More on Globalization

R

ruger45

Moderator
Sovereignty no match for WTO
JUNE 23 2000

By Henry Lamb
=A9 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

The debate surrounding the proposal by Congressman
Ron Paul, R-Texas, to withdraw from the World Trade
Organization, revealed a wide chasm between the
fundamental beliefs of the people who represent us in
Congress. Paul says that our participation in the WTO
results in an erosion of national sovereignty.
Congressman Doug Bereuter, D-Neb., says that it does
not. Moreover, Bereuter says that "no significant
scholars" suggest that American participation in the WTO
results in a loss of national sovereignty.

Both can't be right.

Bereuter obviously has not met Lewellyn H. Rockwell,
Jr., world renowned economic scholar and president of
the Von Mises Institute, who says, "We should toss the
WTO into the dustbin of history ..." because "What
appears to be a step in the right direction -- towards
greater liberty in trade across borders - turns out to be a
leap into world statism."

The WTO agreement requires participating nations to
conform their laws to comply with WTO rulings. This
language clearly defines the ruling of the WTO to be
superior to laws passed by Congress. How can this
situation not be a loss of national sovereignty?

Congressman Phil Crane, R-Ill., has the answer. He says
that the United States is not compelled to change its laws,
even though we have agreed to do so by accepting the
WTO agreement. Should the U.S. fail to conform its laws
to WTO rulings, the agreement authorizes the WTO to
impose fines of its choosing as long as the U.S. remains in
noncompliance.

When any foreign government has the authority to order
the United States to change its laws, and enforce that
order by imposing fines, it doesn't take too much of a
scholar to recognize that WTO sovereignty is more
sovereign than U.S. sovereignty. Crane says this is not a
loss of sovereignty, it's just the price we have to pay for
not playing by the rules. Fines imposed by the WTO are
not the slap-on-the-wrist variety. The U.S. said no to
British Petroleum's wish to ship gasoline with the additive
MTBE into the United States. The WTO said that is a
violation of their rules and slapped the U.S. with a $360
million fine, according to Congressman Bart Stupak,
D-Mich. "When the WTO kicks in, sovereignty is kicked
out," Stupak says.

Congressman Jack Metcalf, R-Wash., pointed out that
the U.S. Constitution clearly places the responsibility for
regulating foreign trade upon the Congress. The WTO
usurps that responsibility.

Phil Crane sees it differently. He says Congress has no
problem delegating responsibility for regulating trade to
the Commerce Committee, and various subcommittees.
To Crane, delegating the responsibility for regulating
trade to the WTO follows the same reasoning. The major
difference, of course, is that no American has the chance
to vote for or against, any member of the WTO which
has the final say on trade regulations.

Nearly every speaker who stood to oppose the Paul
proposal, began their presentation with a litany of WTO
problems that need to be corrected. Most of the
opposition speakers took the position that the WTO
should be reformed, but that the U.S. should remain a
member while working for reform. The WTO is
accountable to no other political power and can be
reformed only by an extraordinary majority of the 135
WTO member nations. The U.S. has one vote, and no
veto power. Congressmen have no power at all to
influence the WTO. Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage said
that congressmen were not even allowed access to the
recent WTO meeting in Seattle.

The issues of national sovereignty and constitutional
authority were systematically ignored by the speakers
who opposed the Paul resolution. Tom Reynolds,
R-N.Y., touted the WTO and pointed to an increase in
exports of $235 billion since the WTO came into
existence. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind., quickly countered
that during the same period, our overall trade deficit had
grown by $300 billion, a fact conveniently ignored by
WTO supporters.

WTO supporters tried to cast opponents as
"isolationists," and conjured up images of the Depression
and world wars that would follow withdrawal from the
WTO. During the period between 1947 and 1995,
foreign trade was conducted under the GATT (General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), a period that saw the
greatest global economic expansion in the history of the
world. GATT had no authority to impose fines or require
conformity to its rules.

