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

I am a Minority

Help Support Ranchers.net:

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
I am sure I am a minority here. I am a member of OCM.

I am here to root out and destroy liberal ideas from those who call themselves conservative but aren't. (some of them don't even know it)

So prepare to have your eyes opened!
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,152
Reaction score
27
Location
BC
Ohio College of Massotherapy? Oregon Collection of Methanogens ? One Creepy Male? :???: :???: :???: :roll:
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Ornery Cur Mudgeon


No, Really


www.competitivemarkets.com
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
I've been lurking a VERY long time. I have already read many of ~SH~'s posts and am familiar with his spiel.

~SH~ is a mile wide and an inch deep. He also thinks he's a conservative, which he is not.

By the way, take a look at the last half dozen or so OCM newsletters, available online. I really like the direction they have taken. The upcoming Annual Meeting agenda looks interesting, too.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
One more Cur Mudgoen can't be a bad thing.

Don't dog on SH (that's my job), no seriously, SH is right more than wrong and is intellectually honest.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM: "~SH~ is a mile wide and an inch deep. He also thinks he's a conservative, which he is not."

Here comes another one.............(heavy sigh) ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz!

Talk is cheap ocm!

What issue would you like to debate?

Exports vs. imports in the cattle/beef industry?
Pickett vs. ibp?
Country of Origin Labeling?
R-CULT's contradictory position against Canadian BSE vs. R-CULT's position on the U.S. having BSE?


I'll let you choose your comfort zone by picking a topic and we'll see how long you hang around defending against the facts.


OCM huh?

"PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES WITH THE COMMUNIST PACKER BAN AND A COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING LAW THAT EXEMPTS 75% OF THE IMPORTED BEEF INTO THIS COUNTRY AND PROHIBITS THE MEANS TO ENFORCE IT".

Let's let the federal government determine who can own cattle and how those cattle can be marketed.

NOW THERE'S A REAL CONSERVATIVE POSITION??????

I suppose you can start with trying to defend ocm's position as being "conservative" if you want. LOL!

It is with great anticipation that I look forward to having my "eyes opened".


"LET'S GET IT STARTED"



~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
CAFTA

But only after you read these OCM articles

http://www.competitivemarkets.com/news_and_events/newsletters/2005/july2CAFTA.htm

http://www.competitivemarkets.com/news_and_events/newsletters/2005/july5tstevenson.htm

http://www.competitivemarkets.com/news_and_events/newsletters/2005/june6Ugarte.htm

No fair starting to debate without reading them all entirely.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Here's another topic you could debate, Sh; How about the NCBA's contradictory position of claiming to support private enterprise, but yet backing the USDA's denial of private BSE testing? PLEASE GOVERNMENT SAVE US FROM OURSELVES WITH A RULING THAT COMPLETELY IGNORES OUR ESTABLISHED PROTOCOL!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman,

Step out of the way you ankle biter.

We've already been through this.

USDA is not going to support consumer deception of "BSE TESTED" implying "BSE FREE" when prions are not detectable in animals under 24 months with current testing methodology. The Japanese government has stepped away from their previous 100% tested position acknowledging the science while you're still trying to live in the past.

Nor can you provide proof that Japan would have ever accepted BSE tested beef had it been allowed.

You got absolutely nothing here.

If I throw a stick will you run away?



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "USDA is not going to support consumer deception of "BSE TESTED" implying "BSE FREE" when prions are not detectable in animals under 24 months with current testing methodology."

So I assume you can provide a direct quote from the USDA backing your statement?

SH, "The Japanese government has stepped away from their previous 100% tested position acknowledging the science while you're still trying to live in the past."

So when was the first shipment scheduled? What are Japanese consumers thinking? They are the ones who would actually buy the beef.

SH, "Nor can you provide proof that Japan would have ever accepted BSE tested beef had it been allowed."

Nor can you provide proof that Japan would not take tested beef. Looks like a Mexican standoff. Why don't we put it to Japan and find out?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ocm,

I cannot open your links. Perhaps you can copy/paste them and post them. If you don't know how to copy/paste, click on the search mechanism above and type in "copy/paste" and you should find instructions you can follow. If you already know how, my apologies.


Why don't you start by contradicting this NCBA myth and fact sheet?


