Bush slips up __confirms Congress screws America`s domestic industries!

[johnwk]

SEE: President Bush pumps up free trade in Miami


In delivering a speech Friday at the Radisson Hotel in Miami promoting the trade agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), President Bush slipped up and unwittingly let the cat out of the bag by indicating our federal government, namely the Congress of the United States, has sold out America’s domestic industries and businesses and has been acting in the best interests of the heads of international corporate giants which have no allegiance to America or any nation and whose bottom line is an iron fisted control over international trade in order to maximize profits.

In his speech promoting the CFR’s iron fisted managed trade agenda [NAFTA/CAFTA, WTO, etc.] innocuously asserted to be “free trade”, Jane Bussey in the above mentioned article notes: “Bush indicated most of the countries already receive duty-free access to the U.S. market for their products and that the trade pacts would lower duties for goods exported by Americans.”

Well, isn’t that peachy President Bush? Congress has been allowing international corporate giants to utilize what amounts to be slave labor in foreign nations to manufacture goods which are then imported into America duty free, putting similar American domestic manufactures of these products at a competitive disadvantage, while other American manufactures goods which are exported are taxed before entering those countries!

The Bush “free trade” is not about free trade, but rather, it is about subjugating Congress’s constitutionally authorized duty to regulate commerce with foreign nations with America’s best interests in mind, and placing this power in the hands of the heads of international corporate giants ___ our global governance crowd!

Make no mistake, the agenda of the CFR is no conspiracy, no “secret handshakes”, no deals signed in blood; no decoding rings issued by the Council on Foreign Relations, or faceless illuminatis. As a matter of fact, they publicly state what their interests are, which includes the NAFTA as mentioned in their Global Governance Issue Brief And, HERE IS A LIST of members connected to the Clinton Administration, which does not even begin to take into account the members connected to father Bush’s Administration.

Bush’s alleged “free trade” agreements turn out to be managed trade agreements, managed by the Global Governance Crowd

For example, what is the NAFTA all about? It subjugates Congress’s [the people’s elected representatives] delegated power to regulate trade with foreign nations and allows an un-elected group to take over, a majority of whom are foreigners, who may arbitrarily make binding decisions concerning America’s trade with Canada and Mexico. See Annex 1901.2: Establishment of Binational Panels

And, under 1904:Review of Final Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Determinations the United States is forbidden to “provide in its domestic legislation for an appeal from a panel decision to its domestic courts.”

Also, under 1904: Review of Final Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Determinations the United States is required to amend its statutes and regulations “to ensure that its courts shall give full force and effect, with respect to any person within its jurisdiction, to all sanctions imposed pursuant to the laws of the other Parties to enforce...”

This of course puts American domestic businesses and industries involved in trade with Canada and Mexico under the jurisdiction of a foreign power. Seems to me this is one of the indictments contained in the Declaration of Independence, namely: [“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our law; giving his Assent to the Acts of pretended Legislation”.

And, if the above is not enough to cause concern for freedom loving Americans, Under Annex 1904.15: Amendments to Domestic Laws Schedule of the United States the United States is required to “amend section 301 of the Customs Courts Act of l980, as amended, and any other relevant provisions of law, to eliminate the authority to issue declaratory judgments in any civil action involving an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding regarding a class of kind of Canadian or Mexican merchandise.”

This, in essence, deprives domestic businesses and industries the protections of America’s judicial system, and requires them to submit to a foreign judicial power if they complain or question what foreigners are doing on American Soil!”

Our founding fathers were very careful in assigning specific powers, such as regulating trade with foreign nations, controlling our borders, regulating the value of our nation’s money, weights and measures, war and peace, etc., to the people’s elected representatives, so the people of America, Mary and Joe Sixpack, would have control over their country. Isn’t it time to take back our country and tell Bush and the Clinton world governance crowd on Capitol Hill to take a hike, before we are forced to tar and feather them?

JWK


If the American people ever allow private banks [our current federal reserve system] to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, (i.e., the "business cycle") the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. ___Thomas Jefferson

[Milton Bradley]

While this is only telling me what I already know, it's nice to have confirmation from the top.


This is nothing less than sedition in my mind, and I would like to see the bastard punished for his crimes.

[Milton Bradley]

It seems his work is not done yet, he would like even further disenfranchisement of the American people.

