Monday, April 27, 2015

The Left Defining its Enemies

Meet Alex Johnson in the “Insider” column in the AJC Sunday 4/26/15. Jim Galloway labeled Alex as a “Libertarian”.  I know Alex and I believe he is a principled Republican who understands the RNC Platform and Resolutions and bases his party affiliation on these.  Alex has roots in Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty and Young Republicans. Alex started his involvement in the Republican Party through the college republicans at Oglethorpe University and ran for State Senate in 2010
After the 2012 election, Tea Party, 912 and Campaign for Liberty groups formed coalitions and now refer to themselves as “Constitutionalists. Our goal is to bring the federal government into compliance with the US constitution (as written). To do this, we have identified websites that provide Scores for legislators based on their votes. The website gives Scores to Georgia legislators. The Club for Growth, Conservative Review, Numbers USA, New American, and Heritage Action published Scores for the US Congress.
The political left wing (Marxists) are using “Libertarian” to describe “Constitutionalists”.  They both support Liberty and Freedom, but so does the Constitution everybody “swears” to protect and defend.
Libertarians are members of a registered political party, so Leftists use it to describe all very conservative Republicans who mention the word freedom.  The Libertarian Party is occupied by folks who have been or would be Republicans, but they gave up on the Republican Party as too corrupt, they are also folks who just want to legalize pot.  Constitutional Republicans prefer, for now, to remain in the party to root out the corruption.
In Georgia, the corruption includes the lack of inclusion by anyone except party insiders. The unchallenged support of incumbents and a distain for challengers and delegates. It is a “top-down” organization who punishes anyone who questions “the plan”, runs for office, sponsors a “populist” bill, wants to follow the party rules or brings a video camera to a Republican barbeque.
Nationally, the corruption was embodied by John Boehner at the 2012 GOP convention, reading from a teleprompter, “The Ayes have it”, after a loud “Nay” voice vote to change the rules to refuse to allow Delegates to vote.
Alex wants a “bottom-up” party where these things wouldn’t happen. Voters would have more of a voice, party rules would be followed, conservatives would not be ignored and elected officials would be freer to debate issues to determine the need to involve government or not and committees would not be places to send a bill to die.  Alex criticizes the votes cast and bills passed by Republican elected officials when these votes and bills ignore the RNC Platform and Resolutions.  He is insisting on “integrity” and most of us, state-wide are with him. He wants the county GOP groups to discuss, vote on and pass their own rules and then abide by them.
The Georgia Republican Party contains many elected officials who were once Democrats.  Reagan was a Democrat, but became a Republican when the DNC took a “left turn”.  Deal, Jacobs and others were Democrats, but changed in order to be elected in Georgia. 
Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist.  He recommends that we bring the federal government back into compliance with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (as written).  He believes, as I do, that our national decline can be traced back to unconstitutional actions taken by the federal government for the past 130 years.  I assume Rand Paul holds these principles as well.
Conservatives are supportive of free markets, small government and oppose “socialism”.  We will disagree on some things and will agree for different reasons.  Why do I think that Gay Marriage should not be an issue.  My answer was “free will”. Gays were choosing to join a subculture and should be free to do so and should deal with the consequences all subcultures have to deal with. But the Gay Political movement should be ignored.  Also, I saw this issue as part of the countermeasures released by the Left for us to chase, so we wouldn’t notice the damage they were doing to our economy.
I expect Alex Johnson to be elected in May 2015 to lead the Georgia GOP.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