Supporters of the WTO -- opponents of the Paul
proposal -- displayed an alarming willingness to look the
other way when confronted with the fundamental
principles of national sovereignty and constitutional
authority. Even Larry Combest, R-Texas, chairman of
the Agriculture Committee expressed more concern
about maintaining world markets through the WTO than
about constitutional principles. He used the 1980 grain
embargo, which would not be allowed by the WTO, as
an example of what could be avoided through the WTO.

Whether or not Combest agreed with the decision in
1980, it was made through the constitutional process.
Congress could have reversed the president's decision. If
the people of America disagreed with the policy, the
people could remove the policy makers. In fact, they did
just that. But Americans have no such recourse when the
WTO makes policy decisions with which they disagree.
The WTO consists of appointed bureaucrats elected by
no one, accountable to no one, who operate in secret,
doing whatever they wish, subject to whatever influence
offers the greatest prize.

Ron Paul is right. The WTO offers nothing to the people
of America that cannot be achieved without the loss of
sovereignty and the erosion of constitutional authority.
The global economic engine that is America can play a
major leadership role in the world without yielding one
ounce of sovereignty to an international body. Congress
should reclaim its constitutional responsibility to regulate
foreign trade and answer Congressman Jack Metcalf's
question: "If Congress doesn't protect national
sovereignty, who will?"

Congress did not protect our national sovereignty. Ron
Paul's resolution to withdraw from the WTO was
rejected by a vote of 363 to 56.>>>



------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
The Global New Deal
Oliver North
July 14, 2000

ALASKA - Benjamin Franklin described our "free press" as the guardian of American liberty. If that's true, we had better put out a contract for a new watchdog.
On Saturday, July 1, while the U.S. media was preoccupied with the price of gasoline, speculating on the seating arrangements for Camp David and worrying about who might or might not play in the All Star game, the United Nations General Assembly met in Geneva, Switzerland, to launch a plan that would dramatically reduce national sovereignty, limit the ability of nations to govern their own affairs, impose global taxes on developed countries, and cost Americans trillions of dollars. It should have gotten some attention in the U.S. media. But it didn't.

For whatever reason, almost nothing was reported to the American people about this remarkable conclave of representatives from 130 nations at what was billed as "The Second World Summit for Social Development." Unlike debates in Congress, 10 heads of state, 11 prime ministers, 7 vice presidents and a seemingly endless swarm of top government factotums from around the planet came to the podium and spoke, nearly unanimously in praise for the United Nations, its agencies and international agreements, and in support for a dramatically increased role for the UN in administering social programs on a global scale.

The U.S. was represented at this little-reported confab by the Clinton Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala. We might as well have been represented by the delegation from Luxembourg. In her official remarks, Shalala embraced UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's vision for a "Global New Deal," proffered a lengthy litany of vacuous platitudes for Annan's madcap schemes and then descended into outright hypocrisy on the issue of respect for human rights.

Shalala's rant was punctuated by wild applause when she demanded political rights and free expression around the world. Apparently the HHS Secretary had forgotten, or the crowd chose to overlook, that she serves in an administration that had just returned a six-year-old boy to a brutal dictator, and she also serves in the cabinet of a Chief Executive who routinely ignores grotesque human rights violations in Communist China.

And when Shalala demanded UN intervention to control the "distribution of health care at the global level," the crowd went positively nuts - even though the concept of government-regulated medicine had been soundly rejected when Hillary! (No Last Name) tried to jam it down the throats of U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, vague phrases like "global control" are commonplace for the internationalist crowd that gathered in Geneva. Their speech and writings are rife with deceptive, fuzzy-headed terms like "multilateral cooperative measures," and "global interdependence," and "global solidarity" when they seek to define specific goals and objectives in their "Global New Deal."

Some read this phraseology for its entertainment value. And it might be laughable - except that there are increasing numbers of high-level officials in western democracies and even in the U.S. government who see these terms as appropriate expressions in an "enlightened" worldview. In fact, no representative of any government at the Geneva General Assembly session stood up to challenge those who advocate the dissolution of "nation-states" and abandoning national sovereignty and individual liberty as "archaic concepts."