Bush crusades for free trade as support cools - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- Alarmed by slipping support for free trade even among Republicans, President Bush is arguing that protectionism will cut Americans out of chances for more -- and better -- jobs. Bush has launched a blitz on behalf of pending free trade pacts with four nations. He continued the push Saturday in his weekly radio address. "More exports support better and higher-paying jobs," the president said. "And to keep our economy expanding, we need to keep expanding trade." His radio address followed a speech on trade he delivered Friday in Miami, Florida. Bush also granted interviews this week to business-oriented news organizations. Since Democrats took control of Congress in January, it has not approved any free trade agreements that the administration has negotiated, and it has allowed Bush's authority to negotiate future deals under expedited procedures to expire. He said the deals would level the playing field for American businesses and farmers, many of which now face high tariffs on exported products while other countries enjoy relatively open access to U.S. markets. And he argued that freer trade with allies serves "America's security and moral interests" around the globe. "Expanding trade will help our economy grow," Bush said. "So I call on Congress to act quickly and get these agreements to my desk."

I hate Gorge "Wiretap" Bush. What a putz.

[tivodan1116]

::sigh:: where do I begin?

Quote by: johnwk SEE: President Bush pumps up free trade in Miami In delivering a speech Friday at the Radisson Hotel in Miami promoting the trade agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), President Bush slipped up and unwittingly let the cat out of the bag by indicating our federal government, namely the Congress of the United States, has sold out America’s domestic industries and businesses and has been acting in the best interests of the heads of international corporate giants which have no allegiance to America or any nation and whose bottom line is an iron fisted control over international trade in order to maximize profits.

Huh? From the quote, it doesn't look like he said any such thing. It doesn't look like he "slipped up" either - this wasn't a famous "Bushism", he said what he meant to say.

In his speech promoting the CFR’s iron fisted managed trade agenda [NAFTA/CAFTA, WTO, etc.] innocuously asserted to be “free trade”, Jane Bussey in the above mentioned article notes: “Bush indicated most of the countries already receive duty-free access to the U.S. market for their products and that the trade pacts would lower duties for goods exported by Americans.”

Right. So Bush is negotiating to get the same treatment overseas that international businesses receive in the United States, which is to say, open markets. And the problem is?????????

Well, isn’t that peachy President Bush? Congress has been allowing international corporate giants to utilize what amounts to be slave labor in foreign nations to manufacture goods which are then imported into America duty free, putting similar American domestic manufactures of these products at a competitive disadvantage, while other American manufactures goods which are exported are taxed before entering those countries!

And he's negotiating to remove those taxes in foreign countries... Thereby improving the situation for American companies. What's the problem again?

The Bush “free trade” is not about free trade, but rather, it is about subjugating Congress’s constitutionally authorized duty to regulate commerce with foreign nations with America’s best interests in mind, and placing this power in the hands of the heads of international corporate giants ___ our global governance crowd!

Other than your foaming-mouth rants, any proof of this?

Make no mistake, the agenda of the CFR is no conspiracy, no “secret handshakes”, no deals signed in blood; no decoding rings issued by the Council on Foreign Relations, or faceless illuminatis. As a matter of fact, they publicly state what their interests are, which includes the NAFTA as mentioned in their Global Governance Issue Brief And, HERE IS A LIST of members connected to the Clinton Administration, which does not even begin to take into account the members connected to father Bush’s Administration.

LOL... So on other threads you say that government agencies who publish their mission in a similar way are conspiracies, and here you say their stated agenda is true. You're just choosing to accept or reject an agency's stated agenda based upon your own preconceived notions drawn from your paranoia.

For example, what is the NAFTA all about? It subjugates Congress’s [the people’s elected representatives] delegated power to regulate trade with foreign nations and allows an un-elected group to take over, a majority of whom are foreigners, who may arbitrarily make binding decisions concerning America’s trade with Canada and Mexico. See Annex 1901.2: Establishment of Binational Panels

Bull. There is nothing there about anything being "binding". You are either misreading or lying (again, to suit your own paranoid conspiracy theories). From the Agreement you quote:

the panel may include in its report its recommendations as to the means by which the amending statute could be brought into conformity with the provisions of Article 1902(2)(d). In determining what, if any, recommendations are appropriate, the panel shall consider the extent to which the amending statute affects interests under this Agreement. Individual panelists may provide separate opinions on matters not unanimously agreed. The initial opinion of the panel shall become the final declaratory opinion, unless a Party to the dispute requests a reconsideration of the initial opinion pursuant to paragraph 4.