Editorial: Cattle Industry Counters Bogus CAFTA Claims



“This week, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on the U.S. Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). We members of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the oldest and largest national association representing the cattle industry, are urging our fellow cattlemen from across the nation to separate myth from reality when it comes to CAFTA.

“I’m downright stunned by some of the allegations being made within our industry about this straightforward trade agreement. The details are not a mystery. It’s a lucrative deal promising growth of new export markets for U.S. beef in six nations. Creating a flurry of fabrications about CAFTA does nothing but scare people away from the superior benefits gained from being productive players in our global economy.



“NCBA must set the record straight. Here is our response to the myths being spread about CAFTA.



Bogus Claim #1: ‘CAFTA would allow foreign beef to flood into our country and means we give these countries complete market access!’



FACTS:



-Right now, beef products from these nations are already coming in freely, without tariffs. In fact, beef exports from these countries are subject to a tariff rate quota (TRQ) of 64,805 metric tons (mt), and this quota has never been filled.



-These are not big beef-producing nations, and their imports have never been threatening to U.S. beef. What IS a threat are the extremely high tariffs slapped on our beef exports to enter these nations. CAFTA corrects this imbalance.



-The small amount of U.S. beef imports from these CAFTA countries is primarily lean beef, not the high-quality grain-fed beef for which United States cattlemen are famous.



Bogus Claim #2: ‘CAFTA sets a dangerous precedent and bad blueprint for future trade agreements with South America.’



FACTS:



-CAFTA sets an excellent precedent. All duties go to zero by the end of the agreement’s implementation period, the chief necessity when making free trade deals with the United States.



- In fact, Trade Promotion Authority, the authority for the Administration to negotiate trade agreements and send the final package to Congress for a vote, currently outlines what the Administration should include in trade agreements, not previous agreements.



-CAFTA establishes an official mechanism to resolve disputes called the Committee on Agriculture, a great blueprint for resolving future issues between trading partners.



Bogus Claim #3: ‘CAFTA means giving up safeguards and threatening safety.’



FACTS:



-This claim could not be further from the truth. CAFTA does contain an agricultural safeguard mechanism which would protect the U.S. industry against excessive surges.



-Only Costa Rica and Nicaragua are allowed beef-specific safeguards on U.S. beef, but these do not cover high-quality beef and are completely eliminated after 15 years. This is trade negotiation at its finest. Our premiere selling point in these countries is top quality U.S. beef not found anywhere else. Therefore, some flexibility was temporarily made for standard quality beef to gain immediate access for prime and choice.



-CAFTA does not change safety standards. Imports from these countries are already subject to a rigorous USDA-equivalent inspection process before entering the United States.



-CAFTA requires these countries to accept the USDA-FSIS inspection system as equivalent for means of plant certification for export. Countries cannot come to the United States and inspect plant-by-plant to find a reason to shut off exports, The entire federal inspection system must be approved.



Bogus Claim #4: ‘For the individual cattle producer, CAFTA means less than 10-cent increase in value per head.’



FACTS:



-Overall U.S. beef and beef variety meat exports to CAFTA nations could TRIPLE by 2015 to $41 million from the current $12.5 million.



-This 10-cent claim assumes a NET of exports minus assumed additional imports from CAFTA. This figure is debunked by the fact that beef production has been in decline and will likely continue to decline in every CAFTA country except for Nicaragua.



-Per capita income improvement in this region lends itself toward more beef consumption in the region, not less.



-The KEY aspect of the agreement is that as these nations were preparing for a negotiation with the United States, the initial requirement was that they harmonize their Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures and trading regulations among themselves.



-This means that, for the first time in many cases, these countries will now be trading beef and cattle among themselves. This suggests that there will be LESS beef available to export to the U.S., not more.



-This agreement is very much a one-sided deal benefiting U.S. cattle producers, giving increased market access for U.S. interests



Bogus Claim #5: ‘Visiting the CAFTA nations right now would be an effective way to become involved in this trade negotiation process’



FACTS:



-CAFTA has been negotiated during a long-term process and signed by all seven countries. The time to question CAFTA was before and during the negotiating process, not after the agreement was signed. The opportunity to affect the outcome for the industry has long since passed.