And because the UN operates in virtual secrecy without the scrutiny of a skeptical media, and acts through unelected, unaccountable diplomats answerable to no one, ludicrous ideas become credible concepts. Thus in Geneva, no official arose to oppose the absurd core notion of the Global New Deal: that because so many other national governments are unwilling or unable to do so, the United Nations should provide a "basic income for all people."

The idea: Create a "UN currency." Establish a UN central bank and thousands of UN Branch Banks and an accompanying UN debit system. Distribute 250 "UN dollars" to every person in the world (more for those in poverty.) To ensure that all people on the planet benefit, a UN representative would be assigned to represent every 1,000 people. Your local UN representative will be responsible for entering all necessary personal information into the UN Global Computer System to ensure that you use your UN dollars for appropriate purposes.

The problem: How to pay for this loony idea. The solution: A "global tax," collected by the UN on all financial transactions involving a currency exchange.

Sound too crazy to be true? Well, consider this: The UN is planning another global conference for next year which will focus specifically on the subject of global taxes. Interestingly enough, by next year, all international banks will have systems in place that could administer a currency transaction tax. The European Union, Canada, the U.K, Switzerland, and Finland have all expressed support for some kind of global tax to support the UN.

Several months ago, when he first advanced this madcap concept, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asked, "Could the time be ripe for a Global New Deal?" Hopefully, in less than 210 days, we will swear in a new president who will turn to Annan and just say "NO!"

COPYRIGHT 2000 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


http://www.newsmax.com/commentmax/articles/Oliver_North.shtml
www.jbs.org
leave the UN bring our troops home



------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
It took me a while to find the first article since it is about six weeks old. It is always helpful to post a link to your source.

I'll do it for you...This time. ;)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_lamb/20000623_xchla_sovereignt.shtml

------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website

[This message has been edited by TheBluesMan (edited August 07, 2000).]
 
The spotlight www.spotlight.org

Pressure For China Trade Deal

Representatives from Big Business are at it again, pressing senators to pass the China trade deal before they run out of time.

Exclusive to The SPOTLIGHT

By James P. Tucker Jr.

.Big business is trying to buy a quick Senate vote approving House-passed legislation granting permanent "normal" trade relations, or PNTR, to Red China—so far, they have spent at least $58 million.

They have pounded on the doors of all 100 senators and are clogging their computers with email while demanding a vote in July on PNTR.

The financiers are afraid if the Senate fails to approve the House bill without change, sending it directly to President Clinton who has promised to sign it into law, it could fail to pass this year. The new Congress seated in January would have to start over.

A vote after the August recess for the political conventions would be more politically difficult, coming just days or weeks before the elections. If the Senate makes any changes, the House would have to vote again—something members desperately hope to avoid.

This explains the huge push by big business for a vote in July.

"It's a huge gamble to predict they can get this legislation passed again," said Johanna Schneider, spokesman for the Business Roundtable, which is composed of huge multinational corporations. Meanwhile, China's communist leader, Jiang Zemin, is eagerly watching the maneuvers of his capitalist allies.

In May, when the House passed PNTR, the Business Roundtable contributed $805,000 to the fundraising arms of Democrat and Republican lawmakers. Since Jan. 1, 1999, members of the Roundtable have contributed $58 million to congressional candidates and political parties.

Throwing money around has proved successful in buying Congress. Of the 10 House members who received the most money from the Roundtable, all voted for PNTR, which passed 237-197.

Big businessmen are investing so much money because they have a huge stake in the outcome. The rush is on because they fear the public will become educated about PNTR and voter outrage will kill their scheme.

If PNTR is approved, these multinationals will rush to close down their American industries and move them to Red China. There they can pay slave wages and avoid the high costs of paid vacations, health insurance and other fringe benefits imposed on businesses in this country on behalf of paid labor.

TRANSFORMATION

As this transformation takes place—and Big Business has its bags packed emotionally—hundreds of thousands of American workers will lose their jobs, becoming recipients of government largess instead of taxpayers.

This will also aggravate the trade deficit, now hugging one-third of a trillion dollars. An increase in the trade deficit means even more losses to the United States as dollars move out of the country.

