North American Union (NAFTA) Would Trump US Supreme Court


PDA






Thin Black Line
June 20, 2006, 05:13 PM
A fitting title could have also been "Secret NAFTA Court Superior To US 'Supreme' Court"

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15623

Under Chapter 11, NAFTA establishes a tribunal that conducts a behind closed-doors “trial” to decide the case according to the legal principals established by either the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or the UN’s Commission for International Trade Law. If the decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer.

"behind closed doors"...do we mean "secret"?

Somewhere deep in Mexico City, American John Q Citizen has somehow
learned of a secret court hearing that will affect the future rights of
himself and his fellow citizens. He wanders into the court room while a
guard is away relieving himself....

NAFTA Star Chamber Judge: "Hold on. Who are you?"

John: "I'm John. I'm from the United States of America."

Judge: "You need to leave since you are not a party to this case."

John: "But...but...it may affect my rights as a United States Citizen. I
need to know what's going on here --what's being said."

Judge: "We determine collective, not individual, rights here and unless
you are named on the petition or a certified government representative in
this case, then you must leave. Besides, you wouldn't understand what's
going on here and I wouldn't want you reporting to others something that
is out of context. You might frighten people."

Judge (speaking in Spanish to Bailiff): "Remove the peasant."

...we can rest assured that sooner or later a U.S. law will be overruled by the NAFTA Chapter 11 adjudicative procedure, as long as the determinant law adjudicated by the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals continues to derive from World Court or UN law. Once a North American Union court structure is in place can almost certainly predict that a 2nd Amendment challenge to the right to bear arms is as inevitable under a North American Union court structure as is a challenge to our 1st Amendment free speech laws. Citizens of both Canada and Mexico cannot freely own firearms.

Bailiff approaches John....

John: "My second amendment rights are in the US Consitution and Americans
need to have a real voice here!"

Judge (smiling): "This is the NAMU/NAFTA court from which your US laws
flow. Besides, you and the rest of the American people do have a
representative here."

John (pointing at Senator Clinton): "Who? Her?!"

Judge: "Yes. Now we're going to decide this case within the structure of
UN law which Senator Clinton understands very well."

John: "But....but under English Common Law...."

Judge: "This isn't England either, but if it will make you feel more
comfortable then I can call you *serf* instead and you will still be
removed post haste!"

Like it or not, NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals already empower foreign NAFTA investors and corporations to challenge the sovereignty of U.S. law in the United States. Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been quoted as saying, “When we debated NAFTA, not a single word was uttered in discussing Chapter 11. Why? Because we didn’t know how this provision would play out. No one really knew just how high the stakes would get.”

Yeah, right. I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you....:fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "North American Union (NAFTA) Would Trump US Supreme Court" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fourays2
June 20, 2006, 05:28 PM
so why hasn't a republican president/senate/house overturned this? they've had 6 years.

Thin Black Line
June 20, 2006, 05:30 PM
This might have something to do with it:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50719

"This is all being done by the executive branch below the radar," Corsi told WND. "If President Bush had told the American people in the 2004 presidential campaign that his goal was to create a North American union, he would not have carried a single red state."

The president, Corsi maintains, has charged the bureaucracy to form a North American union "through executive fiat ... without ever disclosing his plans directly to the American people or to Congress."

gc70
June 20, 2006, 06:11 PM
woooo, scary stuff

Does NAFTA come before (alphabetical) or after (seniority) the WTO?

bigun15
June 20, 2006, 06:33 PM
I'm already getting mental pictures of the news reports that come out when they try to make the North American Union and the war breaks out :uhoh:

DKSuddeth
June 20, 2006, 06:45 PM
well, it's been a good near 200 years since we've had an all out two front war on our own soil. I guess it's time for the tree to get watered well and good this time.

BrennanKG
June 20, 2006, 06:49 PM
Wow.

I feel ignorant and oblivious.

If those reports are accurate, this is very worrisome.

:(



B.

Low Key
June 20, 2006, 07:03 PM
If these reports are accurate, that would effectively explain why Bush has refused to do anything about illegal immigration from the south for 6 years until the American people screamed so loud that he was forced to do something.

So what happens in a few years when the press starts reporting that the U.S. no longer exists as a nation but rather we are now the North American Union??
:banghead:

Zedicus
June 20, 2006, 07:09 PM
So what happens in a few years when the press starts reporting that the U.S. no longer exists as a nation but rather we are now the North American Union??


Simple, The Seccond American Revolution.:fire:

ProficientRifleman
June 20, 2006, 07:30 PM
NAFTA is not a treaty. It was not ratified by the United States Senate. It does not and cannot trump the SCOTUS. If the executive branch is allowed to get away with assumed powers such as making executive agreements, which, in effect, have the binding power of a treaty, then Congress and we as a people have abdicated our authority of self rule.

What if the President negotiated an executive agreement with several nations about the President's time in office, agreeing that it would be binding amoung the agreeing parties? It might be legally done but that does not make it lawful. Nor does it make it binding upon We the People as represented by the U.S. Congress.

God help us.

mordechaianiliewicz
June 20, 2006, 07:48 PM
Proficient Rifleman,

While what you say is true, I believe the Republicans, with Neo-Con leadership have more effectively pulled the wool over the eyes of Americans than any other political movement since FDR's New Deal.

The people who voted for Bush did so based upon image. None of them wanted this jackass that is in office right now.

By the way, Congress should have reigned in the Executive a while back. They could've. Maybe still can. Think about it, they no longer make the budget (which the Constitution says they are suppossed to do), they allow the Executive to do that, and then add pork.

They could have ended the power of the President to issue Executive Orders, without some sort of Congressional approval, which they should have long ago.

They should have said, "Per the Constitution, we and only we shall make war, grant letters of marque and reprissal and make rules concerning captures on land, sea and air. This includes military actions not declared war. Anything done "In emergency" can be cause for impeachment later if we judge it was done improperly."

But, that ain't happened, now has it?

Hawkmoon
June 20, 2006, 08:17 PM
Perhaps now we have a clue as to why Slick Willy and the Shrub are such good buddies even though they belong to (no, I did not say "represent") different parties.

longeyes
June 20, 2006, 08:41 PM
Both belong to the Devil's Party, though that may be giving the Devil a bad name.

It's clear we are headed for a Constitutional showdown. Whether it will be resolved peacefully, given that The Law itself is under siege, remains to be seen. All bets are off.

CAnnoneer
June 20, 2006, 08:42 PM
Jorge is a puppet. The really scary ones are his puppeteers. They have an agenda, the money to finance it, and the power to implement it. There is only one major party and that is the Gold Party. The rest is kabuki theater for the unwashed dumb drugged peasants.

longeyes
June 20, 2006, 08:50 PM
The plutos will take this as far as they can. In the end it will come down to whether they have control of our military.

NineseveN
June 20, 2006, 08:59 PM
I thought there was nothing worry about though...I mean, that's what folks keep trying to tell me. :rolleyes:

shootinstudent
June 20, 2006, 09:00 PM
Okay, before this goes further, some of you all might want to actually take a read of NAFTA chapter 11.

As far as I can tell, this is what the humanevents article's author is upset about:

http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/NAFTA/chap-112.asp

Article 1124: Constitution of a Tribunal When a Party Fails to Appoint an Arbitrator or the Disputing Parties Are Unable to Agree on a Presiding Arbitrator

1. The Secretary-General shall serve as appointing authority for an arbitration under this Section.

2. If a Tribunal, other than a Tribunal established under Article 1126, has not been constituted within 90 days from the date that a claim is submitted to arbitration, the Secretary-General, on the request of either disputing party, shall appoint, in his discretion, the arbitrator or arbitrators not yet appointed, except that the presiding arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with paragraph 3.

3. The Secretary-General shall appoint the presiding arbitrator from the roster of presiding arbitrators referred to in paragraph 4, provided that the presiding arbitrator shall not be a national of the disputing Party or a national of the Party of the disputing investor. In the event that no such presiding arbitrator is available to serve, the Secretary-General shall appoint, from the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators, a presiding arbitrator who is not a national of any of the Parties.

4. On the date of entry into force of this Agreement, the Parties shall establish, and thereafter maintain, a roster of 45 presiding arbitrators meeting the qualifications of the Convention and rules referred to in Article 1120 and experienced in international law and investment matters. The roster members shall be appointed by consensus and without regard to nationality.

This has to do with companies that have already contracted for arbitration of their claims.

Where exactly is the "grave violation of US sovereignty" in this chapter? How is it a "usurpation of US law" to have methods for resolving arbitration problems when two parties have already agreed to private (ie, non judicial) arbitration?

The whole point of arbitration, which is allowed and encouraged in the US and has been for about 100 years now, is for people to be able to select the kind of dispute resolution they want to govern their transactions. The complaint in the article at the top of this thread really puzzles me...arbitration is something that people agree to by contract, and it's a good way of avoiding complex and expensive litigation when neither party to a contract wants to worry about litigation.

Where's the beef?

gc70
June 20, 2006, 09:10 PM
Where's the beef?Wrapped in tinfoil and baked until well done.

longeyes
June 20, 2006, 09:11 PM
Not the beef, the enchilada.

You don't think the NASCO corridor's a threat to our sovereignty?

shootinstudent
June 20, 2006, 09:18 PM
longeyes,

I don't see how the corridor by itself is a threat to anything, except maybe higher prices on some goods.

longeyes
June 20, 2006, 09:42 PM
What good is a "corridor" when Mexico strictly controls foreign investment in THEIR country?

Bartholomew Roberts
June 20, 2006, 10:03 PM
Actually NAFTA Chapter 11 starts here:
http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/NAFTA/chap-111.asp

Here is a list of all NAFTA Chapter 11 cases filed since 2001 (PDF Format):
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/2005/chapter11_january2005.pdf

15 filed by Mexico, 13 by the United States, and 11 by Canada. So far both Canada and Mexico have had to pay damages under the treaty. The U.S. has not yet paid any damages; but has won several cases in Canada and Mexico protecting U.S. corporations.

No treaty or international agreement can overrule the Constitution of the United States. There might be aspects of Chapter 11 tribunals that are not subject to Supreme Court review because it is outside their jurisdiction; but I think it is a stretch to say that the North American Union would trump the U.S. Supreme Court.

k_semler
June 21, 2006, 02:27 AM
Don't worry, it's all part of the plan. The United States, and the days of soviergn states are limited. The CFR knows best. Don't worry, it's all for the collective good.