-That's why NCBA very closely monitored the negotiating process and those serving in trade advisory capacities were intimately involved in the process with our negotiators.



-NCBA was also keenly aware of the situation in Central America via numerous meetings and discussions with Central American beef producers before and during the long negotiating process. During these discussions, NCBA made it crystal clear that we would not accept anything less than duty free access to the Central American market by a date certain. These numerous discussions also gave us a clearer understanding of what might evolve in the Central American market for beef after the agreement goes into affect.



Bogus Claim #6: ‘Just like NAFTA, CAFTA is a bad agreement for cattle producers’




FACTS:



-Mexico is currently our largest export market for U.S. beef. NAFTA made huge strides for the U.S. beef export industry and is an exemplary agreement.



-Studies prove NAFTA has increased disposable income by over $6,000 per family and has also helped to fuel the incredible demand growth that the beef industry has enjoyed.



Bogus Claim #7: ‘CAFTA is an agreement that adds to our trade deficit with the region.’




FACTS:



-The U.S. International Trade Commission, which is required by Trade Promotion Authority to review every trade agreement, studied CAFTA-DR and found that the effect of the agreement would be to reduce the overall U.S. trade deficit by $756 million.



Bogus Claim #8: ‘People living in these CAFTA nations cannot afford U.S. beef, therefore there really is no market for our products.’



FACTS:



Opening export opportunities is how we build future markets.



Trade experts agree this region is a growth market for high quality grain-fed beef that only the United States can provide to hotels and upscale restaurants.



U.S. Meat Export Federation regional market analyses states that the Central and South American region, is ‘currently a market for both muscle meat and variety meat products, is a developing market for U.S. beef exports with potential for growth.’



For example, the Dominican Republic is a middle-income country whose most important sector is tourism, accounting for nearly $1.5 billion a year. It is to the tourism industries in these countries which U.S. product will be targeted following the implementation of this agreement.



“Regardless of bogus claims, the important thing for U.S. beef producers to know is that NCBA continues to be actively engaged in making sure we get the best deal possible in ANY trade agreement. We do that when the terms of the agreement are being negotiated, not after the fact.



“The long-standing history of these agreements is clear: it is greatly preferred to fix problems up front. It does no good to complain or second guess the situation after the fact.



“As a result, NCBA producer-leaders and staff, and particularly those involved in trade advisory capacities, are constantly seeking the best market information and intelligence available in order to help our negotiators get the best deal possible for U.S. beef producers in the numerous agreements currently being negotiated. Such efforts are critically important as they also set the precedent for all future agreements, no matter how big or small."



“This agreement is first and foremost about reducing foreign tariffs and opening Central American markets to U.S. products. It’s an excellent deal for U.S. cattle producers and NCBA will continue to urge for passage in Congress this summer.”





Source: John Queen, NCBA vice president and North Carolina cattle producer



You picked a good topic ocm because I am not as well versed on CAFTA as I'd like to be but that won't take long.


Let the games begin!



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "So when was the first shipment scheduled?"

Hopefully soon now that R-CULT's lies about the safety of beef, once BSE is found in your native herd, have been addressed.


Sandman: "What are Japanese consumers thinking? They are the ones who would actually buy the beef."

@!*^%*@&!#^*&#*#&##&&*#*&#^%*&#[email protected]^&*##*&[email protected]%&#^%^#[email protected]%&#%&^[email protected]%**#[email protected]&#*[email protected]&*#

That's what the Japanese consumers are probably thinking! LOL!

How the hell would I know what they are thinking? I suppose their thoughts will be based on what they know about BSE.


Sandman: "Nor can you provide proof that Japan would not take tested beef. Looks like a Mexican standoff. Why don't we put it to Japan and find out?"

We already put it (the science) to the Japanese government and they agreed with the science. Now they have to convince their consumers that USDA has taken the proper measures to assure the safety of our beef.

To have Japan agree with the science is certainly better than deceiving their consumers.



~SH~
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
And this comes from the organization that just helped reduce the dollars you are going to get for your calves this fall. Tallyho!!!! :yeah:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RM: "And this comes from the organization that just helped reduce the dollars you are going to get for your calves this fall. Tallyho!!!!"

I am assuming you mean if all other market factors remained the same which you admitted seldom occurs?