PNTR also raises another chilling threat that has been underreported: it will enhance Red China militarily. China has already acquired, by spying in a security-lax United States, missile secrets that threaten annihilation. But PNTR makes the job easier with easy-access trade rules.

Platoons of military men, economists and labor leaders have testified before Congress and otherwise warned that PNTR will be catastrophic not only for American workers but for taxpayers and national security.
>>>
Yeah I know this is an old one but its one
the republicrats in congress and our new hope for Freedom G.W.Bush fully supported
or in other words they will do so again when it comes up again next year.

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
And here's a link to the "Spotlight" article: http://www.spotlight.org/07_14_00/Cpressure/cpressure.html :(

Is there something specifically that you would like to make a point about, or are you just trying to enrich our collective intellect by posting these articles?

------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
The spotlight www.spotlight.org

Another NAFTA Story

A sweet deal for Mexicans has left a bitter taste in the mouths of American farmers.

By P. Samuel Foner

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the culprit, according to American sugarbeet farmers, in a congressional battle to end price supports and subsidies to the industry.

During May, the last month for which figures were available, the government had to buy 150,000 tons of surplus sugar at a cost of $60 million to cover growers' minimum price guarantees.

That led to calls in Congress to eliminate the federal sugar program, a mixture of loans, price guarantees and import quotas designed to soften economic blows on sugar farmers.

Adding weight to the argument to eliminate the subsidies was a report from the General Accounting Office (GAO), Congress' investigative arm, that concluded the program cost sugar refiners, food manufacturers and consumers about $1.9 billion in 1998.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), an opponent of the sugar program, told his colleagues: "The GAO has identified a clear example of corporate welfare that Congress has the power to stop"

COST $1 BILLION

In 1998, the GAO said, producers received $1 billion from the sugar program: 70 percent to beet growers in northern-tier states and California and 30 percent to cane producers, mainly in the South.

But sugar farmers insist that the problem is not with their industry but with imports.

"We don't need another teaspoon of sugar," said Luther Markwart, executive vice president of the American Sugarbeet Growers Association, which represents 12,000 growers in a dozen states. "It's a serious problem for our industry."

And, starting this fall, Mexican sugar growers can ship into the United States up to 10 times as much duty-free sugar as now permitted. Regulations that take effect Oct. 1 allow Mexico to raise its tariff-free sugar exports to 250,000 metric tons a year from 25,000.

This, despite the fact that American farmers already face a 25 percent drop in sugar prices this year to 21 cents a pound from 27 cents a year ago.

The increase was negotiated in 1993 as part NAFTA.

Allied with sugarbeet and cane farmers are consumer advocates and environmental groups.

"The industry has some very threatening storm clouds on the horizon," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, a North Dakota Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee.

"Sugar beets have been by far the most successful crop grown by our farm ers," Pomeroy, who defends the current program, told reporters.

NEW TERMS?

Jack Roney, an economist with the American Sugar Alliance, an umbrella group of farmers, processors and suppliers, said the U.S. trade representative's office had been trying to negotiate new terms with Mexico on duty-free imports.

"We already have disastrously low prices because of our current oversupply," he said. "We're hoping to work out an arrangement where their access is conditioned on our needs; so that when the demand is higher, they would export more sugar, and when it's lower, they would export less."

That would only be through 2008, when the two countries are to form a common sugar market. Tariffs on Mexican sugar, at 12 cents a pound now, are being phased out over the next eight years.

The trade representative's office confirmed that sugar trade discussions with Mexico had been in progress with the current administration, but would not discuss details.

However, with the election of a new president, deals with Mexico may have to be renegotiated regardless, Capitol Hill pundits opined.>>>>

Nope it wont change our next president already clearly supports the opening of of global markets for whoever it may prosper even at the cost of american people.
Hes well shown that in his support of the
china PTR deal.
So what should you do?
Support a group that is fighting globalization on every level and helping you to pick congressmen to support who oppose it and will be bold enough to oppose a president whom the UN have their hooks in.



------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
The spotlight www.spotlight.org

Free Trade Harms Weak States

The following two examples show how, under the guise of "free trade," globalist scammers massively pillaged countries that were on the brink of collapse.