Building A North American Community (http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf)

Task Force Urges Measures to Strengthen North American Competitiveness, Expand Trade, Ensure Border Security (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8104/index.html)

The Case For the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Monetary Union (http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1999/amero/amero.pdf)

Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/nssg/PhaseIIIFR.pdf)

A National Security Strategy For A New Century (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/other_pubs/nssr99.pdf)


Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010 (http://www.cfr.org/publication/7914/)

DOD Information Operations Roadmap (http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resources/io/io-roadmap.pdf)


Field Manual (FM) 3-13: Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resources/doctrine/fm-3-13.pdf)

HHS Pandemic Influenza Plan (http://www.hhs.gov/pandemicflu/plan/pdf/HHSPandemicInfluenzaPlan.pdf)

NAFTA Corridor (http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/cw-rotcc.htm)

Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (http://www.spp.gov/)

NAFTA Corridor" (http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/cw-rotcc.htm)

North American Union, (Wiki) ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union)

GrammatonCleric
June 21, 2006, 04:08 AM
I really hope that "our" great and mighty prez won't sell our sovereignty out to NAFTA. I don't have much faith in the "elected" apes. I REALLY hope this development doesn't lead to war, if it does, I plan on fighting for freedom.

Thin Black Line
June 21, 2006, 07:48 AM
In the end it will come down to whether they have control of our military.

Let's see....the Reserve and National Guard are overseas and the Active
Duty patrol America's streets when there's a major problem. In fact, I seem
to recall something about the Mexican Army coming up to help.....I can't
recall all the details at the time since I was in Iraq making sure some of
America's very special families were going to get really wonderful stock
options out of my mission.

Yes, "they" have control of "our" military.

Kentak
June 21, 2006, 07:55 AM
I suspect this is a tinfoil hat situation. People tend to quickly and uncritically believe that which feeds their preconceived world view.

K

LAK
June 21, 2006, 08:15 AM
Um ...

LAK
June 21, 2006, 08:29 AM
Just as surely as night follows day, there will be a regional court a la Brussels in North America if this train is not derailed.
The Europe we want, the Europe which can show genuine leadership on the world stage, will be a Europe that heeds the warnings of globalisation, not least from those who feel disenfranchised from it. What we are aiming at, therefore, is a new kind of global governance to manage the global economy and environment.

Europe's model of integration, working successfully on a continental scale, is a quarry from which ideas for global governance can and should be drawn. We must promote this, while devising just and sustainable strategies at world level, in cooperation with our partners, especially the developing world.
Romano Prodi, the EU Commissioner ... has such a big mouth. ;)

See page 3 "Out of the Mouths" by Christopher Arkell;
http://www.europeanfoundation.org/docs/ej0705.pdf

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

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

fourays2
June 21, 2006, 10:01 AM
I suspect this is a tinfoil hat situation. People tend to quickly and uncritically believe that which feeds their preconceived world view.

K

and you may be correct. however the popularity in tin foil exists because a large section of the populus has a profound distrust of its .gov

Justin
June 21, 2006, 10:46 AM
Yes, but this results in a situation where grave and legitimate criticisms of abuse at the hands of government are lost because there's a chorus of chicken littles drowning them out.

longeyes
June 21, 2006, 11:49 AM
Let's see....the Reserve and National Guard are overseas and the Active
Duty patrol America's streets when there's a major problem. In fact, I seem
to recall something about the Mexican Army coming up to help.....I can't
recall all the details at the time since I was in Iraq making sure some of
America's very special families were going to get really wonderful stock
options out of my mission.

Yes, "they" have control of "our" military.

And my point is just this: If the American military cooperates with the power grab, in defiance of the Constitution, then this country's in deep youknowwhat.

NineseveN
June 21, 2006, 12:38 PM
Yes, but this results in a situation where grave and legitimate criticisms of abuse at the hands of government are lost because there's a chorus of chicken littles drowning them out.

Dismissing such concerns as chicken-littleism is, in my opinion irresponsible. It’s not difficult to take that position and argue that there’s no smoke here so there’s no fire, but when you have a powder keg sitting next to the smoker’s lounge, I don’t think simply ignoring the potential for disaster because no such disaster has yet happened is a real smart play.

That’s where a lot of the division on the issue of gun control comes. There are so many firearms owners that don’t want to appear as “gun nuts” or “militia types” because they fear that it’s the image of gun owners that have the anti-gun types on their case. They don’t want to have that image, and thus, they don’t want anyone else to have that image, so they support ‘reasonable restrictions’, they sneer at us evil-black-rifle types because somehow, the fact that the anti-gunners are projecting stereotypes and racist or classist ignorance onto us is somehow our fault. A good friend of mien once told me, “If all black people look like gang bangers to you simply because of the way they dress, regardless of whether or not you truly know them to be a criminal, the problem is with you, not them, you’re ignorant, you’re a racist”; and he was right on the money. Ignorance breeds false impressions, there’s no use succumbing to simple desires to conform into a more pleasant image of gun owner or negro for the edification of the ignorant. And I feel that this is coming into play here at THR in threads like this.

When folks became alarmed at the first large instances of gun control in this country, they too were called ‘chicken littles’. First it was just those damn machine guns that only killers and militia types wanted to own…then it was firearms with certain barrel lengths, then it was firearms with certain superficial features and magazine capacities larger than some arbitrary number not even remotely rooted in logic or fact. Yeah, those stupid chicken littles, worrying about nothing, that wasn’t gun control, that was just to get rid of those undesirable and violent militia freaks that wanted to overthrow the government. Oh wait, no, it didn’t pan out that way now did it? What’s that you say? The hill seems slick? You bet it does.

Back about, I dunno, maybe 10years ago when I became increasingly aware of the whole privacy issue regarding government surveillance, we had some folks calling those that were concerned the equivalent of “tin-foil-hatters”. “Who cares about Carnivore or Omnivore and the Dragonware Suite?”, they’d say, “they’re only looking for criminals, they’re not reading your e-mail, that’s against the law, you’re paranoid”. Good thing the government didn’t slip further into abuse of privacy and spiral into illegally wiretapping American citizens not suspected of any crime whatsoever…oh wait, damn…does Hepting v. AT&T and ACLU v. National Security Agency ring any bells?


I’m not sure if this is part of THR’s new strategy in aligning the principles of this site, but I’ve noticed a lot of these dismissive type comments from Moderators as of late on just about every subject that identifies potential abuse. If the discussion of such developments and where their potential abuses may lie is going to be ridiculed, then why even allow or promote the discussion of such subject at all? At some point, people need to stop caring what everyone else is going to think and just converse about such things. It’s okay to change your mind, it’s okay to be alarmed about something so serious with such a potential for abuse given the current political climate in this country, a country where all of the sudden illegal wiretaps are okayed based on some silly principle where the executive branch can operate with impunity and cite “state secrets” as the justification for illegal conduct in attempts to get lawsuits thrown out of court; but if it’s not okay to do here, then let’s take it elsewhere. I’m sorry, but I’m not gonna roll lock, step and barrel with the desired trend of worrying about how I appear to others. If you want to dismiss some legitimate discussion where thoughts are offered and opinions evolve over things that have the potential to be abused and call folks ‘tin-foil-hatters’ or ‘chicken-littles’, that’s on you.

If you feel that this does not currently present a problem, I’m with you, but if you want to argue that the potential for abuse is not there and thus it’s of no concern, then we’ll simply have to disagree. Tossing out terms like “chicken littles” in that manner isn’t really helping though.

No one is advocating that we storm the capital and give The Shrub a short stop on a southern drop, that would be irresponsible (and illegal), we’re trying to maybe vent our concerns a little and discuss things…discussion is healthy, especially when not everyone agrees but can manage to keep things civil. To suggest that there is a finite capacity for discussion on any topic is self-defeating and counterproductive. Every concern about potential abuses of power in this current political climate is valid considering the recent track record of the powers that be, discussion is healthy, calling for immediate and drastic action (i.e. revolution talk) based on potential abuses is probably where the line needs to be drawn, but not before.



P.S. Nothing personal Justin, just using your post as an example, perhaps even partly out of context to make a small point within the larger point of my post. I hope ya understand.

longeyes
June 21, 2006, 12:52 PM
Chicken Littles in the Age of Tyson. Right.

mordechaianiliewicz
June 21, 2006, 01:46 PM
This isn't a matter of a tin foil hat. This is going on right now. Just read about it. It isn't like us "tin foil hat" wearers just made this up.

What is open for conjecture is what it means, and how far this will go. NAFTA now appears to have been a first step towards a new North American Union. The transnational highway, the next step. And NAFTA was a huge document, but some people, both on the left and the right read all or most of it, and decided either that because of sovreingty issues, or labour and trade issues (or both) it was a bad idea. They simply weren't in the majority.

To act like it ain't goin' down is simply ignoring the purpose.

Follow the money, you'll see that corporations in America, Mexico, and Canada all wanted this along with the politicians who owned stock in those corps.

Remember that. If all else fails, track the money to see who stands the most to gain, and then you can almost always see where things are heading.

longeyes
June 21, 2006, 01:57 PM
Yes, sure, it's all "tin foil," and the usual suspects will be selling us the tin foil.

Anyone carefully examining events post-WW II would have to have a permanent case of the Smileys not to be concerned about the trends in motion.

Otherguy Overby
June 21, 2006, 03:15 PM
In this "enlightened" day politicians hold party loyalty far above loyalty to the country.

If you ask me, a good remedy/attitude adjustment would be impaling a politician near/on every interstate highway mile marker. Message: Represent the best interests of the country as supreme, or else.

The entire system, as of October 2002, had a total length of 46,726 miles (wikipedia) so this should be a good, progressive start... :fire:

wingman
June 21, 2006, 04:46 PM
Tinfoil hats aside does anyone believe those in power including corporate
America have our (middle-class, working americans)best interest at heart.

We have long since passed the point of putting America first it is simply
about power and money. The question I have is how to stop it and make
changes as voting does not appear to help.:cuss:

longeyes
June 21, 2006, 07:53 PM
If we've learned one thing from history it's that Big Events tend to spoil the best intentions of the party planners. We stay vigilant, do our best politically, and remain adaptive. The New World Order is a fearsome beast but it has many vulnerabilities.

gc70
June 21, 2006, 08:15 PM
We have long since passed the point of putting America first it is simply about power and money.It has always been about power and money. The unique circumstances of America's first couple of hundred years of development gave a lot of unlikely folks the chance to gain power and money because there was too much opportunity for the established rich and powerful to scoop it all up.
The question I have is how to stop it and make changes as voting does not appear to help.Voting achieves what people want to achieve, which nearly always starts with personal gratification and may include lofty ideals somewhere down the list. As an example, why would any rational person vote for an embarrassment like Cynthia McKinney? Probably because she consistently delivers money and favors for her constituents. Quite simply, most voters put power and money (for their personal benefit) ahead of any other consideration.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 21, 2006, 09:46 PM
I’m not sure if this is part of THR’s new strategy in aligning the principles of this site, but I’ve noticed a lot of these dismissive type comments from Moderators as of late on just about every subject that identifies potential abuse.