Which way is it Robert Mac?

Is the Canadian border the only influence on our markets currently or not? If not, then how the hell would you know what calf prices will be?

Nice contradiction!

If all other cattle market supply and deman factors remain the same, if NCBA is successful in regaining our export markets, you will be proven wrong because the net of exports and imports would be a $40 per head surplus for U.S. cattlemen.

I challenge you to prove otherwise.

If Canada absorbed an equivalent portion of our export market, we would have gained nothing. To admit to that requires trade vision beyond the word "import".


Robert,

Show me once stitch of integrity by admitting the damage R-CULT would have caused to the U.S. cattle/beef industry if the media had picked up their remarks about beef, from a country with BSE in their native herd, being "HIGH RISK"

You have to be smart enough to see the damage that R-CULT could have created if the media had believed them rather than USDA or NCBA regarding any country having BSE in their native herd?

If you can't, you are truly a hopeless follower of the R-CULT doctrine!

R-CULT's position of using BSE as a catalyst to stop Canadian live cattle imports was the most ignorant political move I have ever seen in my life, PERIOD!



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "Hopefully soon now that R-CULT's lies about the safety of beef, once BSE is found in your native herd, have been addressed. "

"Hopefully soon" has been the feelings for a year and a half now! If Japan has truly accepted terms with us, what is the hold up?

SH, "How the hell would I know what they are thinking? I suppose their thoughts will be based on what they know about BSE. "

They're thinking they see no need to not demand tested only beef and they're not impressed with the US's heavy handed handling of them.

SH, "We already put it (the science) to the Japanese government and they agreed with the science. Now they have to convince their consumers that USDA has taken the proper measures to assure the safety of our beef."

The Japanese Government's purported agreement with "science" certainly is helping us isn't it? :lol: How much beef have we been shipping them? :roll:

It looks like the USDA is really making the Japanese Government's job easy when the Inspector General exposed their "proper measures." :lol:

SH, "To have Japan agree with the science is certainly better than deceiving their consumers."

Once again, when has the USDA said ANYTHING about deception? :roll: Once again, how can you deceive someone when it is their law? :roll: :roll:
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ how is it a debate if you just spue out NCBA rhetoric. I challenged you to read from the OCM Newsletters. So far I have no indication you even looked at them.

Now, to make it easier, so you won't have to read but one article instead of three, I'll pick one, then you tell me the flaws in it. If it tells the truth, then we are in trouble. If there are errors of fact, then point them out.

Try this one



http://www.competitivemarkets.com/news_and_events/newsletters/2005/july5tstevenson.htm


Just to get you started,(from the article)

Fact: EXPORTS to CAFTA countries are already growing faster than almost any other area--a lot faster. Why do we need the CAFTA trade agreement if EXPORTS are already growing rapidly.

Fact: CAFTA is a step toward "regional integration". I thought you liked less government, not more.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Help us out here ocm.

I can't open your links either, and don't have time to go searching another way.

Cut and paste them so we can hear what you have to say.

:wink:

Any thoughts on testing for export markets that "ask" for OTM beef SH? could be a situation for all of North America now that the border is open.

Quote from a BIG C letter -"As you know, established industry groups have steadfastly asserted that no export markets have ever stated that they would buy tested beef products from Canada and, as such, there was no requirement for Canada to adopt a policy of BSE testing at the slaughter level as a means of satisfying export demand. Some of you may recall hearing this line from government and industry representatives who attended many of the Beef Initiative Group meetings held throughout the summer and fall of 2004 As we have always suspected, this assertion has proven to be false. As members of the Canada Beef Export Federation, we recently received a letter from Ted Haney, CBEF President which states:

“Japan’s former Minister of Agriculture (Kamei) has been on record many times stating that Canada or the USA could test cattle for BSE as a way of reestablishing trade with Japan. This assumed policy position has not been widely reported in either Canadian or American press, primarily as the option has not been supported by industry or government.”
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Links are now fixed.
But here is the one article I challenged ~SH~ on.


http://www.competitivemarkets.com/news_and_events/newsletters/2005/july5tstevenson.htm