Exclusive to The SPOTLIGHT

By James Harrer

In 1997, the Russian government began issuing state bonds, known as GKOs, that came to pay an unprecedented—and unbelievable—interest rate of 100 percent.

Goldman Sachs, the giant Wall Street investment bank, home base of then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, rushed into Russia to underwrite these dubious deals and booked huge fees and commissions.

"But when the Yeltsin government decided to default on the bonds, Goldman Sachs turned its back on the investors who ended up holding worthless paper," recalled a former New York Times correspondent in Moscow.

In 1997, the government of Ukraine made an emergency appeal to Michel Camdessus of the International Mone tary Fund (IMF) for a "currency stabilization" loan of $1.5 billion. Al though there were widespread doubts that the Ukrainian economy would prove "stable" anytime soon, the IMF granted the financing.

Behind the scenes, with help from Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), a giant U.S.-Swiss bank, the Ukrainian government had found an innovative way to put this money to work.

Some $1 billion of the fresh IMF funds were transferred to CSFB, ostensibly as a "deposit." But under a secret agreement with Ukraine's central bank, the $1 billion was treated as collateral for an equal amount in discreet loans made by CSFB to a group of private Ukrainian banks.

This audacious scam effectively converted an official credit extended to a national government by an international financial institution into private cash, which was made readily available for the personal use of the Ukrainian officials who were in charge of the scheme.

"CSFB collected huge fees and interest payments for its part in this rip-off and the top Ukrainian bureaucrats, who always complained of being underpaid, were suddenly awash in cash," recounted financial writer Galina Ustinova. "The losers, of course, were the Ameri can taxpayers who put up the lion's share of the IMF's disappearing handouts and the Ukrainian workers, who never got the $1 billion intended to 'stabilize' their wretched wages.">>>

If you dont think the stabilizing of the UN has been disguised under free trade then you tell me what.
www.jbs.org
leave the UN bring our troops home





------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
U.S. Jobs Being Sacrificed

U.S. workers may not yet be aware that they are the unwitting sacrifice to the gods of the global economy. But they're learning.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In the tiny West Virginia town of Weirton, population 22,000, thousands marched to save Weirton Steel, the heart of their community. If the steel plant goes under, and its 4,400 workers lose their jobs, the town dies. It is as simple as that.

What is threatening Weirton Steel and every other steel plant in the U.S.? In a word, imports, which in August equaled 35 percent of U.S. steel consumption, up 50 percent from a year ago.

Who is dumping into our market to save their steel industries by killing ours? Japan, South Korea, Russia, Indonesia and Brazil.

Yet, as those folks marched through Weirton to petition their government for help, our government was racing to rescue—Brazil. That's right.

As the president was clucking his sympathy for U.S. steelworkers, the treasury secretary was wrapping a ribbon around a $41.5 billion bailout of a bunch of wastrel politicians in Brazil.

Even more than Moscow's rip-off of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), this Brazilian bailout reveals the corruption and fraud that are now essential to maintaining the fiction of a global economy.

Look at the agencies coughing up the bailout billions. The U.S. Exchange Stabili zation Fund, created to defend the U.S. dollar, not Brazil's currency, is in for $5 billion. The World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank have put in $9 billion, though they are supposed to fund development projects, not bail out bankrupt regimes.

The IMF, established to defend an exchange-rate system that died in 1971, is in for $18 billion. Each of these institutions is being corrupted and perverted so a global corporate and political elite will not have to face the consequences of its own malfeasance,

The fraud here is monstrous. With Brazil's Fernando Cardoso running a deficit of 8 percent of gross domestic product and his central bank pegging interest rates near 50 percent to keep money from fleeing the country, the markets have declared Brazil a terrible risk. Investors got the message and have pulled out $30 billion of Brazil's hard currency since July.

Why would the United States and the IMF drop $41.5 billion on a regime on the precipice of devaluation and default? Answer: To keep the free market from doing its work, lest bankers and investors who pumped all that money into Brazil lose their Turnbull & Asser shirts.

