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

Who's Running our Country? Us or Them?

Help Support Ranchers.net:




Of Geese, Ganders, and Globalism
by William Norman Grigg
April 23, 2005

Email this article
Printer friendly page

The World Trade Organization's ruling against Utah's gambling laws is a small but telling illustration of the ongoing globalist assault on American sovereignty.

Gambling is illegal in Utah, Hawaii, and a number of other states. Whether this policy is wise or whimsical, it is indisputably constitutional. The powers reserved to the states, described by James Madison as "numerous and indefinite," certainly include the power to regulate or criminalize gambling and other vices.

On April 7, the Geneva-based World Trade Organization (WTO) upheld a complaint by Antigua that state laws against gambling are an impermissible impediment to the tiny island nation's Internet gambling industry. At one point, Antigua had a reasonably robust agricultural sector, producing primarily bananas and sugar. Those industries were decimated, in large measure, because of an earlier WTO ruling. As was the case for Nevada when the Comstock lode played out, Antigua turned to gambling (as well as dodgy off-shore banking) as a revenue source.

Last November, the WTO's dispute panel upheld Antigua's claim that U.S. efforts to crack down on internet gambling violated the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which supposedly covers not only legitimate trades, but also gambling and betting services. On April 7, the WTO's appellate body rejected a U.S. appeal. (In the WTO, as with the United Nations' International Criminal Court, appeals are heard by essentially the same body that handed down the original ruling.)

Utah state laws against gambling figured prominently in Antigua's case before the WTO. Lori Wallach of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen Global Trade Watch correctly states that the WTO's ruling in favor of Antigua represents "the place where federalism and the WTO go head-to-head in a record collision." The logical consequence of this decision, she warns, is that the federal government, and all states, will either change laws prohibiting Internet gambling, or face trade sanctions.

Following the April 7 WTO decision, Utah's Deseret Morning News, which has been -- and continues to be -- an enthusiastic supporter of globalist "free trade" pacts, fulminated in a house editorial: "It Utah can't pass laws prohibiting Internet gambling, it will have lost a large measure of its ability to define what people in this part of the country consider to be proper conduct…. That's why the Bush administration needs to demand a renegotiation of trade agreements that concern international gambling."

"Utah's official aversion to gambling is not just a quaint holdover from some by-gone Puritan era," continued the editorial. "It is backed by sound logic and a desire to avoid the societal costs and economic squandering brought on by games of chance." More importantly, once again, Utah's laws –- whatever one thinks of their practicality or wisdom –- are protected by the U.S. Constitution, or at least they should be.

By approving creation of the WTO, and U.S. membership in the body, Congress effectively nullified elements of the Constitution intended to protect the reserved powers of the states. It also abdicated its constitutional power to regulate trade and commerce with foreign nations, surrendering it to an un-elected, unaccountable synod of foreign bureaucrats.

During the December 1994 lame-duck session of Congress in which the WTO was approved, Republican House Leader Newt Gingrich –- a backer of the WTO –- admitted that membership in the global trade body was a surrender of U.S. sovereignty:

I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change.... This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying that we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power.
In a house editorial published shortly before the April 7 WTO ruling, the Deseret Morning News observed: "In many ways, Utah should have seen this coming. More than five years ago, the World Trade Organization interfered with a state law in Massachusetts that discouraged any company with a state contract from doing business with Myanmar…. Now the WTO is on the verge of deciding, in effect, whether Utah's prohibition on Internet gambling is a similar violation [of global trade laws]."

"The culprit here is not necessarily the WTO," the paper hastened to add. "It is the U.S. negotiation team that hammered out international trade agreements years ago without any thought for states' rights…. The WTO is an important organization. It has nudged countries such as China and Russia toward democratic reforms in order to enjoy the benefits of membership…. But for the WTO to prohibit a state from enacting laws on what it considers basic questions of right and wrong is simply unacceptable."

Why, exactly, is it worthwhile for the WTO to "nudge" Russia, but "unacceptable" for the same body to push Utah around? Apparently, the Deseret News's editorial board doesn't understand –- or is unwilling to admit -- that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander as well.

