• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

FACT OR FICTION ?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
CAFTA - outsourcing sovereignty?



CAFTA-DR: Outsourcing Sovereignty, Importing Dependence

By Randy Stevenson, Vice President of the Organization for Competitive
Markets (OCM)

Opinion

July 21, 2005



The Central American Free Trade Agreement- Dominican Republic (CAFTA-DR)
will outsource America’s sovereignty and create dependence on foreign
agriculture. Farmers, ranchers and feeders should call their Congressmen
urging them to protect our representative government and our economy by
voting against CAFTA. The House of Representatives will vote soon on the
measure, given administration pressure and deal making.



The primary concern with CAFTA-DR is the incremental outsourcing of our
sovereignty to international bureaucrats who can strike down U.S. laws.
CAFTA subjects every act of Congress and state governments to potential
review by an international arbitration tribunal in the event foreign
companies dislike the laws and file a CAFTA complaint. Unelected NAFTA
tribunals have stricken 43 U.S. laws. The WTO has stricken several more,
reducing our options for farm and industrial policy. We elect Congressman
and Senators to do work for us, but they can’t do work for us when foreign
tribunals have the power to declare our laws "illegal." The tribunals can
even trump our Supreme Court.



Here are examples of state laws that may be challenged. Wyoming’s
constitution disallows state contracts awarded to non-citizens, and would be
challenged. Nebraska’s packer ownership prohibition would be at risk. Utah’s
prohibition against internet gambling has been stricken by the WTO already.
Canadian cattlemen have filed a $300 million suit against the U.S. for the
border closure to Canadian cattle, saying U.S. health rules violated NAFTA.
State’s rights are endangered by CAFTA-DR.



CAFTA cheerleaders say, with a straight face, that agriculture needs the
agreement to expand exports. NAFTA has helped turn us into a net food
importer when agriculture was America’s most significant net export sector
prior. I have fed cattle throughout the life of NAFTA and have only seen
imports gaining over the promised exports.



We will see integrators from the U.S. move to the CAFTA countries, double
their production, and sell the product to the U.S. over the next 20 years.
There are currently companies scouting for investment possibilities
according to industry rumor. We cannot compete with $2.50 per day labor.



But we also cannot expect $2.50 per day labor to be interested in buying our
steaks and pork chops, despite administration promises. The CAFTA economy
sizes are equal to small U.S. cities, hardly providing the buying power
implied by the administration.



We have outsourced our textile industry, our computer industry, and many
other industries. America is in the process of outsourcing our agriculture
and our sovereignty. Farmers and ranchers support our troops in Iraq, but we
are giving away more freedom through trade agreements than any soldiers can
gain overseas.



CAFTA is not a trade agreement, it is an import agreement. There is no free
lunch. CAFTA asks us to sell our collective soul for a few cheap imports as
we proceed from a so-called North American cattle herd to a Union of the
Americas. Decisions will be made farther from the people, our trade deficit
will grow, and only multinational trading companies will benefit. This is
not a prediction. It has already happened. We will just accelerate the trend
with CAFTA and the planned Free Trade Agreement of the Americas to include
Brazil and Argentina.



In his 1793 Farewell Address, President George Washington warned the nation,
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in
extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political
connection as possible.” Washington clearly understood the inherent dangers
posed to America by entangling alliances with other nations, when commerce
might be advanced only with political strings attached.



Citizens should contact their Congressmen and urge them to safeguard our
liberty and our economy. They should also contact their own State
Legislators and inform them of the danger to states rights and encourage
them to contact members of Congress to protect state sovereignty and
individual liberty. CAFTA-DR is bad for our country, our agriculture, and
our independence.





competitivemarkets.org
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
HAY MAKER said:
CAFTA - outsourcing sovereignty?



CAFTA-DR: Outsourcing Sovereignty, Importing Dependence

By Randy Stevenson, Vice President of the Organization for Competitive
Markets (OCM)

Opinion

July 21, 2005


The Central American Free Trade Agreement- Dominican Republic (CAFTA-DR)
will outsource America’s sovereignty and create dependence on foreign
agriculture. Farmers, ranchers and feeders should call their Congressmen
urging them to protect our representative government and our economy by
voting against CAFTA. The House of Representatives will vote soon on the
measure, given administration pressure and deal making.