The folks marching through Weirton don't know it, but they are being sacrificed to the gods of the global economy. Their taxes are backing $160 billion in loans to Indonesia, South Korea, Russia and Brazil, even as those countries dump steel into the U.S. market and kill the jobs of the men and women who work in Weirton.

The Treasury Department and the IMF defend the Brazilian bailout by insisting that Cardoso has a tough austerity plan to slash the deficit. But a glance at Cardoso's plan shows it is mostly blue smoke and mirrors.

It is based on a budget that projects growth, but thanks to those 50 percent interest rates, Brazil is headed into recession. The tax hikes proposed will only deepen that recession and expand the deficit, and the proposed budget cuts will never pass Brazil's leftist Congress.

As in the Russian bailout, where Boris Yeltsin's "reformers" lied to the IMF and the IMF knew they were lying, both sides here know exactly what is going down. The Brazilians know that if the IMF is given some political cover, the money will be on the way, because it isn't Brazil that is the real beneficiary of the $41.5 billion. The real beneficiaries are the global investors whose huge gamble in Brazil was in imminent danger of being wiped out.

To most Americans, these bailouts have nothing to do with them. After all, the U.S. economy is perking along, and the Dow is back near record territory. So, who cares?

But around the world, it is dawning on people who it is who is growing rich and who is being sacrificed to keep the global casino going. And nations are beginning to act in their own interests.

Moscow is walking away from billions in debt and printing money to pay back Russians, not western banks. In Indonesia, mobs of unemployed are rioting. Malaysia is imposing capital controls. Many Third World regimes have simply stopped servicing debts. When a U.S. trade official accused Japan of trying to export its way out of recession, the Japanese told her to get lost.

Nations in trouble look out for themselves first, and it is only America's elite that still seems enthralled by a globalist ideology.

One day, American workers will wake up and realize that their jobs and factory towns have been sacrificed—to save the bacon of the "investment community."

When they do, the day of reckoning will be at hand. As for this latest $41 billion bailout, it has only postponed that day.




------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
The spotlight www.spotlight.org

Bush Would Extend NAFTA

Texas Gov. George W. Bush announced that he has plans to sell the country further down the river—and he hasn't even become president, yet.

Exclusive to The SPOTLIGHT

By James P. Tucker Jr.

George W. Bush has publicly said as president he would carry out Bilder- berg's plan of creating political and economic unity in the Western Hemi sphere, leaving Reform Party presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan the only border-protecting candidate.

On April 14, in Nuevo Laredo, Mex ico, the Texas governor endorsed the next step toward creating an American Union patterned after the European Union superstate.

According to the European ParliaBusment's charter, laws are imposed on member nations and the European court nullifies laws passed by the once-sovereign member nations.

George W. told a crowd at a ceremony opening a bridge between the two nations: "I will work to create an entire hemisphere in free trade."

Appearing with Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, George W. spoke partly in Spanish, saying: "I will work to extend the benefits of NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] from northernmost Alaska to the tip of Cape Horn."

AMERICAN UNION

A newly-formed, 90-man commission established among the original NAFTA nations—the United States, Canada and Mexico—would expand accordingly as more nations are admitted. It would evolve into the American Union Par liament, similar to the European Par liament.

While George W. was backing NAFTA expansion in his Mexico speech, back home his campaign issued a policy statement saying he would support admission of Red China to the World Trade Organization, also high on the Bil derberg-Trilateral agenda.

"As president, Gov. Bush will work to open the China market—and other key export markets—for America's farmers and ranchers," the statement said.

George W.'s commitment to world government is hereditary. His father, former President George Bush, is a long-time member of the Trilateral Commission. Bush spoke to the group in March 1981 as a newly-minted vice presi dent.

David Rockefeller, a Bilderberg power who founded the Trilateral Commission, said during a special interview on the NBC-TV talk show The McLaughlin Group that NAFTA would expand to include all nations in the Western Hemi sphere.

George Bush pushed for so-called "fast-track" negotiating power to ex pand the free trade pact while president. President Clinton, a Bilderberg mem ber, has also been seeking this.

Under "fast-track," a president can negotiate a trade deal which Congress can vote up or down but not change.