It says "recommendations". This panel is created ad-hoc when the laws of one country might violate the treaty, and gives recommendations on how the law should be rewritten to come under the treaty. It then becomes Congress' choice whether to violate the treaty or bring the law into compliance and continue to uphold our international agreements.

And, under 1904:Review of Final Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Determinations the United States is forbidden to “provide in its domestic legislation for an appeal from a panel decision to its domestic courts.”

That just means that the international panel makes a final recommendation and no losing country can bring the decision back to its "home turf" to give it some excuse to keep violating the treaty.

Also, under 1904: Review of Final Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Determinations the United States is required to amend its statutes and regulations “to ensure that its courts shall give full force and effect, with respect to any person within its jurisdiction, to all sanctions imposed pursuant to the laws of the other Parties to enforce...” This of course puts American domestic businesses and industries involved in trade with Canada and Mexico under the jurisdiction of a foreign power. Seems to me this is one of the indictments contained in the Declaration of Independence, namely: [“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our law; giving his Assent to the Acts of pretended Legislation”.

See, this is why law school takes three years.

No, it doesn't. What this provision does is says that if a panel is trying to get information to resolve a dispute involving a company in any one of the countries, that if they can get a subpoena or other similar motion granted in one country, the other countries should honor it for the sake of letting the panel do their job and resolve the dispute.

You can't just read one phrase. You need to read the entire law and understand what it means, which you obviously don't.

And, if the above is not enough to cause concern for freedom loving Americans, Under Annex 1904.15: Amendments to Domestic Laws Schedule of the United States the United States is required to “amend section 301 of the Customs Courts Act of l980, as amended, and any other relevant provisions of law, to eliminate the authority to issue declaratory judgments in any civil action involving an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding regarding a class of kind of Canadian or Mexican merchandise.” This, in essence, deprives domestic businesses and industries the protections of America’s judicial system, and requires them to submit to a foreign judicial power if they complain or question what foreigners are doing on American Soil!”

No, it doesn't. This is getting old.:rolleyes:

What it does, is says that in the future, US Courts can't issue declaratory judgments regarding duties enacted by the three countries regarding a certain type of item. Instead, the differences are resolved through the treaty's provisions. That's what happens in a treaty - countries work together to resolve differences.

All of these provisions, by the way, only apply to disagreements that arise when one country, in violation of the agreement, passes an antidumping or countervailing duty. Do you even know what that means?

Here's a hint: It's nothing that private businesses are doing.

[johnwk]

Quote by: Milton Bradley While this is only telling me what I already know, it's nice to have confirmation from the top. This is nothing less than sedition in my mind, and I would like to see the bastard punished for his crimes.

SEE: Vicente Fox admits that he and George W. Bush have ’agreed’ on common currency, North American Union

"At last we have public confirmation of the pernicious secret activity that’s been going on towards merging Mexico, Canada and the United States" declares Corsi, whose book became a bestseller shortly after publication. "Personally, I’d like to thank Vincente Fox. His candor about this merger is what’s going to stop it dead in its tracks" Corsi continues, "Fox’s appearance with Larry King and, of all places, on The Daily Show constitutes the first time a leader of Mexico, Canada or the U.S. has openly confirmed a plan to create a regional currency called the Amero -- a plan I document in detail in ’The Late Great U.S.A.’" Fox went on to explain how current regional trade agreements between the United States and its hopelessly corrupt neighbor to the south are intended to evolve into other previously hidden aspects of North American integration. As reported in WorldNetDaily, Larry King, near the end of the broadcast, asked Fox a question e-mailed from a listener: "I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency" Fox answered in the affirmative, admitting he and George W. Bush had "agreed" to pursue the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas – a free-trade zone extending throughout the Western Hemisphere – and that part of the plan was to institute a regional currency from Canada to the tip of South America!

And most American people do not believe the Bush/Clinton Global Governance Crowd is not intending to subjugate America’s independence and make Mary and Joe Sixpack their personal tax slaves?


JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then get them to use their vote to control and enslave the remaining 49 percent of America’s population.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: johnwk SEE: Vicente Fox admits that he and George W. Bush have ’agreed’ on common currency, North American Union

More lies. You really should get your news from somewhere besides WND, they are just a conspiracy theorists' shill.