The Deseret News is edited by former UN undersecretary general John Hughes, a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He is certainly acquainted with Fareed Zakaria, the former editor of the CFR flagship journal Foreign Affairs and current editor of Newsweek's international edition. In a recent column, Zakaria pointed out that the WTO is, in effect, a UN with teeth.

"Unlike the United Nations, the WTO can actually require that a country change its laws, regulations and precedents -– not simply national laws but often state and local laws," comments Zakaria, approvingly. "Its rulings on disputes between nations are binding. It is undemocratic and filled with technocrats. And it was an American creation that [many] conservatives supported wholeheartedly."

Some of those conservatives –- the Deseret News editorial board among them -– have become disenchanted with the WTO now that it has started to hand down rulings adverse to their interests. While going out of its way to exempt the WTO from its criticism, the News has suggested that it may be necessary for the Bush administration to "tear up the general trade agreement and renegotiate it with states' rights in mind."

As the Old Testament prophet Elijah might say: How long will the Deseret News halt between two opinions? Supporting the WTO, which was created through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), of necessity entails a surrender of national sovereignty and states' rights; it's inescapably a package deal.

Furthermore, it's hardly necessary to "renegotiate" a trade agreement that protects states' rights, since one already exists: The U.S. Constitution. Tearing up the GATT would mean leaving the WTO and restoring Congress's role in regulating international trade. As it happens, Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have submitted a resolution (House Joint Resolution 27) to withdraw our country from the WTO.

Residents of Utah and other states seeking to protect their distinctive cultural values should enlist in the effort to get our nation out of the WTO. If the John Hughes-led Deseret News editorial board is serious in pressing its complaint against the WTO, endorsing H. J. Res. 27 would be the only intellectually honest course of action.
ONE WORLD ORDER, and I can't believe our country is falling for it. Esp. the NCBA, we will be giving up all our rights down the line.
There's no greater danger to our republic than the UN and WTO. In fact if this continues it will not be a republic. This thread falls in line with my signature below.
And the scary thing is we are already hearing and seeing it-- How many times have we heard Tam and other Canadians say that our Federal Courts should not have jurisdiction over the US consumers beef safety and the US cattle herd safety in regards to the border???

Hypothetical Situation:: What if the R-CALF suit goes thru the whole US Courts appeals system and its still ruled that the border should stay closed, or other restrictions be put on Canada-- and along comes this one World Order WTO court that says the opposite- that we have to open the border and allow in beef and cattle that might be a genuine risk to consumers and cattle....Who do you follow? Who will USDA follow?
"This administration has been dealt the most serious threat that the US rancher could ever face, BSE. What has it done?"

It has tried to come up with a set of rules that could possibly save the hides of all American cattlemen if/when a BSE case shows up in your country. But a small group of protectionists who can't see past next fall are determined to stop it.

They, (we all know who, and I'm tired of hearing their name)on the other hand, are in the process of ensuring American cattlemen will pay a huge price if that sad day ever comes along when the USDA announces the finding of a positive American cow.

There is so much talk about packer concentration and how that hurts the markets, and yet with a closed border the concentration gets even worse with every passing week, and every laid off worker. The beef is going to come from somewhere, and it will be processed somewhere, so why are these people insisting that it is processed outside your borders???

Canada has been integrated into your system for a hundred years. We are your biggest trading partner ... IN THE WORLD, yet with every lost connection we have between ourselves, there are new connections being set up in places like South America. Why do you think there are free trade agreements being set up in places like this? Cargill will not wait. If they can't source the beef in America, they will source it elsewhere, you can count on it. Our best chance at a better future for all of us is to remain on the same side.

Keep putting up a big fence around your country. Some day you will wake up and find the neighbours have all moved on without you. :(
There's no greater danger to our republic than the UN and WTO. In fact if this continues it will not be a republic. This thread falls in line with my signature below

it's kind of amusing that we lesser beings are expected to realize we are part of a bigger world and have to operate within it and the agreements we make. if you abrogate your agreements don't expect them to be binding on the other parties either. american interests operate throughout the world; to expect that there would be no quid pro quo for these activities is naive or arrogant.
Kevin Wills-definately not a fear monger more like a hate monger!!!If you want to sling wild accusations and lies take time to check your facts. :!:
:shock: What the heck is a BM fed ban. I usually have a good BM after I take on my morning rolled Oats. Amazing how someone who talks about blame, spews it with confidence and authority.