The primary concern with CAFTA-DR is the incremental outsourcing of our
sovereignty to international bureaucrats who can strike down U.S. laws.
CAFTA subjects every act of Congress and state governments to potential
review by an international arbitration tribunal in the event foreign
companies dislike the laws and file a CAFTA complaint. Unelected NAFTA
tribunals have stricken 43 U.S. laws. The WTO has stricken several more,
reducing our options for farm and industrial policy. We elect Congressman
and Senators to do work for us, but they can’t do work for us when foreign
tribunals have the power to declare our laws "illegal." The tribunals can
even trump our Supreme Court.



Here are examples of state laws that may be challenged. Wyoming’s
constitution disallows state contracts awarded to non-citizens, and would be
challenged. Nebraska’s packer ownership prohibition would be at risk. Utah’s
prohibition against internet gambling has been stricken by the WTO already.
Canadian cattlemen have filed a $300 million suit against the U.S. for the
border closure to Canadian cattle, saying U.S. health rules violated NAFTA.
State’s rights are endangered by CAFTA-DR.



CAFTA cheerleaders say, with a straight face, that agriculture needs the
agreement to expand exports. NAFTA has helped turn us into a net food
importer when agriculture was America’s most significant net export sector
prior. I have fed cattle throughout the life of NAFTA and have only seen
imports gaining over the promised exports.



We will see integrators from the U.S. move to the CAFTA countries, double
their production, and sell the product to the U.S. over the next 20 years.
There are currently companies scouting for investment possibilities
according to industry rumor. We cannot compete with $2.50 per day labor.



But we also cannot expect $2.50 per day labor to be interested in buying our
steaks and pork chops, despite administration promises. The CAFTA economy
sizes are equal to small U.S. cities, hardly providing the buying power
implied by the administration.



We have outsourced our textile industry, our computer industry, and many
other industries. America is in the process of outsourcing our agriculture
and our sovereignty. Farmers and ranchers support our troops in Iraq, but we
are giving away more freedom through trade agreements than any soldiers can
gain overseas.



CAFTA is not a trade agreement, it is an import agreement. There is no free
lunch. CAFTA asks us to sell our collective soul for a few cheap imports as
we proceed from a so-called North American cattle herd to a Union of the
Americas. Decisions will be made farther from the people, our trade deficit
will grow, and only multinational trading companies will benefit. This is
not a prediction. It has already happened. We will just accelerate the trend
with CAFTA and the planned Free Trade Agreement of the Americas to include
Brazil and Argentina.



In his 1793 Farewell Address, President George Washington warned the nation,
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in
extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political
connection as possible.” Washington clearly understood the inherent dangers
posed to America by entangling alliances with other nations, when commerce
might be advanced only with political strings attached.



Citizens should contact their Congressmen and urge them to safeguard our
liberty and our economy. They should also contact their own State
Legislators and inform them of the danger to states rights and encourage
them to contact members of Congress to protect state sovereignty and
individual liberty. CAFTA-DR is bad for our country, our agriculture, and
our independence.


competitivemarkets.org

These people focus so much on perceived negatives they fail to analyze and acknowledge what is important - results. These people have put forth these same phony arguments for years and what does our economy keep doing, it just keeps on growing? Leave it to the isolationists at the OCM to interpret trade agreements!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
So you have no problem with the fact that the WTO can overrule laws enacted by US states? As long as we get "results"?

Are you going to tell me that these agreements to not afford foreigners the ability to trump laws enacted by elected bodies in the US?
 

jdst

Active member
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary, AB
CAFTA, NAFTA, and pretty much everything the WTO does is designed to benefit 'Trade'. On a lot of subjects, that puts them all at odds with old-fashioned agreements, such as Bills of Rights, Constitutions, national and regional legislation etc. These agreements also oppose concepts such as democracy, particularly when taken in the contect of equal participation for all.