CAFTA - More Than A Trade Agreement
by
Terry A. Stevenson


A common claim used by CAFTA proponents is that it is more than a trade agreement. Indeed, government officials have used this phraseology in their attempt to gain Congressional passage of this “trade” pact. In a speech given to the Heritage Foundation on May 16, 2005, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick stated, “Our domestic debate over the U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is about much more than trade.” A web site maintained by the International Trade Administration, an agency of The U.S. Department of Commerce, defends CAFTA-DR by saying, “… CAFTA-DR can be viewed as more than a trade agreement….” (http://www.ita.doc.gov/cafta/why_cafta.asp)

Interestingly, the same web site tells us, “U.S. export growth to the CAFTA-DR region has outperformed overall U.S. exports. From 2000 to 2004, export shipments to CAFTA-DR destinations grew by almost 16 percent, compared with less than 5 percent for overall U.S. exports.” If that is true then why is a trade agreement necessary? The answer is that CAFTA-DR is indeed about “more than trade” and that provides one of the best reasons to reject it.

In the aforementioned speech Zoellick said of CAFTA-DR, “it will strengthen democracy through economic growth and open societies based on the rule of law.” He said, also of CAFTA-DR, “It criminalizes bribery, casts sunlight on procedures long hidden from public scrutiny, and strengthens the rule of law.” While it is certainly desirable to criminalize bribery, it can hardly be called “democracy” for a legislative act to be forced on Central American countries through a “trade agreement.” Democracy is bottom-up, not top-down.

CAFTA-DR would not only impose requirements on Central American countries, it would also impose requirements on us. Internal trade preferences would be prohibited. Most states have laws that give some kind of preference to in-state contractors bidding on state projects.
CAFTA-DR would sweep aside such legislation -- no trade preferences allowed. In fact, any state legislation that a CAFTA country deemed unfair could be the basis of a complaint. An international tribunal would rule on the dispute, and no American entity can overrule its decision. The tribunal is superior to state legislatures, Congress, the President, and even the Supreme Court.

Even state constitutions would not be sacrosanct. For example, the State of Wyoming’s Constitution says, “No person not a citizen of the United States or who has not declared his intention to become such, shall be employed upon or in connection with any state, county or municipal works or employment.” This provision is currently used to prevent foreign citizens from bidding on contracts for the State or for any other governmental entity in Wyoming. Such a provision would almost certainly be challenged under CAFTA as an unfair trade restraint. The people of the State of Wyoming would likely have their constitution changed by a decree from an international tribunal, and they would have no recourse. Such possibilities advance oligarchy, not democracy.

Of course it could be argued that the tribunal would only address trade issues. Congress and the Supreme Court have broadly interpreted the “interstate commerce clause” of the U.S. Constitution, resulting in a great expansion of Federal authority over the States. That expansion has included a federal law that prohibits carrying a gun within a certain distance of schools. There would be much to fear from an “international commerce clause.” The State of Utah has experienced this kind of erosion of its sovereignty when the WTO at the behest of the island nation of Antigua. The WTO decided that Utah’s law prohibiting internet gambling unjustly limited Antigua’s trade.

CAFTA-DR also would accomplish something that is not a part of the general public debate. According to the International Trade Administration web site mentioned above, “CAFTA-DR would promote close cooperation among the Central American countries, thereby advancing regional integration….” Advancing regional integration is a polite way of saying that there will be movement toward a North American Union after the pattern of the European Union. If the U.S. is to enter into a North American Union, it should be done with an informed vote. Since the E.U. still has not surpassed the economic power of the U.S. by means of their union, nor has their union increased their national security, there is no reason to assume that a North American Union would be beneficial for us. More importantly, the Declaration of Independence would have to be supplanted with a “Declaration of Dependence.”