Mr. Wills, you live in a darker world than Sandhusker, Oldtimer, and the rest of the gang here on ranchers who are at least somewhat informed.

Randy Kaiser
This means US can not stop importation of women for the purpose of prostitution. That would be a restraint of trade. So I guess slave trading is legal now. So why are we waisting so much money trying to stop something that WTO will claim is legal. It's like I have said all along. NAFTA and WTO were concepts that were introduced by the finest minds organized crime had to offer. In the US we were on to their influence on our govt policy, so they had to jump the gap and grasp a world organization that would over rule US home rule. Now US is being plucked at every turn and we are helpless to stop it. The biggest hurt of all is the ownership of our large banks and holders of credit card dept being owned by foreign stock holders. That means that all the profit that comes from making loans does the US economy no good and is simply deposited right into the pocket of mafia stock holders. I am for everyone withdrawing all their money out of any bank that is foriegn owned and stop using any credit card that is held by a foriegn bank or one based in Nevada. Paying interest on those loans will only make criminals richer.
Kevin_Wills said:
They, (we all know who, and I'm tired of hearing their name)on the other hand, are in the process of ensuring American cattlemen will pay a huge price if that sad day ever comes along when the USDA announces the finding of a positive American cow.

You keep saying this, when in fact 99% of consumers don't know what R-Calf does. You and the rest throw this "phrase of the week" "FEAR MONGERING" into our face when in fact there would be absolutley no change in trading if Canada had inforced a BM feed ban and didn't import English cattle. You made the mess and now you wont us to clean it up for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the hell is wrong with this scenario??????????? R-Calf stands for everything that is right with the small US business owner. FYI the only packing plants that seem to be "cutting back" are Cargill, the small indpendent packers don't rely on the cattle from other places. You all keep bragging about your "increased packing plant" capacity, what the hell is this? More Cargill and IBP? Wow big gain. You want someone to be mad at be mad at your own country for their lax import and feed regulations.

Why is it that those who know the least usually try to speak the loudest?
Cattle Editorial: Do We Want Competition in the Packing Industry - or Concentration?

by John Queen Today 4/28/2005 1:20:00 PM

It is rather ironic that those most committed to keeping the Canadian border closed to live cattle trade also tend to make the most noise about packer concentration. Concentration in the packing industry is often blamed in times of low cattle prices.

Today's strong cattle prices tend to dispel any notion that cattlemen are currently victims of unfair or inadequate competition, and I am not one to blame packer concentration for every ill that affects the cattle industry. But I do feel that robust competition in the packing industry is ultimately very good for cattlemen, and helps ensure that we are selling our cattle in a fair and open marketplace. Competition is especially critical for those raising cattle in regions that do not have an established history of supporting packing capacity. If cattlemen in the West and Northwest, for example, have to rely on a single packer as the destination for their cattle, they may very well face a price squeeze. An even more difficult scenario presents itself when these cattlemen have no packers in their regions whatsoever. In this case, they will most likely face a market price squeeze and will be forced to absorb significant freight costs.

If you say this cannot happen – think again. In a recent address to NCBA members, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns shared an example of a cattleman from the Northwest telling him personally of the impact of reduced packing capacity in his region.

"He told me he's not only forced to pay freight to ship the cattle back to Nebraska," Johanns said. "But he's also getting docked a nickel per pound."

At the same meeting, Utah Cattlemen's Association President Monty Weston told Johanns he fears that the packing plant in Hyrum, Utah could close. Weston said the plant has already cut back operations to three days per week, due to lack of supply.

When Johanns asked where his cattle would have to be shipped if the Utah plant closes, Weston replied that the nearest plant would probably be in Greeley, Colo., 540 miles away and on the other side of the Continental Divide.

"That's a pretty big freight bill," Weston said.