Dismissive? Or just trying to get some rational adult discussion started? Encourage a little research? Force someone to do some digging to validate their statements instead of just letting them go unchallenged? Sharing what we know and learning what we don't makes all of us better informed. Sharing our opinion doesn't have the same effect though when we don't share the information that formed it. Here the information provided looks one-sided to say the least, yet few seem to have questioned it. I am wondering why so many here are willing to uncritically accept information from a source of mediocre credibility?

On the opposite end, we have k semler who presented a virtual cornucopia of information, though what he meant to convey by such a broad array of link other than a vague fear of globalism, I can't imagine.

No one is advocating that we storm the capital and give The Shrub a short stop on a southern drop, that would be irresponsible (and illegal), we’re trying to maybe vent our concerns a little and discuss things…discussion is healthy

Not yet anyway, or not in this particular thread; but it certainly happens. As for discussion, is this how most of you discuss things with your friends? Walk into the room and throw a bunch of pamphlets at them?

As for globalism, it is coming regardless of whether or not you like it. In fact, short of a massive collapse of the technological and economic infrastructure that supports it, I cannot imagine what will stop it. I also think the cure would be far worse than the disease in that case.

Rather than worry about globalism, we should be worrying about whose values will drive globalism. Which culture will the world adopt as technology and economics make it a smaller world?

longeyes
June 21, 2006, 10:24 PM
As for globalism, it is coming regardless of whether or not you like it. In fact, short of a massive collapse of the technological and economic infrastructure that supports it, I cannot imagine what will stop it. I also think the cure would be far worse than the disease in that case.

Rather than worry about globalism, we should be worrying about whose values will drive globalism. Which culture will the world adopt as technology and economics make it a smaller world?

Well, "global" political systems come and go. History indicates that pretty clearly. How many autocrats in history have dreamt of creating the world in their image? Where are all the global systems--aka empires--of the past?

As powerful and "inevitable" as globalism is, so too is the concomitant thrust toward fragmentation and separatism. In the end I wouldn't bet against some variant of tribalism, especially if the rule of law breaks down and we suffer some catastrophic reverses due to terrorism. The "good news" is that may save RKBA.

I think we have a pretty good idea already of the basic set of values that drive, and will drive, globalism, but there is never only one set of values in play and the time-span of each's ascendancy is limited and, these days, definitely getting shorter. At the same time that modern technology is empowering the individual, it's also making the individual irrelevant. There will be many globes and many systems, and they will keep battling each other until the end of time.

Low Key
June 22, 2006, 05:19 AM
As for globalism, it is coming regardless of whether or not you like it. In fact, short of a massive collapse of the technological and economic infrastructure that supports it, I cannot imagine what will stop it.

What I see happening in America and the world at present lends me to agree with Bartholomew. I don't like it though because that means first less freedoms and then no freedom because the "enlightened" of the world don't like my freedom to express myself, defend myself, or disagree with the coming world government. tinfoil hat? No, just watching what's going on. Many in the world hate the U.S. because of our freedoms, which they would be glad to take away. I'm afraid that liberty may die with a cheer from the crowd in the name of peace and safety.

wingman
June 22, 2006, 07:56 AM
As for globalism, it is coming regardless of whether or not you like it. In fact, short of a massive collapse of the technological and economic infrastructure that supports it, I cannot imagine what will stop it. I also think the cure would be far worse than the disease in that case.


Most problems can be solved if people are willing to do so and that is the problem, as you say "the cure is worse than the disease",it may become necessary to give up the comfort blanket to win freedom I'm sure thousands of dead WW2 vets could have explained this to you.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 22, 2006, 08:02 AM
Most problems can be solved if people are willing to do so and that is the problem, as you say "the cure is worse than the disease",it may become necessary to give up the comfort blanket to win freedom I'm sure thousands of dead WW2 vets could have explained this to you.

That is an odd assertion considering it was thousands of dead and living WWII vets who essentially kickstarted the current phase of globalism. I imagine they would have told me the same thing I've already explained to you - there is no rule that says that globalism has to mean less freedom.

Thin Black Line
June 22, 2006, 08:52 AM
As for globalism, it is coming regardless of whether or not you like it. In fact, short of a massive collapse of the technological and economic infrastructure that supports it, I cannot imagine what will stop it. I also think the cure would be far worse than the disease in that case.

I agree with you that globalism is coming regardless....I would also hope
that you can agree under globalism, We The People (as Americans) will
have far less representation than what we do right now. Which for
Average Joe and his buddy John Q is pretty bad.

As far as a collapse, that, too, will happen regardless. And it will. The
magnitude and length of that collapse will be unknown until after the
fact. Whether it was the result of incompetence or design will be
irrelevant since its effects will be the same for the average person.

Rather than worry about globalism, we should be worrying about whose values will drive globalism. Which culture will the world adopt as technology and economics make it a smaller world?

Yes, it is whose values I "worry" about. At this point the values seem to
be closer to Hillary's. Of course, this is why I used her in the fictional
exchange. The global "values" as a whole are against private ownership
of firearms --not to mention severely restricted private property rights
in general. The Fourth Amendment is likewise of little concern to the
globalist breed who put the collective above the individual. This is due to
many of them being "former" socialists and communists.

My fictional exchange is impossible since John Q would have never made it
to the so-called Star Chamber deep in Mexico City. After all he does not
have the implanted RFID chip required by the Mexican AG. :D Yeah, tin
foil hat stuff even though it's being done right now.....

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-14-mex-security-implant_x.htm

He said the chips were required to enter a new federal anti-crime information center. "It's only for access, for security," he said.


On a lighter note:

If you ask me, a good remedy/attitude adjustment would be impaling a politician near/on every interstate highway mile marker.

Vlad for President? Of course, there is one famous family of politicians
who would do this to themselves if given enough liquor and access to
car keys.....

On a serious note, governments throughout history do tend to overreact
to economic circumstances whether they are so-called left or right.
Although these are sometimes spontaneous representations of the prevailing
mood of the populace (Haiti), they have often been controlled by the
leadership (Cambodia). Yes, we could use much larger countries for examples,
but the results are essentially the same.

SkySlash
June 22, 2006, 12:11 PM
“If all black people look like gang bangers to you simply because of the way they dress, regardless of whether or not you truly know them to be a criminal, the problem is with you, not them, you’re ignorant, you’re a racist”; and he was right on the money. Ignorance breeds false impressions, there’s no use succumbing to simple desires to conform into a more pleasant image of gun owner or negro for the edification of the ignorant. And I feel that this is coming into play here at THR in threads like this.

Wrong. I take exception to this statement for a variety of reasons.

When a man wears a police uniform, we presume he is a policeman, regardless of race.

When a man wear a doctors coat, we presume he is a doctor, regardless of race.

When a man wears a business suit, we presume he is a businessman, regardless of race.

From my viewpoint, the above is fact-based perception, and neither racist or ignorant. So then, that given....

When a man wears the outfit of a gangbanger, I presume he is a gangbanger, regardless of race.

If that makes me an ignorant racist....well, I'll just agree to disagree the point.

-SS

Bartholomew Roberts
June 22, 2006, 11:00 PM
As powerful and "inevitable" as globalism is, so too is the concomitant thrust toward fragmentation and separatism.
As far as a collapse, that, too, will happen regardless. And it will.

Well I don't see much that I disagree with. Entropy dictates that all order degenerates into chaos at some point. That doesn't mean it has to happen now or in the next 1,000 years though. All I am saying is that the type of chaos necessary to halt globalism will result in a lot more than "giving up the comfort blanket" and that globalism will have to be pretty bad before such chaos becomes a preferred option.

To me it seems the options are:

A) Work to make sure that the better American values from our founding fathers and Bill of Rights inform and drive globalism
B) Hope for a new dark age that makes globalism irrelevant
C) Complain about technological and economic change; but the let the corporations and their lobbyists drive the change and make the rules

I know which option I favor out of those...

longeyes
June 22, 2006, 11:19 PM
Well, one man's Peaceable Kingdom (Left) looks very like another man's Entropy (Right). If people have to choose between whimpers and bangs, they'll no doubt take whimpers, if they're accompanied by a reasonable level of critter comfort.

mordechaianiliewicz
June 23, 2006, 05:50 AM
I had this discussion the other day with a couple of folks at work.

"So, Mord, you'd just like to make it so that evry country is just isolated. Into itself wouldn't you. You don't like the Iraq war, or illegal immigrants. That's what you want."

I said, "No, I'm all for trade. I'm all for being able to get on the internet, and talk to a man in Beijing, Tokyo, Bern, Johannesburg, or Buenos Aires. I'm all for green tea from Japan, or Swiss chocolates, or Malysian electronics. German cars."

"What I'm against is people in Japan deciding I shouldn't own guns. I'm against people in Beijing deciding I shouldn't pratice Judaism. I'm against people in Maracaibo deciding I shouldn't be able to own or inherit land or money without government permission."

I bring this to you now.

Look, the fact that some places in the U.S. (one country), have decided their values and morals should apply to people they have never met, and don't know is bad enough. You expand that to the world, and you are looking at a nightmare.

Whether it is the nightmare of absolute democracy, where the majority can violate your life, liberty, and property comes true complete with tin foil hat blue helmented U.N. jbts, or a collapsed system, or a system where corporations through pulling one world nation strings rule everything. Or any other scenario you can play out.

People attempting much more than government on a roughly state size, with much more than 20,000,000 people at the most, is doomed to failure. Whether breakup of that union, or the stealing of a group's self-determinatio n by a powerfull elite.

While the US for instance is great as a treaty for roads, and a common defense force, as the behemoth it has become, it is truly horrible. The founders had it about right in terms what a body as large as the U.S. government should be able to do. Not very much!

A one-world government would reign in a dark age for all humankind, smothering our self-determination, crushing us under a weight we could not get out from under. Whether in the form of one-world democracy, oligarchy, or dictatorship.

wingman
June 23, 2006, 08:03 AM
A one-world government would reign in a dark age for all humankind, smothering our self-determination, crushing us under a weight we could not get out from under. Whether in the form of one-world democracy, oligarchy, or dictatorship.


Correct, our elected leaders and their bosses, corporate America continue leading us down this path simply out of visions of great wealth and power,and they are counting on people who say nothing can be done.

