Posted on 11/25/2007 4:48:10 AM PST by 1rudeboy
That's a good question, and I'm afraid you'll see my answer as a dodge. (So let's leave my answer as is, and consider your point taken).
The U.S. freely entered into the agreement that included (and specified) the WTO dispute-resolution process. On that basis (and I see no reason to celebrate it one way or the other) the result is self-determined.
That was a pretty frank response from you. I appreciate it.
The idea that governing bodies in the United States could go against the will of United States Citizens on a matter like signing on to the WTO and NAFTA, then the nation be subservient to those bodies in perpatuity, is IMO irrational. Public opinion ran against NAFTA above 80%, and if I remember accurately, 90%.
The problem is, once those bodies are established and become full fledged forces to be reconed with, it’s too late to simply opt out. The downsides could be devistating to the U.S. economy.
We create these monsters, then have to deal with them. That doesn’t constitute continue self-determination. It constitutes an inability to reassert self-determination. And IMO that is a treacherous situation to endure.
Seeing what we have take place, some still want to sign on to an NAU and the FTAA. That takes us back to my overall view of those who are willing to sign on to this.
I appreciate your comments. Let’s call it a day.
“I’ll error on the side of knowing what our leaders have been up to.”
In regards to this part of your statement, which is excellent, I would add that (listed below) there is also great opposition by leaders who recognize the validity of the OBL/CFR agenda for a NAU.
I would also add the importance of recognizing who the Presidential candidate of choice is by those who dismiss the NAU as conspiracy and who support NAFTA, freetrade, globalization, etc. No doubt in my mind that the OBL/NAU certainly does have a candidate who will move their agenda forward. And the importance of electing the candidate who has acknowledged, introduced legislation, and will put an end to their agenda. Duncan Hunter.
Anti-NAU legislation introduced in either the U.S. Congress, or in state legislatures:
United States Congress: House Concurrent Resolution 40 - introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Virgil Goode of Virginia
Alabama: Senate Resolution 30 - introduced by Senator Beason (Currently in the Senate Rules Committee). Contact the Office of Senator Beason: (334) 242-7794.
LATEST UPDATE - Currently in the Senate Rules Committee
Arizona: Senate Concurrent Memorial 1002 - introduced by Senator Johnson.
LATEST UPDATE - Passed Senate by a vote of 17-11 with 2 not voting, passed a House Committee by a 7-3 vote on March 26, 2007, still awaiting a final House vote.
Colorado: House Resolution 7 - introduced by Representative Stafford on April 23, 2007 (Currently in the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, the bill has been postponed indefinitely and cannot be reintroduced until next year). Contact the Office of Rep. Stafford: (303) 866-2944
LATEST UPDATE - Currently in the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, the bill has been postponed indefinitely and cannot be reintroduced until next year.
Georgia: Senate Resolution 124 - introduced by Senators Schaefer, Rogers, Douglas, Hill, and Chapman
LATEST UPDATE - Currently in the House Committee on Insterstate Cooperation.
Hawaii: Senate Concurrent Resolution 96 - introduced by Senator Hanabusa.
Senate Resolution 60 - Introduced by Senator Hanabusa.
LATEST UPDATE - Currently in the Senate Committee on Intergovernmental and Military Affairs/Senate Committee on Transportation and International Affairs, and the Subcommittee on Judiciary and Labor.
Idaho: House Joint Memorial 5 (HJM-5). Sponsored by Representatives JoAn Wood, Cliff Bayer, Marv Hagedorn, and Senators Shirley McKague, Monte Pierce and Mel Richardson
LATEST UPDATE - Passed the House by a voice vote - Passed by the Senate on March 22, 2007 by a vote of 24 -10.
Illinois: House Joint Resolution 29 - introduced by Representative Black
LATEST UPDATE - Assigned to the International Trade and Commerce Committee on February 27, 2007.
Missouri: Senate Concurrent Resolution 15 - sponsored by Senator Barnitz (Currently in the Senate Committees on Rules, Joint Rules and Resolutions and Ethics)
House Concurrent Resolution 33 - sponsored by Representative Guest (Passed the House Committee on Rules by a 5-3 vote, awaiting final floor vote)
Montana: House Joint Resolution 25 - introduced by Representative Rice of Montana
LATEST UPDATE - Passed by a vote of 94-5and has been transmitted to the Senate and was assigned to the Committee on the Judiciary, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 7-5 on April 10, passed in the Senate by a vote of 32-18 on April 18th, 2007.