US Excessive Immigration Debate

Schlafly warns America 'may be at a breaking point already' Expected surge of immigrants to push U.S. to 'European model of state control'
Only eight short years from now, immigrants will make up a record-high 14.8 percent of the total U.S. population, and longtime conservative leader Phyllis Schlafly views the rising tide of newcomers as a purposeful attack on the country.
By the nation’s own president.
“It’s deliberate,” Schlafly told WND in an interview. “It’s not any accident. It’s because Obama and his friends are letting all these people in who don’t want to be Americans, who don’t want to speak English.”
The Census Bureau projected last month that the U.S. immigrant population, legal and illegal, will total a record 51 million in 2023. At that point, one in seven U.S. residents will be an immigrant. By 2060, nearly one in five U.S. residents will be an immigrant, and the total U.S. population will be 417 million – 108 million more than in 2010.
Conservative activist Richard Viguerie, author of “Takeover: The 100-Year War For The Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win It,” noted that most of today’s immigrants come from nations more politically and culturally liberal than the United States. Therefore, he expects the growing immigrant population to make the entire country more liberal.
“It’s going to pull America to the left, for sure,” Viguerie told WND in an interview. “America will become closer to the European model of state control of our country.”
Of course, if America moves to the left, it will naturally gravitate toward the Democratic Party, the party of big government. Schlafly, author of “Who Killed the American Family?” worries about the future of the GOP.
“I think one of the reasons Obama and his friends are so eager to open the gates to more and more immigrants is they think it’s going to defeat the conservative movement and the Republican Party,” Schlafly said. “Of course, they all come from countries that are not used to the idea of limited government. They’re used to countries where the government makes all the decisions, and they don’t know anything different.
“They don’t understand what Americans mean when we talk about limited government, so I think one of their motives clearly is death to the conservative movement and the Republican Party.”
Viguerie agreed if all the new immigrants vote, it would spell the death of the Republican Party. But he also worries about another way party might be destroyed.
“The Republican Party, if it were to nominate a pro-amnesty candidate, would self-destruct and not be able to politically survive having a political candidate that is pro-amnesty,” Viguerie said. “It would just drive a stake in the hearts of the grassroots Republican voters, and there would be almost no chance the Republican nominee could win the election.”
Regarding the field of likely 2016 GOP presidential contenders, Viguerie believes Jeb Bush is completely on the wrong side of the immigration issue. He said Marco Rubio and Scott Walker are suspect on the issue, even though Walker recently talked about the need to reform legal immigration.
“But a Bobby Jindal, a Ted Cruz are solidly anti-amnesty,” Viguerie said. “They’re in sync with the majority of the Republican voters and the majority of Americans.”
Schlafly agreed that Cruz is a good anti-illegal immigration candidate, and she praised Walker for his comments on legal immigration. Nevertheless, she believes any Republican who wants to limit immigration is swimming upstream.
“The powers-that-be, the propagandists, big media, and the big donors in the Republican Party are all pushing this massive immigration,” she said. “And of course that’s the view of big business – they want the cheap labor.”
The Census Bureau projects that the U.S. immigrant population will grow nearly four times faster than the native population. It will reach 15.8 percent by 2030 and 18.8 percent by 2060, at which time there will be 78 million immigrants in the country. By contrast, there were only 20 million immigrants in the U.S. in 1990, accounting for 7.9 percent of the population.
Schlafly and Viguerie say the GOP could decline under a flood of new immigrants, but so could the country.
“We may be at a breaking point already, I don’t know,” Schlafly said. However, she noted that she remains a Reagan optimist and doesn’t believe America will totally collapse.
Viguerie thinks the breaking point might not be that distant. “We may be closer to that than we suspect, because Obama is on a fast track to change the voting demographics of this country by importing tens of millions of Democrat voters from South America, and so we could reach a tipping point within a few years,” he said.
“We’ve got a large percentage of people here who are not Americans, they don’t want to be Americans, they’re not assimilating, they want to keep their culture, they want to keep their language, they don’t know our history.”
Viguerie specifically referenced radical Muslims as one group that should not be let into the country.
“We need a different vetting system,” Viguerie declared. “We need to vet these people. We need to keep out radical Muslims. If you’re a radical Muslim, you should not be coming to this country, and we don’t have a proper vetting system for people who are interested in our destruction.”
Ultimately, Viguerie believes it will take strong leadership to stem the tide of immigration and preserve a uniquely American culture. However, the veteran fundraiser is not entirely optimistic.
“We don’t have the leadership in the Congress, we don’t have the leadership certainly in the executive branch, and we don’t have it in the Republican Party,” he said.
Viguerie said it will be up to voters to demand that their leaders solve the immigration crisis. He hopes some of the newer tea party-affiliated congressmen will provide real leadership on the immigration issue.
“Right now, most of the people who are thought to be leaders on the Republican side are intimidated by mainstream media and hesitant to step out, but it’s time to say we need to call a halt to mass immigration into this country here,” he said.
Schlafly, for her part, feels the American people are already on her side when it comes to immigration control. Indeed, a Gallup poll taken last June found a plurality of Americans, 41 percent, thought current immigration levels should be decreased. Only 22 percent thought they should be increased.
“I think the public opinion polls are showing that the majority of Americans agree with the views that I’ve been expressing,” Schlafly contended. “However, major media doesn’t put it out that way.”
She said ordinary people just need to keep talking about how immigration is harming them, and eventually politicians and the media will no longer be able to ignore them.
Viguerie said immigration should be slowed down. “Let us catch our breath here and figure out, because the world is changing in front of our eyes,” Viguerie said. “Much of the world is moving toward a virulently anti-American, anti-Western values belief system. And we need to take a look at who’s coming into this country, and what are their views and values.”
I say close down immigration because of the 93 million working-age US Citizens who don’t have jobs and the million a year students graduating and the teenagers who should be able to work part-time. We closed it down during the Great Depression I and we are in the middle of Great Depression II.  Before we Off-shored our economy, we recruited our immigrants because we had lots of jobs.  We need to hang a sign on the Statue of Liberty that reads: “Closed for Repairs”.
Milton Friedman warned us when he said: “You can have open borders or a welfare state, but you can’t have both”. I vote to close the borders and life all welfare recipients into jobs.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