Thin Black Line
June 23, 2006, 08:12 AM
C) Complain about technological and economic change; but the let the corporations and their lobbyists drive the change and make the rules

IMHO, this is what I see happening right now. I can't show up at a senator's
office and promise him a highly paid consultant job when he leaves that
office if he would just follow the way I would like to see things done. All I
can promise him is my thanks and admiration for his values which doesn't
seem to go very far among those who are not idealists, but mercenaries.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 23, 2006, 09:17 AM
I can't show up at a senator's
office and promise him a highly paid consultant job when he leaves that
office if he would just follow the way I would like to see things done

Like any other job, a Senator's value comes from experience. A Senator who works 24 years is a lot more valuable to a corporation than one who works a single-six year term. Not only does the more experienced Senator have better connections and knowledge, he only has to be replaced every 24 years.

While you can't offer a Senator a consultant job, by organizing and voting, you can reduce the usefulness of mercenary Senators by requiring corporations to replace them more frequently and stopping them from building up as much of a knowledge base.

and they are counting on people who say nothing can be done.

This is absolutely true. The people who don't share the goal of individual liberty are very much counting on most individuals being apathetic or saying "nothing can be done."

I don't believe it is the case that "nothing can be done." I do believe that an approach revolving around neo-Luddites and isolationism is going to be unsuccessful and even more difficult to implement than the already difficult task of creating globalism with a respect for individual liberty.

NineseveN
June 23, 2006, 09:53 AM
The ballot box only works when the majority is with you, sadly, in a lot of places, this is not the case, hence the problem. I'm not saying 'nothing can be done', but a simple solution such as voting (which we should all do anyway) might be a feel-good approach, but it just ain't effective. More than 53% of the New Orleans population voted to reelect Nagin, what's that tell ya?

And the founders knew that this kind of mass ignorance could and probably would take hold, which is why they used the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to limit the amount of action that a government can take in the name of the ignorant masses, but sadly many of those limits have been ignored as of late. At least we're fighting for some of those things…we’ll see what the Supremes say about the issues.

Thin Black Line
June 23, 2006, 12:51 PM
More than 53% of the New Orleans population voted to reelect Nagin, what's that tell ya?

To see if the voting machines were the ones owned by that Venezuelan
company.....

longeyes
June 23, 2006, 01:27 PM
I don't believe it is the case that "nothing can be done." I do believe that an approach revolving around neo-Luddites and isolationism is going to be unsuccessful and even more difficult to implement than the already difficult task of creating globalism with a respect for individual liberty.

I happen to agree with you, but somehow individual liberty has been re-defined to omit the rights of self-defense and resistance to tyranny.

wingman
June 23, 2006, 02:21 PM
I don't believe it is the case that "nothing can be done." I do believe that an approach revolving around neo-Luddites and isolationism is going to be unsuccessful and even more difficult to implement than the already difficult task of creating globalism with a respect for individual liberty.

Simply because someone speaks against "globalization" does not in my opinion
mean they want to withdraw from all trade however anyone who thinks
we will have any individual liberty remaining if we continue on this path is
very naive. Once more those in power purely do not care about "rights of
the common man" they believe money has granted them supreme rights
and powers with the will to employ that force.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 23, 2006, 05:11 PM
I'd agree we have a lot to be concerned about and that there are very strong forces on the international level who have a "Brave New World" vision of individual liberty where none of the key rights proposed by our Founders are present.

I do not believe that globalization is a cabal of CFR/Freemasons/Illuminati/Bildenberger/etc. though, it is a natural evolutionary process of the economic system. The groups that promote globalism don't do it as an evil conspiracy. They do it because they want to sell more product. As technology makes it easy to sell things across international borders, people want to do that - and the people that are dealing in billions of dollars of goods want a common set of law and procedure to govern the transaction rather than have to deal with the law and procedure of every country that the goods pass through. Because property law is a common root of both business and individual liberty, it is hard to regulate one without affecting the other.

wingman, you seem to feel that this natural tendency towards globalism can be opposed or even stopped. What do you regard as an ideal solution towards that goal?

longeyes
June 23, 2006, 06:44 PM
The groups that promote globalism don't do it as an evil conspiracy. They do it because they want to sell more product. As technology makes it easy to sell things across international borders, people want to do that - and the people that are dealing in billions of dollars of goods want a common set of law and procedure to govern the transaction rather than have to deal with the law and procedure of every country that the goods pass through. Because property law is a common root of both business and individual liberty, it is hard to regulate one without affecting the other.

Another way of stating this is that globalism is not just about selling more product, it's about seeing human beings as a product, the commoditization of humanity itself. It is this that underscores the concerns of many of us.

robertbank
June 23, 2006, 08:01 PM
I hater to throw into this insightful discussion but as far as I know the North American Free Trade Agreement involves trade between three countries, period. I acknowledge the fact there are those out there who see some sort of conspiracy in all of this but the agreement has promoted trade betwen the three countries for the benefit of all three.

Now if you want to discuss why the U.S. fails to live up to a panel's ruling of "Lumber" and the illegal imposition of duties on Canadian Lumber put in place by your Congress at the behest of the Lumber Lobby then lets have at it. It is costing every American new home owner about $1,000 US per house built to protect a few very large lumber companies in the American South.

The NAFTA panel that ruled in Canada's favour was made up of two Amreicans and one Canadian. If the U.S. isn't capable of living up to it's Trade Agreements then why should anyone take the U.S. seriously when it comes to any agreement your Government signs?

If it were up to me I would turn the oil pipelines and electricity lines off until your Congressmen got tired of walking to work. Maybe then they might stop taking payoffs from the American Lumber lobby and deal straight for the benefit of the American people for a change.

Take Care

Thin Black Line
June 24, 2006, 07:54 AM
Now if you want to discuss why the U.S. fails to live up to a panel's ruling of "Lumber" and the illegal imposition of duties on Canadian Lumber put in place by your Congress at the behest of the Lumber Lobby then lets have at it. It is costing every American new home owner about $1,000 US per house built to protect a few very large lumber companies in the American South.

Apparently this didn't affect my house in the Midwest where sections of
particle board were stamped "Made in Canada."

Another way of stating this is that globalism is not just about selling more product, it's about seeing human beings as a product, the commoditization of humanity itself. It is this that underscores the concerns of many of us.

+1. Yeah, being seen as "workers" and "consumers" instead of CITIZENS.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 24, 2006, 10:48 AM
Another way of stating this is that globalism is not just about selling more product, it's about seeing human beings as a product, the commoditization of humanity itself. It is this that underscores the concerns of many of us.

In some ways I agree with this and in others I do not. For example, I can see the concerns about labor and outsourcing in the comment. The problem is that the statement is so broad I am not sure exactly how you meant it. Could you explain in more detail how you feel commoditization of humanity is linked to globalism? I am also interested in hearing how you feel the modern version is different from earlier labor conflicts in the first half of the 20th century (that is an open question btw, not just to longeyes).

JBusch8899
June 24, 2006, 02:22 PM
Who has it in their Constitutional power to trump not only SCOTUS, but POTUS and Congress?

You and I, Baby. By election, amendment, constitutional convention or armed rebellion.

robertbank
June 24, 2006, 03:47 PM
Yes and it may have cost you more than it should have. The US Gov't has already collected and now is negotiating paying back part of over $5 Billion dollars in illegal duties imposed to "protect" US lumber interests. Not sure partical board is involved. Cut lumber is the primary export. Estimated average price of a home due to the duties amounts to approx. $1,000US which you the home buyer forks out.

What is interesting is that the NAFTA dispute panel was designed and insisted upon by the U.S. I guess they figured with 2 out of 3 Americans on the panel (to be fair it changes from time to time), they would win all the cases. Hasn't proven out in this case. See most Americans in my view believe in playing fair, a fact the Congress and the Dept. of Commerce may have overlooked, no doubt with the assistance of the odd manila envelope.

Take Care

Art Eatman
June 24, 2006, 04:01 PM
robertbank, it goes the other way, too, as regards Canada/US tariffs on wood or wood products.

Before she retired, my wife had a small manufacturing business, making unfinished wooden boxes of various sizes and shapes for the Decorative Painter folks. She sold into Canada, as well as all over the US and other countries.

Even after NAFTA came into being, her Canadian customers still were paying extra...

Art

CCWMAN
June 24, 2006, 04:20 PM
Bartholomew,
Credible people like the Late Senator Barry Goldwater, Former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral William Moorer,and many others have stated that the "American Union" being pushed is done so by the Council On Foreign Relations & Trilateral Commission but Supervised and Orchestrated by the Bilderberg Group.:uhoh: Why do you think they're disarming every country-and now the U.N. is meeting during the 4th of July to destroy freedom by disarming us!:eek:

Globalization is in some ways natural but what's happened with N.A.F.T.A.,the resulting Mexican Peso Bailout, the GATT/WTO aggreement where if we try to stop dumping they rule against us, the ridiculous Immigration levels(Both legal & illegal) and even the spying ON US to "prevent terrorism" is part of a large conspiratorial plan. For years we've taken our freedoms for granted but if we lose them it will take a 2nd civil war and Ultimately a World War to Overthrow the "New World Order" and the U.N.!:eek:

If we do get nuked I hope we take out the rest of the world too. The European Model of the EU is what they want here-If our constitution is thrown out and they do what they want with these chips in people then I hope the world ends-it will not be worth a Damn to live in. These people are sick totalitarian S.O.B.'s and none of this happened before all this "globalization" came about and before the Trilateral Commission. YOU NEED TO READ THE BOOK "WITH NO APOLOGIES", by the late SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER.

What is so horrific and unbelievable is that people can sit by and let this happen! The tragedy, damage, and oppression will be like nothing we've ever known and I know I will hate every day of my life unless somehow I can hide or find a way out. David Rockefeller, George Soros, and the other orchestrators and perpetrators need to be taken out by our Government before they destroy everything sacred.:banghead:

Waitone
June 24, 2006, 05:07 PM
Jerry Corsi was interviewed by Gordon Liddy. Compelling stuff. Problem is the interview was not posted.

Chuck Baldwin posted his interview here http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/Interview_Corsi.html
Utterly compelling interview.

Oh, BTW. Looking at the senate's amnesty bill through Corsi's glasses, one is forced to conclude the majority of the senate is on line with Bush's union plans.

longeyes
June 24, 2006, 05:42 PM
Could you explain in more detail how you feel commoditization of humanity is linked to globalism? I am also interested in hearing how you feel the modern version is different from earlier labor conflicts in the first half of the 20th century (that is an open question btw, not just to longeyes).