Finally, since supporters of CAFTA have clearly stated that it is “more than a trade agreement” we must question why it has not been submitted to Congress as a treaty, requiring a two-thirds majority approval in the Senate. Since CAFTA would surrender a great deal of our sovereignty, it certainly qualifies as a treaty. It would seem that the judiciary is not the only branch of government guilty of overreaching its constitutional authority. TS
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
ocm said:
Links are now fixed.
But here is the one article I challenged ~SH~ on.


http://www.competitivemarkets.com/news_and_events/newsletters/2005/july5tstevenson.htm

CAFTA - More Than A Trade Agreement
by
Terry A. Stevenson


A common claim used by CAFTA proponents is that it is more than a trade agreement. Indeed, government officials have used this phraseology in their attempt to gain Congressional passage of this “trade” pact. In a speech given to the Heritage Foundation on May 16, 2005, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick stated, “Our domestic debate over the U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is about much more than trade.” A web site maintained by the International Trade Administration, an agency of The U.S. Department of Commerce, defends CAFTA-DR by saying, “… CAFTA-DR can be viewed as more than a trade agreement….” (http://www.ita.doc.gov/cafta/why_cafta.asp)

Interestingly, the same web site tells us, “U.S. export growth to the CAFTA-DR region has outperformed overall U.S. exports. From 2000 to 2004, export shipments to CAFTA-DR destinations grew by almost 16 percent, compared with less than 5 percent for overall U.S. exports.” If that is true then why is a trade agreement necessary? The answer is that CAFTA-DR is indeed about “more than trade” and that provides one of the best reasons to reject it.

In the aforementioned speech Zoellick said of CAFTA-DR, “it will strengthen democracy through economic growth and open societies based on the rule of law.” He said, also of CAFTA-DR, “It criminalizes bribery, casts sunlight on procedures long hidden from public scrutiny, and strengthens the rule of law.” While it is certainly desirable to criminalize bribery, it can hardly be called “democracy” for a legislative act to be forced on Central American countries through a “trade agreement.” Democracy is bottom-up, not top-down.

CAFTA-DR would not only impose requirements on Central American countries, it would also impose requirements on us. Internal trade preferences would be prohibited. Most states have laws that give some kind of preference to in-state contractors bidding on state projects.
CAFTA-DR would sweep aside such legislation -- no trade preferences allowed. In fact, any state legislation that a CAFTA country deemed unfair could be the basis of a complaint. An international tribunal would rule on the dispute, and no American entity can overrule its decision. The tribunal is superior to state legislatures, Congress, the President, and even the Supreme Court.

Even state constitutions would not be sacrosanct. For example, the State of Wyoming’s Constitution says, “No person not a citizen of the United States or who has not declared his intention to become such, shall be employed upon or in connection with any state, county or municipal works or employment.” This provision is currently used to prevent foreign citizens from bidding on contracts for the State or for any other governmental entity in Wyoming. Such a provision would almost certainly be challenged under CAFTA as an unfair trade restraint. The people of the State of Wyoming would likely have their constitution changed by a decree from an international tribunal, and they would have no recourse. Such possibilities advance oligarchy, not democracy.

Of course it could be argued that the tribunal would only address trade issues. Congress and the Supreme Court have broadly interpreted the “interstate commerce clause” of the U.S. Constitution, resulting in a great expansion of Federal authority over the States. That expansion has included a federal law that prohibits carrying a gun within a certain distance of schools. There would be much to fear from an “international commerce clause.” The State of Utah has experienced this kind of erosion of its sovereignty when the WTO at the behest of the island nation of Antigua. The WTO decided that Utah’s law prohibiting internet gambling unjustly limited Antigua’s trade.

CAFTA-DR also would accomplish something that is not a part of the general public debate. According to the International Trade Administration web site mentioned above, “CAFTA-DR would promote close cooperation among the Central American countries, thereby advancing regional integration….” Advancing regional integration is a polite way of saying that there will be movement toward a North American Union after the pattern of the European Union. If the U.S. is to enter into a North American Union, it should be done with an informed vote. Since the E.U. still has not surpassed the economic power of the U.S. by means of their union, nor has their union increased their national security, there is no reason to assume that a North American Union would be beneficial for us. More importantly, the Declaration of Independence would have to be supplanted with a “Declaration of Dependence.”

Finally, since supporters of CAFTA have clearly stated that it is “more than a trade agreement” we must question why it has not been submitted to Congress as a treaty, requiring a two-thirds majority approval in the Senate. Since CAFTA would surrender a great deal of our sovereignty, it certainly qualifies as a treaty. It would seem that the judiciary is not the only branch of government guilty of overreaching its constitutional authority. TS

What happened to your original thoughts OCM? You must be Haymaker in your Sunday duds. Cut and paste...cut and paste...
 

Latest posts

Top