Recent examples of shrinking packer capacity are not just anecdotal. Idaho has seen its packing capacity drop by 51% in the past year alone. John Tyson recently told the NCBA Executive Committee that Tyson's Boise plant is operating at 16 hours per week, and its Pasco plant is at 24 hours per week. These cutbacks have already had a dramatic impact on cattle feeders in the area, and the effect on cow-calf producers cannot be far behind.

One place that packer capacity is certainly not shrinking is in Canada. While the Canadian border is closed to live cattle, Canadian boxed beef is entering the United States in near-record amounts. In an attempt to ease the impact of our live cattle embargo, the Canadian government, at both the federal and provincial levels, has committed millions of dollars to expand capacity in a Canadian packing industry that already expanded by 22 percent in 2004.

As if this scenario is not troubling enough, consider this: among U.S. packers, only the two largest have operations in Canada. It's obvious that these two packers will take advantage of these subsidies immediately. In fact, we have already seen these packers acquiring Canadian plants and expanding operations north of the border. They are projected to control over 87 percent of Canada's fed cattle slaughter capacity, and 69 percent of Canada's total slaughter capacity, by the end of this year. But we may also see smaller packers expand in Canada instead of here at home because of these financial incentives, further concentrating the U.S. segment of our industry and weakening our competitive position in the global market.

Let's export our product – not our packing industry

So the next time someone tells you he is looking out for the interests of the independent cattleman, ask him, "How is this scenario in my best interests?" I think cattlemen are more interested in exporting their product, not their packing industry. But as we force resources to move north of the border, that is really the end result.

Many people have drawn a comparison between today's cattle industry and the American auto industry of a few years ago, in that we need to make a firm commitment to competing in a global marketplace. I believe they are correct, and I think the comparison is interesting. But I think there's an even stronger correlation between the beef industry and today's foreign automakers.

Honda, Toyota, BMW and others have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into U.S. auto plants. They have created jobs, economic activity and tax revenue that states and communities crave with all their might. Cars and trucks driven by millions of Americans might carry a foreign label, but they may in fact have been built, inspected and shipped right here in the United States – all by American workers.

Can you imagine a trade policy under which the United States said to these automakers, "You can't build cars here anymore. We'll still take all the finished automobiles you can ship us, but all the jobs, plant investment and economic benefits you create will have to stay outside our borders."

As crazy as it sounds, this is exactly what we are doing with Canadian beef. We have somehow convinced ourselves that importing cattle from Canada for feeding and slaughter is unsafe. Yet boxed beef comes to us from Canada – processed exactly as it would be in the United States - in near-record quantities.

Of course, some will argue that the solution is to keep the Canadian boxed beef out of the country, too. Not only is there no scientific basis for such a policy, but it would also have a negative backlash on U.S. cattlemen. Mexico already has a policy of accepting only the same products from the United States that we accept from Canada. So if you ban Canadian boxed beef, say goodbye to what is currently our largest beef export market. You might also be saying an extended goodbye to Asian markets such as Japan and South Korea. Because if you paint Canada into a corner by banning boxed beef, watch for the Canadian industry to take desperate measures. I believe this could include 100 percent BSE testing for all cattle, and perhaps even a cull of its older cattle herd. While it would be a tremendous and unnecessary cost to their cattlemen, testing could give Canada the inside track to the Asian export markets, particularly in conjunction with its national animal identification program.

Ask yourself, do you think this kind of trade war is in your best interests? Or do you believe U.S. cattlemen are better served by policies for beef and cattle trade that are based on sound science and well-established animal health standards?

The American economy wasn't built on isolationist tactics, or futile attempts to control supply. We saw this when our exports stopped, and we lost $175 per head. Our success is all about creating and meeting consumer demand by producing a safe and superior product. U.S. cattlemen have always believed they are strong competitors. As an independent cattleman, all I want is a level playing field and plenty of options for marketing my cattle. For that to happen, we need to stop forcing resources north of the border, and stop advocating artificial barriers to trade. We need to support expansion – not contraction – of the U.S. beef industry. I'll take fair competition over concentration any day.

What choice will you make?