There are two different issues here. One is about preventing the monopolistic accumulation and consolidation of economic power. That challenge remains, though, of course, this is not 1930 and the specifics are different. All we have to do is look at what's occurred in media over the last decade or so. Thank God we have an Internet, that's all I can say. What's different from the early 20th century is that this struggle is not about robber barons versus labor union warlords, it is about individual entrepreneurs against corporate feudal states.

Globalism will have mass economic benefits, no doubt about that. But it will also militate against the Citizen in favor of the Consumer, and I don't believe that a strictly economic definition of the free, empowered individual is sufficient, especially if the model is "free market economics" as currently on display.

Waitone
June 24, 2006, 05:54 PM
Here is another interview by Jerome Corsi
http://www.thedavidallenshow.com/subject/globalism

Bartholomew Roberts
June 24, 2006, 06:48 PM
What's different from the early 20th century is that this struggle is not about robber barons versus labor union warlords, it is about individual entrepreneurs against corporate feudal states.

I'd agree with this. The Internet and other technologies have empowered small businesses to compete with larger businesses but still allowed them to have a fast and nimble decision cycle that the corporations do not have. It seems to me the corporations are using a lot of lobbying and legislation to protect their business from this new emerging threat to market share.

Globalism will have mass economic benefits, no doubt about that. But it will also militate against the Citizen in favor of the Consumer, and I don't believe that a strictly economic definition of the free, empowered individual is sufficient, especially if the model is "free market economics" as currently on display.

Well, even in the U.S. the markets are not a free-market in a lot of areas; but in those areas where a free-market predominates I think it is working well. It seems to me though that the kind of property guarantees that protect personal liberty are also the fundamental building blocks of a good business friendly economy. Based on that, I do not see why globalism must necessarily be hostile.

longeyes
June 24, 2006, 08:14 PM
It seems to me though that the kind of property guarantees that protect personal liberty are also the fundamental building blocks of a good business friendly economy.

Is the "business-friendly economy" friendly to RKBA? Or is Business more interested in reliable consumption rather than political and economic independence and self-reliance? If businesses could addict you as a consumer, they would; in fact, they have. Herein lies the problem: What is good for "business" isn't necessarily, per se, good for the free citizen.

wingman
June 24, 2006, 08:23 PM
What is good for "business" isn't necessarily, per se, good for the free citizen.

True, clear and to the point, it appears we are building a society that
feeds from the bottom half rather then produce a product and that
will end freedom or what remains.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 24, 2006, 08:52 PM
Is the "business-friendly economy" friendly to RKBA?

There is no business-friendly economy without stability of property. When people don't feel they can create and maintain property, they stop doing that. In an environment where business succeeds by lobbying instead of competition, you'll eventually strangle the tax-base and produce a sluggish, non-innovative market dominated by a few businesses that will be immediately outclassed by any real free market (underground or in another country)

longeyes
June 24, 2006, 09:15 PM
But many people do not equate "stability of property" with what those of us on this forum view as RKBA. You know that. They want stability enforced by the State. Is this not why corporations don't want CCW permit holders being armed on their premises? They do not really trust the free-thinking individual. Is not the same thing true in education? How many armed educators are there? We come back to the idea of one's view of the individual and individual rights. Corporations do not exist to promote individual rights, they exist to expand their customer base and maximize profits. I think our public education system is also "corporate," though governmentally-funded; its primary job is to produce useful workers, not individuals or citizens.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 24, 2006, 09:51 PM
But many people do not equate "stability of property" with what those of us on this forum view as RKBA.

I would say that is because those people view RKBA through a Somalia-like bias. They see firearms as enabling mayhem that destabilizes the ability to own property. They see it as contributing to feudalism and feuds between armed gangs.

I think they miss the important point though - the same thing would happen without guns and probably at a higher rate. Your property would be subject to the biggest and best organized gang of thugs even without firearms. With firearms though, even an armed group has to face a higher risk (death or serious injury) and stands a greater likelihood of seeing that result.

I think an important point to promoting RKBA on a global level will be to show how it contributes to stability and economic growth in a society, rather than detracts from it. Allowing the state a monopoly on the use of lethal force only promotes stability when the citizens of the state are basically bandits already...

longeyes
June 24, 2006, 10:01 PM
True enough, which is why "RKBA" is only secondarily about the MEANS of self-defense and first about the formation of a Citizen, which to me implies many things, but among them Reason, responsibility, a sense of honor, and a degree of self-reliance. "Somalia" is a cultural state of mind, antipodal to the notion of the enlightened citizen of a Republic.

My problem with globalism, as currently evolving, is that it is all about the spread of corporate business and corporate empires, with the cooperation of, and marriage to, the State. Neither the State nor the Corporation, as I view them, are friendly either to RKBA or the individual.

longeyes
June 24, 2006, 10:07 PM
I would say that is because those people view RKBA through a Somalia-like bias. They see firearms as enabling mayhem that destabilizes the ability to own property. They see it as contributing to feudalism and feuds between armed gangs.

Maybe the real choice is whether you prefer your mayhem small and local (banditry), regional (warlords), or global (state-sponsored)? That we talk about self-defense and resistance to tyranny at all indicates that we see human nature as violent and untrustworthy even in the best of societies (ours).

gc70
June 24, 2006, 10:18 PM
I think our public education system is also "corporate," though governmentally-funded; its primary job is to produce useful workers, not individuals or citizens.The public education system in the US appears to promote undisciplined, self-centered, rebellious, and irresponsible behavior - hardly characteristics of useful workers.

longeyes
June 24, 2006, 10:21 PM
How about useful consumers then?

I think it depends on how you define "useful" and "worker;" those terms have to be seen within the context of the grander vision of neutering the American population. Perhaps the American citizen is envisioned as good houseboy material?

Bartholomew Roberts
June 25, 2006, 07:09 PM
By the way, regarding the original conclusion that this NATFA Tribunal would be allowed to trump the Supreme Court? I dug up some information related to that and posted it to the same thread over at TFL:

A court in British Columbia has already ruled that the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal exceeded its authority (Metalclad (http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/01/06/2001BCSC0664.htm)) and vacated a ruling of that tribunal, so I do not understand how Dr. Corsi reached the conclusion that the NAFTA Tribunal would be superior or outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

I am still reading up on the subject myself; but here is some interesting and brief analysis of the issue so far that offers a different view:
http://www.casselsbrock.com/publicationdetail.asp?aid=762

Found another article alleging the Supreme Court business. A Canadian company that lost a case before the Missouri Supreme Court based on predatory business practices and had to pay out $150 million. The company alleges that the other side used jingoism to inflate the damages from a few million to a $500 million award (including punitive damages). Further the state of Missouri required they post bond for $625 million in order to appeal the decision, so the company settled for $150 million instead. The company came back and sued the U.S. government three years after the fact claiming that the verdict violated the investor rights it is guaranteed under NAFTA. The government argued the case was outside NAFTA's jurisdiction because they had provided a means (a single trial in the Missouri court system that could be appealed) to resolve the dispute. The NAFTA tribunal found that under these set of facts, this did not meet the definition of a means of resolution that all the countries had agreed to under NAFTA. The case was sent for further fact-finding on four other separate issues relating to jurisdiction and is still pending. However, in a similar case where a Massachusetts court denied a Canadian company AND that case was denied review by SCOTUS, the Chpater 11 tribunal acknowledged that in that case this was a fair means.

Link from Canadian Company's lawyers in the original case:
http://www1.jonesday.com/experience/experience_detail.aspx?exID=S3051
Quick law-school summary of the NAFTA case online:
http://www.law.nyu.edu/kingsburyb/fall01/intl_law/unit1/intl_law2001_unit1_loewen1.html
Link to decisions of NAFTA tribunal in this case (from noted lefty Bill Moyers):
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB65/

Ultimately, that is what happened in the Missouri case as well (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3923/is_200308/ai_n9278577/pg_2). The NAFTA court ruled that the decision could have been appealed and that the Canadian company should have done so rather than bring it to the tribunal. The whole thing probably wouldn't have happened at all except for some really questionable decisions by the Missouri judge to begin with.

Anyway, it was this decision that caused some to allege that it is now fair game for NAFTA to review any U.S. court decision, even the Supreme Court (and despite the fact that the NAFTA Tribunal hasn't claimed a power anything like that)

Zedicus
June 25, 2006, 08:13 PM
And adding to what Bartholomew Roberts just said.

All it takes for bs like this to stand and actually be accepted my the mindless masses is the wrong Slimeballs in government, combined with far to few who even question it.:banghead:

Otherguy Overby
June 25, 2006, 08:20 PM
I sense some animosity toward big business in this thread. So, let's consider: Ultimately business has to provide something of value to survive. It may seek beneficial favors from government to get ahead, but it is just doing that for it's own benefit. Is that really evil? After all, government created the situation.

However, government provides NOTHING that has not been stolen from someone to benefit either government or a third party. Business, at least has profit motive, IOW provide goods or services for a profit. Government is comprised of people who can't be bothered with that concept.

Next time you are standing in line at a Department of Motor Vehicles, or something similar in a big city, please consider this: Where else could you be forced to stand in line for no tangible goods or services and then be treated with rudeness, indifference and incompetence for your time and money? Please remember that if you don't hand over your money for nothing, you can be punished...

Your choice: Government or business?

Government is evil.

longeyes
June 25, 2006, 08:47 PM
Business, at least has profit motive, IOW provide goods or services for a profit.

And, unfortunately, that may not conduce to our political, social, and cultural benefit. We need to look at more than The Invisible Hand. I consider that reductive, even though I honor the comparative benefit of capitalism and free markets. As I said, globalism is turning human beings into not just consumers but product.

ProficientRifleman
June 25, 2006, 09:14 PM
Read the information on the SPP.org website. That's the site which is announcing the formation of the North American Union. They don't call it the NAU yet, though.

One of their bullet comments talks about the formation of "human capital".

The origin of the word "capital", as refers to money, comes from herding animals. How many "head" do you have?

A few years ago a trend began to talk about "people" as a "natural resource". Now people are just "human capital".

Does anyone need it spelled out more clearly?

LAK
June 26, 2006, 05:48 AM
It is very clear, with even a cursory look at the major political force driving globalism, that individual liberties and rights enumerated in our Constitution have no place in the big plantation. The UN "Declaration of Human Rights" literally spells this out.

"Isolationism" is a newspeak term that was created by the driving political forces of globalism to target resistance to the breakdown of nation states.

We need controlled trade with foreign countries - and the interests of our nation, as a definable independant nation first. That is what built this country, and the further we have been moved away from that, the further away our prosperity and control over our own national affairs has progressed.