New Cities in DeKalb 2015

DeKalb County GA new city committees are on a tear to gather up unincorporated areas of the county and form new cities.  The primary reason for forming your own city has been to get control of their zoning issues, but the added expenses are indefensible and the city staff will control zoning issues, not the voters.  If you want your roads fixed, don’t rely on cityhood as a solution.  Instead, form a Special District for Roads, otherwise you roads will never be fixed.

Size Matters

Some of DeKalb’s cities are really too small in square miles (sm.) to be cities and may want to consider consolidation. These include Norcross 4.1 sm. Chamblee 3.1 sm. Doraville 3.6 sm.

Other cities are mid-size, but still don’t have enough revenue to fix their roads.  They are Peachtree Corners 16.2 sm. Dunwoody 13.1 sm. and Brookhaven 12 sm. 

Unincorporated areas of counties looking to form new cities need to think it through.  In DeKalb County, the new city needs to be at least 40 square miles with a population of 90,000 or more, like Roswell and Sandy Springs.  They are large enough to justify city status. Johns Creek is 32 sm. with a 70,000 population and Alpharetta is 21 sm. with a 60,000 population.

New cities may result in lower county taxes, but it will be more than made up for by the increased expense of city formation. It doesn’t have to be that way, but your City Council will, no doubt, hire consulting firms to make all the decisions for them. UN Agenda 21 is being implemented through these consulting firms. All of your city ordinances will be carbon copies of all other new city ordinances. Building codes will all be “international”. You will need permits and inspections for everything your do and fines if you do things yourself without a permit. 

Counties are too large to be invasive, but these new cities are just the right size to menacing

Federal grants to states are distributed by ARC, GDOT and MARTA to ensure that new city councils are “led” to cooperate.  The city staff ends up running the city.  Voter objections to excessive city spending on “economic development” and fluff are ignored by the city council. The millions spent on “community development” would be better put to use by restoring road maintenance.

Community Development includes the bureaucratic expense to enforce ordinances to limit your property use.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


U.S. Exports vs. Imports

When in Debt, Go to Work
The American economy needs government to remove obstacles to increasing production of everything we have that has a demand.  Increases in oil, natural gas, minerals, timber, food, manufactured goods of “basic need” production is required in increase our exports and end our $500 billion “trade deficit”.
In 2015 the US exported $44.3 billion to Canada and imported $46.7 billion.  With Mexico, the US exported $37.3 billion and imported $45.5 billion.  We also imported millions of illegal aliens.
Pacific Partnership Treaty (PPT)
Besides ending our sovereignty as a nation by allowing unlimited immigration of foreign workers and global corporate courts to determine our cases, the PPT has a mixed bag of countries:  Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.
Best Value Buying
The US has determined that Japanese automobiles are the best so far.  Canada has produced the best entertainers.  We like Australians and would buy anything from them.  In New Zealand, we like Trevor Louden, but don’t like their Marxist government.  Singapore is total free enterprise, but they celebrate the Chinese New Year in Malaysia, because they are more fun.  Brunei used to be Borneo before they became an Islamic Marxist dictatorship, like us.  Chile and Peru are the only South American countries not sending illegal immigrants to us.  I’m excited.  It will be fun to open our borders to these folks.
Potential PPT Immigrants
I don’t think that many Australians or Canadians will come to live in the U.S.  But the populations of all the other countries in the treaty total 258.7 million and most of them will come. 
Local Economic Action Needed
As the economy worsens, more Americans are looking at providing basics locally.  Small farmers have found local markets for the food they produce and have attempted to offer “storefronts” on their property.  Zoning codes need to be expanded to allow more of this.  
Oil & Natural Gas Exporting
This is the easiest way to increase exports and eliminate our $500 billion annual trade deficit.  Oil prices in 2015 bottomed out at $47/bbl. in January and have returned to above $60/bbl. In April.  The $60/bbl. Price should help to restart production.
US Crude oil imports dropped from 9.0 million barrels per day in 2009 to 7.3 million barrels per day in 2014 
The US produces 9.1 million barrels per day in 2014.
US crude oil consumption fell from 20.6 million bbd in 2007 to 18.8 million bbd in 2009 and is now 18.9 million bbd. 
Our natural gas exports rose from 51 million barrels in 2009 to 258 million barrels in 2014.
Our crude oil exports rose from 16 million barrels in 2009 to 126 million barrels in 2014. 
We are energy independent in natural gas and should become independent in crude oil if we continue to drill, no thanks to Obama. Let’s stop the PPT.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