John Queen is a cattle producer from Waynesville, North Carolina, and vice president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
KW: "This administration has been dealt the most serious threat that the US rancher could ever face, BSE. What has it done? Rushed to open the border to a known BSE country only to be stopped by a grass roots org."

If we have another case of BSE in the United States, will our beef be unsafe to eat?

Yes or no?

If your answer is no, then explain why our beef would be safe and Canadian beef is not safe?

That's the heart and soul of this issue.

If you are going to support R-CALF's position on the Canadian border, you will be placed in a position of lying about the differences between the BSE precautionary measures that have been taken in Canada and the U.S.

You can't say, WITH ANY INTEGRITY, that the BSE measures that have been taken in Canada do not assure safety in Canada but they assure safety in the U.S.

That's precisely the level of deception that R-CALF stoops to every day.

Either the BSE precautionary measures that have been taken by both countries ensure safety in both countries or they assure safety in neither country.

What will it be Kevin?

KW: "In response to the closure of ALL of our main beef export makerts what does this administration do? It signs FTA's with some of the largests beef producing nations in the world in South America and Australia. What the hell is going on?"

I'll tell you what's going on, what's going on is your lack of understanding of the situation. That's what's going on.

In the United States we produce a tremendous amount of 50/50 trim from all those Y3 carcasses. Nobody want's a 50% fat hamburger and fat is basically worthless. Over 90% of what we import from Australia and New Zealand is "CHEAP" lean trimmings that ADD VALUE TO our surplus 50/50 trim.

You won't hear that by listening to the "gloom and doom" of R-CALF because imports are a cuss word for those who can't see this industry past the back of a Canadian truck.

Australian imports are PRICE POSITIVE to U.S. producers by adding value to our basically worthless 50/50 trim.

That is a fact!

To which the R-CALFer responded, well why don't we just produce this lean trim locally? They actually think we should go back to grinding up the chuck and the round instead of adding value to it in order to supply "CHEAP" lean trimmings locally. How smart is that?

While we are adding value to the products we used to grind, WHICH HAS CONTRIBUTED GREATLY TO OUR HIGHER CATTLE PRICES, we import lean trimmings TO ADD VALUE TO our surplus 50/50 trim.


Answer that!

Australia seldom meets their quota now so how did we get hurt by dropping the quota?

Kevin: "Were being led down the road of big industry corruption and were supposed to stop off along the way to lend the Canadians a hand?"

Highest cattle prices on record and the R-CALFers are still singing their same "gloom, dispair, and agony on me" song. Unbelievable!

Kevin: "I want to preserve their way of life so that they can live the life of a dryland cattleman."

Then the best thing you can do for yourselves is get the facts on these issues instead of listening to the R-CALF doomsday profits that only understand the word "import".

Kevin: "I have tried to look at all sides to the FTA's and Canada but it always boils down to less money in my pocket and the lumping of my high quality beef product into the rest of the worlds crap."

All sides from who's standpoint? R-CALF's?

You are wrong from both standpoints.

#1. Prior to BSE, the U.S. beef and live cattle trade was in a surplus position to the tune of $1.3 BILLION dollars for a 7 year average. This amounts to about $28 more per head. How does that equate to the "trade is bad" position of R-CALF???

So much for trade taking money out of your pocket.

Bill Bullard said we would be in a very favorable position without any trade. I guess if you consider taking less money for your cattle a "favorable position" you would probably agree with Bullard.

The above information includes the entire beef trade of live cattle, beef, beef variety meats, and hides. R-CALF didn't tell you that either did they? That information is available through the U.S. dept of commerce - bureau of census.

#2. Canada's beef products are every bit as good as our best. The reputation of "northern cattle" didn't stop at the Canadian border. Pick up an ABS catalog from the early eighties and see how many Canadian bulls were in the lineup.

Kevin: "Sandhusker, Rancher, and Oldtimer, I would like for you to tell me, just what the hell kind of a quagmire would we be in if it weren't for R-Calf keeping the USDA and the Bush regime honest??"