I too am of the opinion that all is not lost, and that fighting this monster is the only option. But to think for even a second that we can capitulate in the beginning and then work towards securing some particular rights later on is to dream. These people, once they effectively have the reigns, are not going to give them up later on.

These people, in all forms and under all their fronts need to be exposed and openly villified for what they are and their agenda. It is imperative that as many people as possible are made aware of who these people are and what their M.O.s are on the surface and underneath.

For those that believe that the elected representives are their best avenue of action - tell them this.

We know what the game is, how and where it is going - whether you acknowledge it or not. If you will not oppose this insane and traitorous agenda, and not work to reverse it's current progress, I will work to do everything I can to get you out and keep you out of any public office.

These people need their supporting base - general public confidence - shaken, broken down and removed. That is their crucial base of support, because without it, they will quickly fall. So spread the word and expose these frauds to as many people as you can.

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

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Thin Black Line
June 26, 2006, 09:50 AM
Short CNN/Lou Dobbs video report on erasing borders to create the
NAU:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ensmPJm5B5A&feature=PlayList&p=FCB503727E25BA5D&index=7

longeyes
June 26, 2006, 10:14 AM
When there are no longer Irish bartenders in Dublin...

Bartholomew Roberts
June 26, 2006, 11:24 AM
"Isolationism" is a newspeak term that was created by the driving political forces of globalism to target resistance to the breakdown of nation states.

And here all this time I thought it was a term used to describe the United States standing by and watching as evil men took the reigns in Russia and Nazi Germany. Standing by and allowing those countries to grow stronger and more threatening until we had no choice but to confront them, where if we had confronted them early we would never have lost so many lives.

We need controlled trade with foreign countries - and the interests of our nation, as a definable independant nation first.

This country is the original European Union. It united the 13 separate colonies into a unified trade bloc that gave them considerable power compared to the European nations that then dominated the world - even though this country was in its infancy. This country is the driving reason for globalism. We have been so successful economically that nations are have to join in larger economic unions in order to compete with us.

Within my lifetime, the United States will be faced with two choices - expand economic unions like NAFTA in order to remain at the top of the competitive heap or surrender their place as a global leader to another economic union. Considering how bureaucratic the EU has become, I doubt it will be them. That leaves Russia, China and India as likely candidates. You think freedom is suffering now? How will it be doing when those positions are reversed? What happens to "controlled trade" when the United States isn't the one controlling trade?

I too am of the opinion that all is not lost, and that fighting this monster is the only option.

Obviously you aren't alone. What I am still waiting for is someone to explain to me why I am wrong. I want someone to explain to me why the current national boundaries are going to remain the defining economic zones in the next 100 years.

But to think for even a second that we can capitulate in the beginning and then work towards securing some particular rights later on is to dream.

If you think I am saying capitulate, then you do not understand what I am saying. I am saying that the stormclouds are gathering and that it is going to rain. All the angry screaming in the world won't stop the rain from falling. At the same time, it isn't a given that we have to stand here and let everything we own be soaked. We can divert that rain to useful purposes and protect our stuff from getting wet.

Within my life, either the technological underpinnings of our society will fail entirely or we will revisit the issue of federalism that the 13 colonies faced; but this time on a global scale. You can spend your energy digging in your heels so it happens in your children's lifetime instead or you can spend your energy making sure that the mistakes our Founders made in forming that union are not repeated on a global scale.

DKSuddeth
June 26, 2006, 12:43 PM
I decided against reading after page 2 of this thread, but has anyone theorized that this is a worldwide attempt, with the collusion of the antigunners in USA, of a global firearm registration? Along that same line, what happened to australia, britain, chicago, and ********** after registration was made mandatory? :scrutiny:

longeyes
June 26, 2006, 01:18 PM
Nothing wrong with globalism as international trade or cross-border cooperation, but we need globalism with a human face and with a constitutional face that protects the civil liberties we hold most sacred here in the U.S. I don't think you need to jettison all sovereignty, all national culture, and all borders because you work, build, trade with others.

Our job is to use globalism to spread the best American values, including the concept of the Second Amendment, as productively and peacefully as possible.

Thin Black Line
June 26, 2006, 04:49 PM
Obviously you aren't alone. What I am still waiting for is someone to explain to me why I am wrong.

Let's reverse that and you can explain how America's place in the new
Global Economy is going to help US citizens when our jobs are continuously
out-sourced by those who make the decisions. I live in the midwest where
GM, Delphi, and Ford are all laying off 10s of thousands in the latest round.
Many of these operations had already been outsourced to Mexico in previous
rounds and I watched as good paying jobs were replaced by those with lower
pay. The promised "high-tech jobs" I kept hearing about during the so-called
NAFTA debates about the lower end jobs going to Mexico mostly ended up
getting out-sourced to India :rolleyes:

Bart, no one is disagreeing with you that "globalism is coming." But, like
the politicians and investment bankers, you're a bit sketchy on what it's
going to bring the majority of US Citizens in the future. What happens
when everyone in Detroit gets to compete with everyone in Mexico City?
Well, we're already seeing it: lay-offs and bankruptcies. This has been
ALLOWED to happen by taking away protective tariffs and increasing
transportation and manufacturing infrastructure in distant lands rather than
investing in America locally.

We have been so successful economically that nations are have to join in larger economic unions in order to compete with us.

What's our national debt today? Who's buying our T-Bonds? One could
argue we've been rail-roaded right into globalism --capitulate to it or watch
the US$ collapse. Again, thank our so-called leadership for that.

That leaves Russia, China and India as likely candidates.

I wonder how competition with these distant sources will change if oil went
to $100, $200 or more.....sorry, didn't want to complicate things ;)

You think freedom is suffering now? How will it be doing when those positions are reversed?

Sadly, the infrastructure to do that is already being put into place :evil:

I am saying that the stormclouds are gathering and that it is going to rain.

And some of us are saying while the hens sleep in the coop, the fox is at the
door. In fact, the farmer has left him in charge because he's retired
and moved to Brussels.

Bart, please explain this to all of us: How has Switzerland survived so
long with it's wonderful standard of living? Shouldn't such an isolationist
country have fallen apart and turned into Albania by now? (Yes, I do
realise their leadership is now trying to push the EU onto them --at about
the same time that their long-standing and successful defense system has
been under pressure to change, ie, regulate possession of firearms.
Hmmmm.....interesting "coincidence.") Yes, I see globalism as anathema to
private firearms ownership. Along with "economic integration", "transparency
on small arms and regulation" is somewhere down on their agenda as well.

longeyes
June 26, 2006, 05:18 PM
One thing's sure: we are not going to enhance our international competitiveness by importing millions of unskilled, uneducated workers who require a high level of public social services. I have yet to hear exactly how, and to what extent, American prosperity and productivity will be maintained in the coming scenario. This, in detail, is what needs to be posed to Bush and to all prospective political leadership. WHAT IS YOUR PLAN? WHAT IS YOUR SCENARIO?

When I learned that the U.S. had high tariffs from 1860 through 1928 it opened my eyes. No, I am not a "protectionist," but the reality is that economics is sublimated warfare and intelligent economic self-protection is definitely part of the game plan. If we're going to be the great consumer market, let us make sure that we charge for the privilege of accessing our marketplace and use the profits obtained therefrom to enhance our productivity, train our workers, and rebuild our infrastructure.

Let's take the proposed NASCO Corridor. Who exactly will benefit and to what degree? Let's see the business plan, the spreadsheet, the profit projections.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 26, 2006, 05:53 PM
Let's reverse that and you can explain how America's place in the new Global Economy is going to help US citizens when our jobs are continuously out-sourced by those who make the decisions.

1. I don't have the knowledge to explain that.
2. It is totally irrelevant to my question.

People keep suggesting we should resist globalism; but I don't see any examples of how to resist an evolutionary process short of the technological equivalent of a comet striking the Earth. To me it is like saying we should resist the Earth rotating - how would we go about doing that even if we reach the conclusion we should?

I am open to hearing ideas on that topic. I'm just not hearing any.

Bart, no one is disagreeing with you that "globalism is coming."

Really? Because I got the impression from reading LAK's posts and a few others that there was disagreement and that some believed it could be stopped. I would just like to hear how... if it can't be stopped, then what next?

But, like the politicians and investment bankers, you're a bit sketchy on what it's going to bring the majority of US Citizens in the future.

If I had the knowledge to give specific predicitions on what it would bring the majority of U.S. citizens in the future, I would be on the phone with a stockbroker instead of typing here. I don't know the answer to that question; but I do not yet see anything that says to me it has to turn out badly. Certainly there are a lot of valid reasons to be cautious and even alarmed at some of the developments; but right now I disagree with the premise that globalism = doom. I think it is way too early to say how that will turn out and that our collective individual opinions do matter and can affect the ultimate outcome in a positive manner.

What happens when everyone in Detroit gets to compete with everyone in Mexico City?

Just guessing; but what little I know of economics says the lifestyle in Detroit will go down and the lifestyle of Mexico City will go up until they equalize.

However, let's say there is no NAFTA. What happens then? Do Detroit workers maintain the same lifestyle indefinitely or do they eventually succumb to an international marketplace that is more competitive? As long as the technological means is there for Mexico City and Detroit to compete for the same customers, the market will be equalizing at some point in the future.

How has Switzerland survived so long with it's wonderful standard of living? Shouldn't such an isolationist country have fallen apart and turned into Albania by now?

Switzerland has been an international financial center for a very long time now. It is also the center for the Hague and various other international efforts closely tied to attempts to influence international law. From a strictly business perspective, I would guess the Swiss have thrived without joining the EU by limiting immigration and by providing a better business environment than their neighbors/competitors. Like I said, I'm not an economist.

However, Switzerland joined the European Free Trade Association (kind of familiar sounding, eh?) in 1960 and has seven bilateral agreements running with the EU currently. So, they aren't quite the picture of isolationism that you paint.

longeyes
June 26, 2006, 09:22 PM
People keep suggesting we should resist globalism; but I don't see any examples of how to resist an evolutionary process short of the technological equivalent of a comet striking the Earth. To me it is like saying we should resist the Earth rotating - how would we go about doing that even if we reach the conclusion we should?

Here's one for you, in a word: Catastrophism. Evolutionary processes can be aborted, sometimes rather violently. There will be plenty of political comets coming along in the times ahead.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 26, 2006, 10:16 PM
There will be plenty of political comets coming along in the times ahead.

If globalism is being driven only by politics then that works just fine; but if it is being driven by technology and economics, then political attempts to stop it are simply treating the symptom.

longeyes
June 26, 2006, 10:19 PM
Again, I generally agree, but...

Technology and economics took a five-hundred year "vacation" around AD 500. Stuff happens.