Vice President Al Gore, the Demo cratic nominee-in-waiting, joined Clin ton in calling for such NAFTA expansion years ago.

Buchanan is the only major presidential candidate who says he will stop free trade expansion, block China's entry into the WTO, oppose permanent fa vored-nation trade status for the communist state and protect national sovereignty and independence.>>

As much as I love his idea's Im not endorsing Buchanen here the media has made sure he does not have a chance especially this late in the game.
But the facts and what kindve person your monies going to must be known.Many of us hear pro-gun and assume he's perfect.
www.jbs.org
not world government keep us independent




------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Internationalist Plans Shown

The publicity brought to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank meetings forced globalists to take their schemes out into the open.

Exclusive to The SPOTLIGHT

By James P. Tucker Jr.

They heard everybody—Pat Buchanan, Liberty Lobby, tie-dyed and tattooed environmentalists, black-clad anarchists and buttoned-down internationalists who want a kinder, gentler world government.

These protesters forced the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, meeting jointly in Washington April 16-17, to curb their actions while defending their existence.

In session after session, in formal speeches and at every news conference, the international bureaucrats felt compelled to argue that banking policies that enrich the rich and impoverish the poor will be "improved" and pollution-causing projects are not polluting.

But—above all else—IMF and World Bank officials argued that surrendering national sovereignty to in ternational institutions is not surrendering sovereignty.

"Some have criticized the WTO as an organization that infringes on the sovereignty of its member governments," but "the WTO is basically a com mercial court," said Michael Moore, director-general of the World Trade Association, in a speech April 13 at the National Press Club.

But, Moore said: "We have learned to live as citizens of the world . . . pollution crosses borders easily, so do criminals. Globalization is not a policy option" but a fact of "interdependence."

People "are protesting against globalization," said IMF Director and Bil derberg regular Stanley Fischer in a formal address. "So I will talk about glo balization. Integration of the world economy is the best way."

The IMF "will do what it can to create a stable global economic environment" and make "the global financial system run better," Fischer said. "We are sharpening our surveillance of economic policies."

"Surveillance" is an IMF euphemism for dictating economic policies to once-sovereign nations for the benefit of international financiers and corporations.

CHINA TRIP BLOCKED

In another victory for protesters, a planned trip to Red China for congressmen undecided about granting permanent favorable trading status was canceled because most of them decided against the trip.

Instead, they are spending the Easter recess at home.

The White House had hoped to have 20 congressmen travel with Commerce Secretary William Daley to China and another 20 travel later with Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. Now, it is hoping to have 10 to justify the second trip scheduled to leave April 24.

Pat Buchanan helped make the trip impolitic for the congressmen when speaking to a rally of thousands of union members at the Capitol.

"I'd tell 'em, "You've sold your last pair of chop sticks in any mall in Amer ica,' " Buchanan said to the cheers of the workers.

Meanwhile, criticism of the World Bank and IMF continued unabated, not only on the streets, but in the offices of experts.

Kevin Danaher, who has written extensively and authored a book on the subject, said:

The World Bank takes our tax-payer money and uses it as collateral to issue bonds from major banks. That money is then used to create leverage over Third World elites.

The World Bank lends these Third World countries money—on the condition that they will implement policies written in Washing ton and Wall Street. The bank is actually sucking money out of these countries.

"The World Bank and IMF, like the WTO, are using public funds—yet are undemocratic, unaccountable and ad vanc ing the interests of the rich and powerful," said Daphne Wysham, coordinator of Sustainable Energy and Economy Network.

"Since the bank is not punished for defective projects . . . it has no incentive to improve the quality of its lending," said Catherine Caufield, author of a book on the IMF and World Bank.

In secret deliberations, both the IMF and World Bank guarantee loans to poor, uncreditworthy na tions. Inter national financiers then make loans and investments with a potential for im mense profits because of cheap labor and goods—at no risk. Often, money publicly designated to a poor country goes straight to the banks as interest payments and is never touched by the "beneficiaries."

The practice of deliberating secretly to bail out big banks and international financiers was the main complaint of demonstrators.



------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top