While I disagree with the writer's overall conclusion that the U.S. (taken as a single entity with an income) will 'lose', there is no doubt that Americans will lose, just as Canadians have lost and continue to lose through NAFTA.

If there's a lawyer among us, I'd be interested in knowing the legality of national governments, although endowed with the right to enter into treaty relationships, abrogating their (the national governments) right and duty to be final jurisdication. That's my clumsy way of saying that Americans living within the United States, and Canadians living within Canada, are provided constitutionally with their respective Supreme Courts as ultimate judges. WTO should not be allowed to over-ride that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Unconstitutional NAFTA Courts

by William F. Jasper

"The future direction of the judicial branch arouses fierce debate. The president and Congress are battling over their relative roles in determining the composition of the federal bench.... In the midst of these discussions, however, the potentially most dramatic transformation of the judicial branch has gone virtually unnoticed: the establishment of special litigation processes applicable only to foreign investors."

So wrote John D. Echeverria, executive director of the Georgetown Environmental Law & Policy Institute at Georgetown University Law Center, in a March 8, 2004 Legal Times article entitled "Who Will Decide for Us? Our trade agreements are undermining the principle of an independent federal judiciary." Addressing the looming threat posed by secret, private, international judicial panels, Dr. Echeverria wrote:

These so-called investor-state litigation processes are an increasingly common feature of U.S. trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement and many other recently adopted and pending compacts. Because they could fundamentally change the judicial function within the U.S. system of government, they are almost certainly unconstitutional. It’s time to address this latest threat to judicial independence.

It is a very serious question, says Echeverria, whether the NAFTA arbitration process "violates Article III, which requires that the judicial power of the United States be vested in an independent judiciary with life tenure and guaranteed salary. Our independent federal judiciary is central to our system of government. It helps prevent ‘the accumulation of all powers … in the same hands,’ which The Federalist No. 47 termed ‘the very definition of tyranny.’ By providing a check on the executive and Congress, it also protects states’ authority."

"f the panels are exercising the Article III ‘judicial power,’" he notes, "they are plainly unconstitutional."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
NEWS RELEASE
Congressman Charlie Norwood, 9th District, Georgia


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTACT: JOHN STONE PHONE (202) 225-4101 FAX (202) 226-0776 http://www.house.gov/norwood



July 21, 2005


CAFTA Guts All “Buy American” Laws

A New Green Light for Outsourcing




(Washington, DC) – “Buy American” laws and similar state and federal legislation would be gutted by CAFTA procurement rules that prohibit all laws that give a preference to domestic or local businesses according to U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood, who says CAFTA Article 9 overturns every state and federal law that requires federal, state, and local government agencies to buy American products, or use American workforces.


CAFTA Article 9.2.

No Party (Nation) may treat a locally established supplier any less favorably than another locally established supplier on the basis of degree of foreign affiliation or ownership, or …on the basis that goods or services …are goods or services of another Party (Nation).



“CAFTA would immediately overturn all the hard work of our state legislatures in trying to support local businesses and jobs,” says Norwood. “It would overrule all state and federal law on the issue, effectively destroying our sovereignty, and would block any action by the voters to correct this outrage.”



The Article would also prohibit laws that restrict or ban the outsourcing of jobs to CAFTA nations or firms registered to CAFTA nations. Under the protection of the article, a Central American firm with a satellite office in America could contract with an Indian telemarketing company to provide a low bid for federal or state government phone banks, such as IRS hotlines or state employment office services. All state and federal laws to the contrary would be void, and the CAFTA firm could sue if they failed to win the contract after submitting the low bid. The case would be heard by a CAFTA tribunal, consisting of two Central American judges pitted against one judge from the United States.



Norwood says Article 9 is just one more glaring example of CAFTA attempts to overthrow Americans’ ability to govern themselves. “At every turn, this bill seeks to wipe out American law, in favor of CAFTA and other world trade agreement rules. This Article makes it crystal clear that CAFTA is more than a trade agreement – it is a treaty, and should be rejected.”

###
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Typical trade "fear mongering".

The sky is falling.