The entire transcript of the interview is right here:
CNN.com - Transcripts

I don't see anything about your ridiculous "North American Union", in fact the word "North" appears nowhere in the interview.

The question about currency was answered in politician method - he basically didn't rule it out, but he deflected the question to what he really wanted to talk about - ALCA.

Here is the exact quote, and there's no "answering in the affirmative" like your conspiracy theory rag claims:

KING: E-mail from Mrs. Gonzalez in Elizabeth, New Jersey. "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"

FOX: Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea...

KING: It's going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?

FOX: Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.

It "would be" long, long term - he's saying IF it happened, it would be way in the future. That doesn't sound like he's "confirming" anything, it sounds like he hasn't really given it any thought and on the spur of the moment realized that IF something like that were to happen, it wouldn't happen for a long time.

[Alive]

American markets open to foreigners helps Americans. Foreign markets open to Americans also helps Americans. Actually, weirdly enough, both cases lead to essentially the same result, which makes complaining about one and not the other evidence of a lack of economic knowledge.

Why is this? Because of the nature of trade--stuff is traded for other stuff. Say nation A produces good A and nation B produces good B. In a free market, 100 good A trades for 100 good B. Nation A puts up a tariff; now it takes 110 good B to get 100 good A. This will reduce the demand for good A in nation B because it costs more; reduced demand leads to lower price, lower price means that nation A needs more of good A to buy good B--it turns out, if you do the calculations, exactly 10 more. So nation A needs 110 good A to buy 100 good B. In other words, a tariff on one nation is exactly equivalent to the same tariff on the other nation! Import openness and export openness are the exact same thing, as counterintuitive as it may seem.

[The Decider]

Quote by: tivodan1116 ::sigh:: where do I begin? Huh? From the quote, it doesn't look like he said any such thing. It doesn't look like he "slipped up" either - this wasn't a famous "Bushism", he said what he meant to say. Right. So Bush is negotiating to get the same treatment overseas that international businesses receive in the United States, which is to say, open markets. And the problem is????????? And he's negotiating to remove those taxes in foreign countries... Thereby improving the situation for American companies. What's the problem again? Other than your foaming-mouth rants, any proof of this? LOL... So on other threads you say that government agencies who publish their mission in a similar way are conspiracies, and here you say their stated agenda is true. You're just choosing to accept or reject an agency's stated agenda based upon your own preconceived notions drawn from your paranoia. Bull. There is nothing there about anything being "binding". You are either misreading or lying (again, to suit your own paranoid conspiracy theories). From the Agreement you quote: It says "recommendations". This panel is created ad-hoc when the laws of one country might violate the treaty, and gives recommendations on how the law should be rewritten to come under the treaty. It then becomes Congress' choice whether to violate the treaty or bring the law into compliance and continue to uphold our international agreements. That just means that the international panel makes a final recommendation and no losing country can bring the decision back to its "home turf" to give it some excuse to keep violating the treaty. See, this is why law school takes three years. No, it doesn't. What this provision does is says that if a panel is trying to get information to resolve a dispute involving a company in any one of the countries, that if they can get a subpoena or other similar motion granted in one country, the other countries should honor it for the sake of letting the panel do their job and resolve the dispute. You can't just read one phrase. You need to read the entire law and understand what it means, which you obviously don't. No, it doesn't. This is getting old.:rolleyes: What it does, is says that in the future, US Courts can't issue declaratory judgments regarding duties enacted by the three countries regarding a certain type of item. Instead, the differences are resolved through the treaty's provisions. That's what happens in a treaty - countries work together to resolve differences. All of these provisions, by the way, only apply to disagreements that arise when one country, in violation of the agreement, passes an antidumping or countervailing duty. Do you even know what that means? Here's a hint: It's nothing that private businesses are doing.

Excellent points, Tivo. I'm waiting for johnwk or one of his defenders to answer your challenge.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Tivodan See, this is why law school takes three years.

Yeah, it's not like it was purposly complicated to prevent lay peaple from understanding the law.


This is where the "shoot all the layers" feelings eminate from, the blatant contempt layers display for everybody that doesn't speak their language.