Oklahoma: Senate Concurrent Resolution 10 introduced by Oklahoma State Senator Randy Brogdan
LATEST UPDATE - Passed the Senate Business and Labor Committee by a vote of 7-1 on April 2nd, 2007, passed the full Senate with no dissenting votes on April 23rd, 2007, transmitted to the House on April 24, 2007, adopted by the House on May 15th, 2007, with a unanimous vote of 97-0.
Oregon: Senate Joint Memorial 5 - sponsored by Senators George, Starr, and Whitsett and Representatives Boquist, Krieger, Nelson and Thatcher
LATEST UPDATE - The resolution failed to meet a May 1st, 2007 deadline for a hearing, the resolution may be introduced in the next legislative year.
Pennsylvania: House Resolution 278 - introduced by State Representative Surraa (Referred to the House Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs on May 18, 2007). Contact the Office of Honorable Surra - (717) 787-7226
LATEST UPDATE - Referred to the House Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs on May 18th, 2007.
South Carolina: Senate Concurrent Resolution 416 - introduced by Senator Fair (Resided in the Senate Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry). House Concurrent Resolution 3185 - introduced by Representative Davenport
(Resides in the House Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions)
South Dakota: Senate Concurrent Resolution 7 - introduced by Senators Kloucek, Apa, Lintz, and Maher and Representatives Nelson, DeVries, Gassman, Jerke, Kirkeby, Noem, and Betty Olson
LATEST UPDATE - Resides in the State Affairs Committee.
Tennessee: Introduced SJR-88 on February 21st, 2007.
LATEST UPDATE - Resides in the Finance, Ways and Means Committee, a hearing is scheduled for April 10th 2007, adopted by the Senate on April 26th 2007, transmitted to the House on April 26th 2007, assigned to the House Committee on Commerce on April 30th 2007, assigned to the House Rules Committee on May 16th 2007.
Texas: House Bill 3647 - Introduced by Representative Kolkhorst (a bill that would require the attorney general to produce a report on how NAFTA/SPP/NACC/WTO/GATS would effect state law) (Referred to the Committee on Border and International Affairs, passed in the Hosue on May 11, 2007, passed in the Senate on May 23, 2007, signed in the House on May 24, 2007, signed in the Senate on May 25, 2007, sent to the Governor on May 26, 2007) Contact Office of Representative Kolkhorst: (512) 463-0600 ext. E2.318
Utah: House Joint Resolution 7 - introduced by Representative Sandstrom and Senator Fife (Passed in the House by a vote of 47-24 and was killed in the Senate for the remainder of the Congressional year)
LATEST UPDATE - Passed in the House by a vote of 47-24 and was killed in the Senate for the remainder of the Congressional year.
Virginia: Senate Joint Resolution 442 - introduced by Senators Lucas and Hawkins (Resides in the Senate Committee on Rules)
Senate Joint Resolution 387 - introduced by Senator Reynolds (Bill emphasis on the NAFTA Superhighway) (Resided in the Senate Committee on Rules)
Washington: - Senate Joint Memorial 8004 - introduced by Senators Stevens, Swecker and Benton & House Joint Memorial 4018 - introduced by Representatives Roach, Dunn, McCune and Hurst.
LATEST UPDATE - Resides in the Committee on Economic Development, Trade and Management.
19 states are working on legislation going AGAINST the SPP/NAU!!!
19 States CAN’T be WRONG!
How many states voted for Clinton? Twice? LOL!
Well, I guess they could be wrong, but in this instance that’s not the case.
I’m not sure where you found this, but it’s a good collection of information. I appreciate the post very much.
Thank you.
You’re welcome. I had included the link and then accidentally lost it while making a change. Here’s were the information came from:
http://www.stopthenau.org/Current_Activities.htm
Thanks again. I looked for a link and realized you hadn’t provided on. Glad to have it.
A little after the fact...
Why are you for it? I read this thread and never was able to find the answer to this question.
And it took quite a while to figure out your slant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.