For Our Economy’s Sake

There are just a few things we need to do to begin to rebuild our economy. These things require changes in federal policy. We’ve demanded some of these for decades. We demanded the rest over the past 6 years. There are other issues including social issues, but they are secondary at this point.
The first is to declare global warming a hoax, quit the UN, end foreign aid, repeal trade treaties and cut federal grants to states and non-profits by 75% in order to cut $500 billion from federal spending.
The second is to suspend all immigration and requires that we close the border, deport immigrants who are not self-supporting, criminals and those who won’t assimilate. We need this to begin to make jobs available for the 93 million working-age US citizens who don’t have jobs.
The third is to end UN Agenda 21 implementation in the U.S. and requires the repeal of all Agenda 21 enabling federal and state law. We need this to end the extra $1 trillion a year our federal government is wasting on carbon capture, excessive unnecessary environmental regulations and Marxist slush funds.  We need this to ensure that our electricity costs do not increase 500% and to cut federal spending by another $500 billion.
The fourth is to identify all unconstitutional federal laws, departments, agencies, regulations, lands and activities and transfer these to the States to cut yet another $500 billion from federal spending.
The fifth is to begin paying off the national debt. The result will be increased investment in the U.S. in reaction to the return of the free market.
As unconstitutional departments, agencies, lands and activities are transferred to the States the free market should reassume their supervision of these activities from the States.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

The Free Market is Solving the GMO Problem

Posted on April 23, 2015 Written by
When Justin Dammann enters his south­west­ern Iowa corn­field this month, the 35-year-old farmer will sow some­thing these 2,400 acres have not seen in more than a decade — plants grown with­out genet­i­cally mod­i­fied seeds.
The corn, which will head to a proces­sor 20 miles down the road this fall, will likely make its way into tor­tilla shells, corn chips and other con­sum­able prod­ucts made by com­pa­nies tak­ing advan­tage of grow­ing con­sumer demand for food with­out biotech ingredients.
For Dammann and other Mid­west farm­ers, the bur­geon­ing inter­est in non-GMO foods has increased how much they get paid to grow crops in fields once pop­u­lated exclu­sively with genet­i­cally mod­i­fied corns and soy­beans. The rev­enue hike is a wel­come ben­e­fit at a time when lower com­mod­ity prices are push­ing farm income down to what’s expected to be the low­est level in six years.
“We never really thought we would go back to (non-GMO). But the con­sumer, in my opin­ion, has sent a clear mes­sage that a cer­tain per­cent­age of our cus­tomers are will­ing to pay more for the non-GMO lines,” Dammann said. “This non-GMO thing has seemed to take hold and gain a lot of trac­tion.” – Des Moines Reg­is­ter, April 18, 2015
This story is a mar­velous exam­ple of con­sumer pref­er­ences encour­ag­ing pro­duc­ers to change their behav­ior, with­out any gov­ern­ment inter­ven­tion. Mar­kets work – when we let them.
Mon­santo and the other genet­i­cally mod­i­fied seed com­pa­nies insist their prod­ucts are safe. A sub­stan­tial num­ber of con­sumers have their doubts. The num­ber is large enough to have enticed GMO-free food com­pa­nies to step up their offer­ings. Alter­na­tives are often more expen­sive than the GMO ver­sions, but they’re available.
Con­sumers in some states have tried to force label­ing require­ments on GMO prod­ucts. As we wrote a few weeks ago, the effort is fac­ing fierce indus­try and polit­i­cal resis­tance. If the trends in this arti­cle con­tinue, it won’t mat­ter. Con­sumers will even­tu­ally get what they want.
Manda­tory label­ing would have been a blunt instru­ment. If it had solved the prob­lem, there would still have been other harm­ful side effects. This is how gov­ern­ment inter­ven­tions usu­ally work, how­ever well-intentioned they are.
The mar­ket may move slowly but it is far more pre­cise. Look what is hap­pen­ing. A sig­nif­i­cant num­ber of con­sumers want foods made from GMO-free grains. Food com­pa­nies pro­vided them.
The arti­cle men­tions some exam­ples. Gen­eral Mills will no longer use GMO corn­starch in Chee­rios. Chipo­tle Mex­i­can Grill wants to elim­i­nate GMOs from all its ingre­di­ents. Whole Foods will require GMO label­ing by 2018.
All this is hap­pen­ing with­out any state inter­ven­tion. The busi­nesses are respond­ing to their customers.
With demand grow­ing but the sup­ply of non-GMO grains rel­a­tively tight, prices for those grains have gone up. The higher prices enticed farm­ers like the one quoted in the Des Moines Reg­is­ter. His con­clud­ing com­ment ought to send a chill up Mon­santo spines.
“Hope­fully we deliver the right prod­uct and peo­ple are pas­sion­ate to buy (GMO free) — because that is the direc­tion we are mov­ing,” he said.
Oddly, the GMO indus­try does not seem to be get­ting the market’s mes­sage, still spend­ing enor­mous amounts of money on cam­paigns to con­vince the pub­lic GMO crops are safe.
They are miss­ing the point. In mar­ket­ing, per­cep­tion is far more impor­tant than truth. Whether the bio­engi­neered prod­ucts are safe is irrel­e­vant. Con­sumers rule. If they decide they don’t want your seeds in their Chee­rios, it does not mat­ter if sci­ence is on your side.
Time will tell how the bat­tle turns out. Maybe GMO and non-GMO prod­ucts can coex­ist peace­fully and each serve their own con­sumers. The com­pa­nies and con­sumers will find out quickly — if they let the mar­ket show them.
Related Posts