Seven year average $1.3 "BILLION" dollar trade surplus in the U.S. cattle and beef industries prior to the Canadian border closing and the sky still hasn't fallen.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Typical trade "fear mongering".

The sky is falling.

Seven year average $1.3 "BILLION" dollar trade surplus in the U.S. cattle and beef industries prior to the Canadian border closing and the sky still hasn't fallen.


~SH~

Did you miss the part that laws enacted by elected bodies in the US can be trumped by foreigners? Are you telling me that is false?
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
A man walks into a bar. He sees a woman.

He says to her, "Will you sleep with me?"
She says, "Absolutely not!!"

He says, "Would you do it for $50?"
She says, "No way!!"

He says, "Would you do it for a million bucks?"
She says, "Your place or mine!"

He says, "Now that we have established that your honor is for sale, let's negotiate price."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "Did you miss the part that laws enacted by elected bodies in the US can be trumped by foreigners? Are you telling me that is false?"

Yes, like most everything that comes from ocm!

Foreign governments can not tell the U.S. what they can and can't do.

MORE FEAR MONGERING!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandman: "Did you miss the part that laws enacted by elected bodies in the US can be trumped by foreigners? Are you telling me that is false?"

Yes, like most everything that comes from ocm!

Foreign governments can not tell the U.S. what they can and can't do.

MORE FEAR MONGERING!


~SH~

Did I say foreign governments?

Let's get this lined out right from the start.

The WTO is not a foreign government, but is a foreign ruling body. Do you agree or not?

Randy is saying, and I agree, that the WTO can overrule laws enacted by elected officials in the US. Do you agree or not?
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Only Trade?
Remember this one from 4 years ago?

This was one law--There have been 42 other laws.

What choices was the US given? Comply or pay a fine!




NAFTA Panel Rules For Mexico In Truck Dispute - February 6, 2001 (OA)

By John Crawley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An international arbitration panel ruled unanimously Tuesday the United States cannot continue its policy of broadly prohibiting Mexican trucks from its highways for safety reasons, a U.S. trade official said.

The decision by the five-member panel, which said decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis, is included in a report to be released Wednesday.

The official would not detail the findings beyond a broad explanation.

The report mirrors a preliminary finding by the panel that undercut attempts by the Clinton administration in past years to block trucking provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The Clinton administration had asserted that Mexican trucks did not meet U.S. safety standards. Safety concerns included faulty brakes, tires and lights. Others have complained some Mexican trucks are too heavy and too old.

The trade official told reporters the Bush administration plans to comply with the decision, but did not specify what steps would be taken.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) officials said the administration would consult with Congress, state governments and Mexican authorities about compliance options.

"We are not discussing options," the trade official said.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
You can rest assured that the NAFTA and the CAFTA international tribunals will follow the text of the agreements just as literally as the liberal judges on the Supreme Court follow the text of the Constitution.

And if they don't, who will impeach them? They are entirely unaccountable to anyone.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Beenthereblamedthat: "No but they do have a little things called TARIFFS and SUBSIDIES."

Which is exactly what CAFTA-DR addresses. Elimination of heavy tarriffs placed against our exports while CAFTA countries export to the U.S. virtually duty free.


Beenthereblamedthat: "No one complains about exports only unfair competition, out sourcing of jobs, and the exportation of a product very few can afford to buy."

Unfair competition? Wouldn't 40% tarriffs on U.S. exports while they export to the U.S. virtually duty free be considered unfair competition?

Out sourcing of jobs? More jobs have been lost to automation than "outsourcing". Gotta get those consumers to quit shopping at Walmart.

Exporting of a product few can afford to buy? If that was so, how do you explain the balance in beef trade with Mexico prior to the closing of the border? So much for that lame argument.


Beenthereblamedthat: "While they can't tell the US what to do they can "influence" what we do."

We have to agree to it.

This "North American Union" happy horseshidididit is just that, crap!


Beenthereblamedthat: "You are a slap in the face to every cow/calf man in the country."

No, I'm just a slap in the face to the whiny little packer blamers and import blamers that can't support their position with factual information.

Go suck your thumb, Kluso!

Done any detective work lately? LOL!


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top