Is it impossible that computers will "go away" at some point? No, and we can both think of ways in which that could happen, both nature- and man-induced.

Personally I suspect religion will be the great engine, not economics or technology. What religion, in what form is the question. And that will depend on which comet hits first.

wingman
June 26, 2006, 11:14 PM
Personally I suspect religion will be the great engine, not economics or technology. What religion, in what form is the question.

Yep, it will come full circle as most things do, but the period between changes
may be difficult.

k_semler
June 27, 2006, 01:12 AM
Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (http://www.spp.gov/)
--United States Federal Government

WHAT WE SHOULD DO BY 2010:

• Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.
--Building A North American Community, PP.10, CFR (http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf)

http://www.spp.gov/images/spp_200.gif

LAK
June 27, 2006, 03:41 AM
Bartholomew Roberts
And here all this time I thought it was a term used to describe the United States standing by and watching as evil men took the reigns in Russia and Nazi Germany. Standing by and allowing those countries to grow stronger and more threatening until we had no choice but to confront them, where if we had confronted them early we would never have lost so many lives.
Without turning this into a discussion of whether or not we should have joined in that particular war, it was that particular war that was a foundational event for the globalists, and their criminal cartel called "United Nations", among other things. And in their zeal to stamp out any political opposition they introduced the term.
This country is the original European Union. It united the 13 separate colonies into a unified trade bloc that gave them considerable power compared to the European nations that then dominated the world - even though this country was in its infancy. This country is the driving reason for globalism. We have been so successful economically that nations are have to join in larger economic unions in order to compete with us.
I would agree in the context of structure - and there is a significant parallel in the centralizing of power in the Federal government, and the centralizing of the political power in Europa. However, the United States has been, and is continued to be, used as the big stick by the founding fathers of globalism in it's agenda.
Within my lifetime, the United States will be faced with two choices - expand economic unions like NAFTA in order to remain at the top of the competitive heap or surrender their place as a global leader to another economic union.
We will never be at the top of the heap with a growing trillion dollar debt, a diminishing and oppressed middle class. Expanding the scope of economic union and globalism are not going to change that. It is precisely these things which have brought about these problems to begin with. All it is going to further accomplish is to balkanize North America - creating an ideal divide and conquer political environment, and destroy the middle class and the middle class ladder altogther.

If you study the material by the people pushing this agenda it is often injected that we must help our "poorer neigboring" States. But what they do not discuss openly is that in order to do this there must be a levelling of the economic playing field. That means that our standard of living must go down. All this "free trade" and unrestricted travel, work and residency is going to bring us, is the total destruction of our middle class as our level is reduced to theirs.
Considering how bureaucratic the EU has become, I doubt it will be them. That leaves Russia, China and India as likely candidates. You think freedom is suffering now? How will it be doing when those positions are reversed? What happens to "controlled trade" when the United States isn't the one controlling trade?
The EU has enormous potential and is rapidly expanding, and it probably has a far greater concentration of private wealth than to be found here in the U.S.. Food for another discussion; but the EU, despite it's deceptively muddled economics, is not as weak as it appears.

All nations need to control their trade if they are to survive as nations - independant political states. China, as you mention it, is doing a very good job at that indeed. Look at their compounding rate of expansion; their manufacturing capability, and the amount of U.S. dollars in their purse. Compare how much - how little - Chinese currency is sitting in ours.

Liberty in this country is suffering because it has been and is under the direct and indirect assault of the same political forces driving globalism. If we submit to their economic train ride right to the big plantation - the plantation mamgers are not going to be receptive to any change of hearts later on. That is a certainty; the plantation enforcers will indeed be too big for any organized dissent. You can take that to the bank.
Obviously you aren't alone. What I am still waiting for is someone to explain to me why I am wrong. I want someone to explain to me why the current national boundaries are going to remain the defining economic zones in the next 100 years
Because there is a direct relationship between an economy and it's controlling political power. This is why it is imperative that the direct control of any national economy remains in the hands of the elected representatives of a nation, that "free trade" stops at the national borders, and that any trade with those outside of them are carefully controlled. If the economic power is handed over to any outside power, so will the higher political power follow.

We have a reasonable chance of keeping an elected government within the bounds of our Constitution in check - by one or more Constitutional means. If we let it get away from us and it becomes the entire North Americas, or a greater union to include the South hemisphere as well, we do not stand a chance of keeping anything in check, and we can kiss our Constitution, nation, ideology and culture goodbye.
If you think I am saying capitulate, then you do not understand what I am saying. I am saying that the stormclouds are gathering and that it is going to rain. All the angry screaming in the world won't stop the rain from falling. At the same time, it isn't a given that we have to stand here and let everything we own be soaked. We can divert that rain to useful purposes and protect our stuff from getting wet.
I have to refer to what I have written directly above. We are right at the brink of global government by any other name. If we allow this economic vehicle of global trade to take us there, there will be no way back except by force. Once such a system of governance is firmly in place, and there is a consolidation of sufficient military force, even that option will be out of the question. Better to be explicitly plain with our representatives now, and tell them in no uncertain terms to decide where their loyalties lie - or get out of office.
Within my life, either the technological underpinnings of our society will fail entirely or we will revisit the issue of federalism that the 13 colonies faced; but this time on a global scale. You can spend your energy digging in your heels so it happens in your children's lifetime instead or you can spend your energy making sure that the mistakes our Founders made in forming that union are not repeated on a global scale
Again, see above. It is really that simple. One only need look at the current state of Europa to see the future. A citizenry reduced to a level of slaves; disarmed, at the mercy of thugs, and working four out of eight hours a day to support the regime that oppresses them.

No thanks.

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

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Thin Black Line
June 27, 2006, 09:57 AM
1. I don't have the knowledge to explain that.
2. It is totally irrelevant to my question.

People keep suggesting we should resist globalism; but I don't see any examples of how to resist an evolutionary process short of the technological equivalent of a comet striking the Earth. To me it is like saying we should resist the Earth rotating

Bart, I appreciate the honesty. But, in a nutshell you are saying you
can't positively prove your position but you won't accept anyone's
statements to negate it. This leaves us in the philosophical doldrums
of "Yes it is"/"No it isn't".....:scrutiny: I think my kids had one of these
yesterday....

Well, in any case, let me give it a try here:

Increasing central authority on a wider scale is anathema to those who
believe in decentralisation. It reeks of past empires from the Khanates to
the Soviet Union. You and I could waste a lot of time arguing that such
"growth" is A) a cancer versus B) an evolution. Or, we could take a Hegelian
perspective :barf: that A) and B) are both correct in that the process itself
later leads to the synthesis and the final outcome. I really don't want to
digress on the moral relativism of *that* position.

True evolution for humans in the future may be dispersed/distributed nodes
rather than concentrating authority in a single social body. I see nothing
currently in the human psyche that says such vast power should be
concentrated in a "small" body of supposedly representative individuals.
There are far too many character/psychological flaws. (And, yes, I have
the graduate degree in a behavioral science to make such a grounded
statement). However, your focus is on economic progress and mine is on
social progress. I, too, will be the first to agree that I am NOT qualified
to make mass economic decisions. All I can prove is my own personal
and family frugality which would be the envy of many people. Maybe I
couldn't run a country that way, but it shows that my node is running
fine :D

To sum up my point, WE are not ready for centralising economic and
political authority for mass systems at this time. It's not that it can't be
done in the future, but as a people we are not ready. Humans are too
war-like, corrupt, selfish, etc, etc ad :barf: to do this anytime in our
lifetimes without at the very least massive indifference to the needs of
their fellow man. We are far too inhuman and insensitive which breeds
the iniquity which fuels the negative cycle all over again. If this does
not lead to central system collapse, it leads to authoritarianism all over
again --no matter which country's philosophy (US, EU, China, etc) is
taking the lead.

Please do not construe this as a statement of "hopelessness." That would
be short-sighted. We are not ready NOW. I and many others would like
the ability to "opt-out" of the system currently being put into place, but
as you know that is not possible. The system has been constructed and
enforced in such a way as to make this dangerous to our very lives. The
so-called Authority will not allow such Autonomous Zones to exist because
by its very nature it sees such AZ's as the "cancer" to itself. On the
flipside, we would see ourselves as the vaccine to a disease. The last
hope before the organism dies and has to be reborn again. We only hope
it comes back in a better form --a butterfly that emerges from the caterpillar.
So far, we've had maggots and flies.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've assumed the lotus position and will be visiting
the Astral Plane for a little while before I return to the Material Plane to clean
my EBR :cool:

Waitone
June 27, 2006, 10:23 AM
Here is a repost of a previously posted article by one Richard Haass, President Council on Foreign Relations. Prior to his current gig he was a policy wonk in the state department. I highlighted his comments pertaining to this particular thread's subject matter: Published on TaipeiTimes
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/02/21/2003294021

State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era
In the age of globalization, states should give up some sovereignty to world bodies in order to protect their own interests

By Richard Haass

Tuesday, Feb 21, 2006,Page 9

For 350 years, sovereignty -- the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states -- has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion.

The world's 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.

Less is more

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize that they would be worse off if no country did.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization. At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows -- within and across borders -- of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty's fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan's Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, the US' preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.

Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue -- correctly -- that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilizing refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The NATO intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

Conditions needed

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation.

The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens rather than from what states do to one another.

Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course.

Copyright: Project Syndicate
Copyright © 1999-2006 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.

longeyes
June 27, 2006, 11:38 AM
Brother Haass explains it all for you. It's all about "flows." We are all just data in someone's computer, susceptible to "delete," "paste," and "copy."

In two hundred years we have gone from a nation founded by philosopher-kings to a world increasingly run by MBAs. What we are seeing with the SPP, NAFTA, NASCO, and globalism in general is man reduced to a means rather than an end. It's just a more evolved, pragmatic form of Marxism Gone Wild.

wingman
June 27, 2006, 12:08 PM
We are simply a commodity to gain another $20 per month from on someones list. In truth it is now more easy too steal from another human then produce a product for sale. In the past few years prior to retirement I seen men who had portfolios of stock that perhaps had 150,000-$200,000 they were obsessed with growing that amount to a point they cared not how, only how much, I find it sad for our country, greed can bring down the best and we are knee deep in the process.

Thin Black Line
June 27, 2006, 12:58 PM
...they were obsessed with growing that amount to a point they cared not how, only how much, I find it sad for our country, greed can bring down the best and we are knee deep in the process.