( That's not personal. or a shot at at Tivo, but one of my comments on what should seem obvious. )

[johnwk]

Just a short note on the smearing tactics used by the open borders free trade crowd.

Words like “protectionist” , “ isolationist”, etc., are used by those who cannot defend specific circumstances involved with “free trade” which are unjust and complained of by those who are affected by such circumstances.

As I have previously pointed out, ‘Free Trade” and “open borders” as now practiced on American soil maximizes the profits of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation!

The Bush/Clinton Global Governance Crowd, which is what we are talking about here with regard to trade, mimics the dishonorable business practices of our former Trusts and Monopolies of the late 1800’s early 1900’s.

As to our founding fathers intentions with regard to foreign trade, they were very careful in assigning specific powers, such as regulating trade with foreign nations to the people’s elected representatives, and not some international NAFTA panel made up of a majority of foreigners. Our founding fathers, by our Constitution, intended the people of America, Mary and Joe Sixpack, to have control over their country which is being subjugated by such things as the NAFTA, CAFTA, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, WORLD BANK, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, etc.

As to the meaning of “free trade”, our founding father also believed in free trade, but also believed in regulating America’s trade with foreign nations in such a manner as would benefit the American people and America’s domestic businesses an industries.

For example, in addition to imposing a specific amount of tax on specific articles of consumption which were imported, the first revenue raising Act (July 4th, 1789) also imposed an across- the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports shipped in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:

“a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof.”

This patriotic and skillful use of the intended power granted to Congress to adopt public policy for America’s best interests not only had foreigners filling our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's merchant marine becoming the most powerful on the face of the planet!

Unfortunately, I can no longer read the names on the ships docketed in New York’s Hell’s Kitchen area harbors which I could read when I was child ___ they are no longer American owned and American built, but owned and built by foreigners, which is a visual signal as to how far our Congress has been bought, paid for and has sold out what our founding fathers created!

Under the NAFTA, the specific intention is to subjugate and prohibit Congress’s constitutionally authorized regulatory power from being exercised in a manner beneficial to America’s best interests and is now used to provide “free trade protectionism” to international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation and are better known as our International Global Governance Crowd



Regards,

JWK


If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, (i.e., the "business cycle") the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. ______Thomas Jefferson

[johnwk]

The Decider wrote:

Excellent points, Tivo. I'm waiting for johnwk or one of his defenders to answer your challenge.

Of course they are excellent points to you because you support Tivo and not the truth and facts, just as Tivo ignores the truth and facts and makes things up!

I wrote:

For example, what is the NAFTA all about? It subjugates Congress’s [the people’s elected representatives] delegated power to regulate trade with foreign nations and allows an un-elected group to take over, a majority of whom are foreigners, who may arbitrarily make binding decisions concerning America’s trade with Canada and Mexico. See Annex 1901.2: Establishment of Binational Panels

Your pal Tivo wrote:

Bull. There is nothing there about anything being "binding". You are either misreading or lying (again, to suit your own paranoid conspiracy theories). From the Agreement you quote:

But the wording of the NAFTA points out decisions made under the NAFTA are “binding“:

Annex 1904.13: Extraordinary Challenge Procedure 3. Committee decisions shall be binding on the Parties with respect to the particular matter between the Parties that was before the panel. After examination of the legal and factual analysis underlying the findings and conclusions of the panel's decision in order to determine whether one of the grounds set out in Article 1904(13) has been established, and on finding that one of those grounds has been established, the committee shall vacate the original panel decision or remand it to the original panel for action not inconsistent with the committee's decision; if the grounds are not established, it shall deny the challenge and, therefore, the original panel decision shall stand affirmed. If the original decision is vacated, a new panel shall be established pursuant to Annex 1901.2.

Your pal Tivo wrote:

It says "recommendations". This panel is created ad-hoc when the laws of one country might violate the treaty, and gives recommendations on how the law should be rewritten to come under the treaty. It then becomes Congress' choice whether to violate the treaty or bring the law into compliance and continue to uphold our international agreements.

And also wrote:

See, this is why law school takes three years.

Tivo, our resident law professor, doesn’t even know that the NAFTA is not a treaty! Treaties are not approved of by a vote of the House as the NAFTA was. Our Constitution states in clear language:

The President shall … have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

The House plays no part in the making of treaties. I guess Tivo needs to go back to law school for a few more years to be further brainwashed.


JWK