Clash.htm

They include a "A checklist of evidence that contradicts the "official version" of 9-11. Updated January 9, 2005."