Hence, my earlier point that humanity is not ready for central consolidation
since those who control it would be flawed and treat humans as a commodity.:evil:

ohmmmm.

longeyes
June 27, 2006, 01:16 PM
Throughout history men have been commodities--if not of commerce, then of kings. The Founding Fathers stepped onto the stage of history and changed that. That was the whole point of our Declaration and Bill of Rights. Our job is to keep their vision alive in a world of growing "Efficiency" and Expediency.

longeyes
June 27, 2006, 01:43 PM
WND Exclusive INVASION USA
Gang expert backs
Tancredo charges
Retired cop says Mexican drug cartels rig elections to take over U.S. cities
Posted: June 27, 2006

By Joseph Farah
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Rep. Tom Tancredo's charge that Mexican drug cartels are buying up legitimate businesses in U.S. cities to launder money and using some of the proceeds to win local mayoral and city council seats for politicians who can shape the policies and personnel decisions of their police forces, has been backed up by a veteran gang investigator.

Richard Valdemar, a retired sergeant with the L.A. County sheriff's department and a longtime member of a federal task force investigating gang activity, went beyond the charges made by Tancredo, the chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus who has led the fight to secure America's southern border.

In fact, he cited first-hand experience in investigating attempts to take over seven cities in Los Angeles County – Southgate, Lynwood, Bell, Bell Gardens, Cudahy, Hawaiian Gardens and Huntington Park.

He also told WND in an exclusive interview that he has since become aware of similar efforts by Mexican drug cartels throughout the Southwest – in New Mexico, Arizona and Texas.

The stunning disclosures substantiate claims made by Tancredo in his new book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security," in which he exposes what he has learned from meetings with law enforcement authorities regarding a concerted effort by the Mexican mafia and drug cartels to extend its corruptive influence in urban areas dominated by illegal alien populations.

Tancredo says some of these small cities have become hostile and dangerous places for legitimate law enforcement officials. Valdemar agrees, saying the sophisticated technique being employed in the U.S. was "invented in Mexico."

Valdemar, the grandson of legal Mexican immigrants and now a consultant to law enforcement agencies across the country on gang activity, explains how the operations work.

"In the typical scenario, a wealthy Mexican immigrant opens a business in a small town," he says. "It could be a very nice Mexican restaurant. He's well-dressed, speaks English, seemingly a real gentleman. He gets involved in the community. His business welcomes police officers with discounts. He makes friends with city officials and other businessmen. No one has any idea where his money comes from – the Mexican drug cartels."

Valdemar says the agent of the cartels often sets up other businesses – including the sale of cheap used tires and used autos. These businesses are used almost exclusively as fronts for laundering money.

Then he begins targeting political power in the town. When election time rolls around, Valdemar says, he sponsors – directly or indirectly – a number of candidates for the city council with the express purpose of winning a majority of seats for his handpicked operatives. Some of the candidates are simply in place to level baseless accusations against incumbents, while others keep above the fray, positioning themselves for victory.

As soon as they take power, the new majority fires the city attorney and names a replacement. Often the second city official to go is the city manager. Both of these moves are designed to cover up the illicit activities that will follow.

City contracts for trash collection and other services are given to friendly businesses – also in league with the cartel. Regulations on auto-repair businesses and alcohol sales are lifted – again, making it easier for cartel-tied businesses to operate more freely. Gambling ordinances are changed to permit casinos and bingo parlors. Loan sharking, prostitution and increased drug business follow – all of which increase revenues for the cartels and power for their agents in the city.

Valdemar says very few prosecutions are successful because of the wealth and political ties of those involved. The situation in the Southwest is grave, he says, and the problem is spreading nationwide.

"We lost California," the Arizona resident says. "That's why I don't live there any more."

Tancredo, who blew the whistle on the growing power of the Mexican drug cartels and Mexican mafia in his book, "In Mortal Danger," explains who is behind the plot.

"The Tijuana-based Felix drug cartel and the Juarez-based Fuentes cartel began buying legitimate business in small towns in Los Angeles County in the early 1990s," he writes. "They purchased restaurants, used-car lots, auto-body shops and other small businesses. One of their purposes was to use these businesses for money-laundering operations. Once established in their community, these cartel-financed business owners ran for city council and other local offices. Over time, they were able to buy votes and influence in an effort to take over the management of the town. They wanted to create a comfort zone from which they could operate without interference from local law enforcement."

Tancredo, now a powerful force within Congress for opposing amnesty plans for illegal aliens and for promoting tougher border security measures, points in his book to the L.A. County city of Bell Gardens – where corrupt elected officials under the influence of drug lords actually tried to shut down the police department.

"City officials who would not cooperate with the Mexican-born city manager were forced out of office," he writes. "Eventually, the L.A. County attorney's office moved in, and the city manager was prosecuted on charges of corruption. Unfortunately, Bell Gardens was only the tip of the iceberg. Other Los Angeles suburbs – including Huntington Park, Lynwood and Southgate – became targets for the cartels."

Tancredo, too, cites similar efforts under way to undermine law and order by Mexican criminal gangs in Texas, Arizona and elsewhere.

"The corruption spreading from south of the border is not confined to Southern California," he writes. "In Cameron County, Texas, the former sheriff and several other officials were recently convicted of receiving drug-smuggling bribes. In Douglas, Arizona – where the international border runs down the middle of the town and divides it from its sister city of Agua Prieta, Mexico – the mayor's brother was discovered to have a tunnel from one of his rental properties going into Mexico."

Tancredo reports he has had confidential briefings with top officials in big-city law enforcement who say there are entire cities under the virtual control of Mexican criminal street gangs and their associated businesses, in some cases, making it dangerous for county, state and national law enforcement officers to venture in and rendering any interdepartmental cooperation impossible.

This under-reported aspect of the immigration and border problem is just one of the reasons Tancredo believes the U.S., as a nation, is "in mortal danger" as the debate over solutions rages on in Washington.

Throughout "In Mortal Danger," Tancredo, the undisputed heavyweight champion of the border security issue in the nation's capital, tells the whole story of the threats facing the nation, the solutions within its grasp and his own personal quest to awaken the political establishment to the seething discontentment gripping America as a result of illegal immigration.

Tancredo warns that the country is on a course to the dustbin of history. Like the great and mighty empires of the past, he writes, superpowers that once stretched from horizon to horizon, America is heading down the road to ruin.

English historian Edward Gibbon, in penning his classic "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (ironically published in the year America's Founding Fathers declared independence from Great Britain), theorized that Rome fell because it rotted from within. It succumbed to barbarian invasions because of a loss of civic virtue, its citizens became lazy and soft, hiring barbarian mercenaries to defend the empire because they were unwilling to defend it themselves.

Tancredo says America is following in the tragic footsteps of Rome.

Living up to his reputation for candor, Tancredo explains how the economic success and historical military prowess of the United States has transformed a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles of right and wrong into an overindulgent, self-deprecating, immoral cesspool of depravity.

His recipe for turning things around?

Without strong, moral leadership, without a renewed sense of purpose, without a rededication to family and community, without shunning the race hustlers and pop-culture sham artists, without protecting borders, language and culture, the nation that once was "the land of the free and home of the brave" and the "one last best hope of mankind" will repeat the catastrophic mistakes of the past, he writes.

Tancredo, born and raised in Colorado, represents Colorado's 6th district in the U.S. House of Representatives. Prior to his election to Congress in 1998, Tancredo worked as a schoolteacher, was elected to the Colorado State House of Representatives in 1976, was appointed by President Reagan as the secretary of education's regional representative in 1981, and served as president of the Independence Institute. He serves on the International Relations Committee, the Resources Committee and the Budget Committee, and is the chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus. Tancredo and his wife, Jackie, reside in Littleton, Colo.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 27, 2006, 05:42 PM
Bart, I appreciate the honesty. But, in a nutshell you are saying you can't positively prove your position but you won't accept anyone's statements to negate it.

No, you completely misunderstand me. The statements you quoted have nothing to do with my position (note the "irrelevant" comment) My position is that short of a severe technological meltdown that would set us back at least 100 years, globalism is coming whether we like it or not. Complaining about it won't change that.

I'll gladly accept statements that negate that; but nobody has yet to even tried to show how it will happen in some way other than the exception I outlined (a massive, global failure of economy and technology).

True evolution for humans in the future may be dispersed/distributed nodes rather than concentrating authority in a single social body.

Let's hope; but in order for that to work it seems there must be enabling technology that will allow small groups to compete economically with large corporations.

longeyes
June 27, 2006, 07:15 PM
Distributed politics and distributed economics will be the way of the future, because dense concentrations of anything will become easy targets for that inevitable percentage of slackers, terrorists, outlaws, cynics, and general nay-sayers that comprise any human population. As technology advances and ties us altogether, it is also has, increasingly, the ability to blow us all apart. I expect both forces to grow. Large corporations look like the cat's meow right now; they may look like anything but in 25 years.

Thin Black Line
June 29, 2006, 11:13 AM
Let's hope; but in order for that to work it seems there must be enabling technology that will allow small groups to compete economically with large corporations.

We would still have the problem of the human psyche in the meantime
that is separate from our technology. I will not disgress into the moral
and, more importantly, the spiritual aspects of ourselves that are being
sacrificed in the name of so-called economic competition.

Too many people are becoming harnessed to a global economic mechanism
which will not allow the formation of "small" independent groups. We see this
through various forms of economic regulation that by its very nature is to
force (note I did not use "encourage") collectivisation.

Again, I'm not "complaining", just saying that given human history and our
current level of mental/emotional/social development, that it's not going
to turn out very well if forced onto the masses in the near future.

This has been a process a few hundred years in the making and America
was to be the modern decentralised system. But, the power-mad have
taken something beautifully distributed that was running well and "fixed"
something that wasn't broken. But, they knew this. They were just acting
according to their own sorry nature of the underdeveloped human psyche
that I noted earlier.

We'll see history repeat itself again when oppressive global central authority
is broken and a more efficient people-friendly :) distributed system replaces it.
Maybe it will have to be through moving to other planets for this happen
since our technology outpaces resolution of human flaws....



John Adams to Patrick Henry

Philadelphia, June 3, 1776

My Dear Sir,
...The dons, the bashaws, the grandees, the patricians, the sachems, the
nabobs, call them by what names you please, sigh and groan and fret, and
sometimes stamp and foam and curse, but all in vain. The decree is gone
forth, and it cannot be recalled, that a more equal liberty than has prevailed
in other parts of the earth must be established in America. The exuberance
of pride which has produced an insolent domination in a few, a very few,
opulent, monopolizing families, will be brought down nearer to the confines
of reason and moderation than they have been used to. This is all the
evil which they themselves will endure. It will do them good in this world,
and in every other. For pride was not made for man, only as a tormentor.

If you enjoyed reading about "North American Union (NAFTA) Would Trump US Supreme Court" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!