We would probably be exporting to Japan right now and receiving higher cattle prices. Japan knows that we have traded cattle and feed with Canada for many years. How the heck can we have any leverage with Japan when R-CALF is telling the world that Canadian beef is unsafe, WHEN WE HAVE CANADIAN CATTLE IN THE U.S. and had a positive case of BSE in the U.S.??????

R-CALF doesn't know anything about honesty! If they did, they wouldn't be lying about the safety of Canadian beef and jeoprodizing the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption (U.S. born and raised) to stop 5% of our U.S. beef consumption (Canadian live cattle that are now coming down in boxes).

What kind of a quagmire will we be in if we have another case of BSE in the United States and R-CALF has prepped the media to believe that the BSE precautionary measures we have taken, WHICH ARE THE SAME AS CANADA'S, do not assure food safety????


R-CALF can claim they represent the grass roots producers but how the heck are they doing that by stating that the BSE precautionary measures taken by Canada do not assure food safety when we have taken the same precuationary measures?

Kevin: "You keep saying this, when in fact 99% of consumers don't know what R-Calf does. You and the rest throw this "phrase of the week" "FEAR MONGERING" into our face when in fact there would be absolutley no change in trading if Canada had inforced a BM feed ban and didn't import English cattle. You made the mess and now you wont us to clean it up for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the hell is wrong with this scenario???????????"

I'll tell you what is wrong with that picture.


The origination of the Washington cow does not change the fact that she was here nor does it change the fact that we have traded cattle with Canada for many years.. You can blame Canada all you want for BSE and point your finger at BSE being a Canadian problem but THAT COW WAS STILL HERE. Those are the cards we have been dealt Kevin.

To assume that we will never have a domestic case of BSE, when we have imported cattle from all over and considering MOST OF THE BSE HAS BEEN FOUND IN DAIRIES, is arrogance at it's finest. R-CALF's claim to fame!

As far as the feed ban, did you know that some of the contaminated feed that was found in Canada WAS PURCHASED IN THE U.S.????

How much egg do you want on your face Kevin. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't be chucking rocks.

Lastly, what have we gained financially by banning Canadian cattle and beef imports when they will eventually absorb that portion of our export market to Japan?

I'll answer that for you, we have stabbed our Canadian neighbors in the back for "SHORT TERM" economic gain and now instead of importing Canadian cattle and sending their high quality beef to Japan ourselves, they will just by-pass us. WOW, WE REALLY SHOWED THEM DIDN'T WE?????

You keep bowing your heads to these R-CALF leaders while they lead you right down the primrose path. Nobody ever regulated their way to prosperity.

R-CALF's siamese twin, the LMA, thinks we would be better off supporting packer parasite lawsuits with beef checkoff money than spending it on beef promotion, research, and education to gain more of the consumer's dollar. SOME LEADERSHIP!

Pork and Poultry is the beef industry's competition, not Canada.

You can blame packer concentration, captive supplies, and imports on low prices but how did we just come off the highest cattle prices on records with the same level of packer concentration, virtually the same level of captive supplies, and NO EXPORT MARKET TO JAPAN????

If you are ever going to understand the bigger picture on these issues you need to quit listening to the R-CALF "doomsday profits" and stick with the facts.

KW: "We as US beef producers raise the highest quality beef in the world, we process the best product, and in the end we are "arrogant" if we let our government set our prices?"

Highest quality according to who?

According to our own "quality grade" specifications, Canada has every bit as good a quality product as we do.

I am not a Canadian producer but I am not going to deny the facts of beef quality to support a biased agenda.

As far as having a safe product, R-CALF also says we have the safest product in the world. Ironically, USDA is the agency that inspects our beef, it was only months ago that R-CALF said "USDA does not care about food safety". A short time before that they were saying that "the large packers who process our beef do not care about food safety and only care about the money".

Well if we are to take R-CALF at their word, how can we have the safest beef in the world if neither USDA or the packers care about food safety??

Must suck to be R-CALF and keep their arguments straight when they contradict today what they said yesterday.

These are the guys you support Kevin!

Best of luck going down that road!

Very well said.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Does Canada have the same rules on veterinary drugs for cattle that USA has? I just read an article on some of the drugs that they use and was wondering how much difference is allowed between the countries.

Latest posts