Stopping the Pacific Partnership Treaty

Bad Guys Pushing THIS WEEK to Promote Global Tyranny Run By Corporations Posted on April 23, 2015 Written by

Here’s How to STOP Them: The powers-that-be are push­ing this week to fast track a hor­ri­ble treaty which would destroy America. The treaty is called the Trans Pacific Part­ner­ship (TPP).

The U.S. Trade Rep­re­sen­ta­tive – the fed­eral agency respon­si­ble for nego­ti­at­ing trade treaties – has said that the details of the TPP are clas­si­fied due to “national secu­rity”. Why’s the deal being kept secret? Because it would be impos­si­ble to pass if the pub­lic knew what was really in it:

Ron Kirk, until recently Mr. Obama’s top trade offi­cial, was remark­ably can­did about why he opposed mak­ing the text pub­lic: doing so, he sug­gested to Reuters, would raise such oppo­si­tion that it could make the deal impos­si­ble to sign.

Sen­a­tor Eliz­a­beth War­ren notes: Sup­port­ers of the deal say to me, “They have to be secret, because if the Amer­i­can peo­ple knew what was actu­ally in them, they would be opposed.”

But it’s not only being hid­den from the Amer­i­can peo­ple … it’s being hid­den even from most U.S. Con­gress mem­bers.

A Con­gress­man who has seen the text of the treaty says: There is no national secu­rity pur­pose in keep­ing this text secret … this agree­ment hands the sov­er­eignty of our coun­try over to cor­po­rate interests.

It would also allow for­eign cor­po­ra­tions to chal­lenge U.S. laws.  It will lit­er­ally over­ride Amer­i­can law.  As the New York Times head­lines  in Trans-Pacific Part­ner­ship Seen as Door for For­eign Suits Against U.S.:

Com­pa­nies and investors would be empow­ered to chal­lenge reg­u­la­tions, rules, gov­ern­ment actions and court rul­ings — fed­eral, state or local — before tri­bunals orga­nized under the World Bank or the United Nations.

Ron Paul says that the TPP would erode national sovereignty: While it’s falsely called a “trade agree­ment”, only 5 out of 29 of TPP’s chap­ters have any­thing to do with trade.  And con­ser­v­a­tives point out that even the 5 chap­ters on trade do not pro­mote free trade. Bloomberg calls TPP a “cor­po­ratist power grab”, “as demo­c­ra­tic and trans­par­ent as a one-party state,” and shrouded in “Big Brother-like secrecy”.

A very cred­i­ble inside source – with a proven track record of access, accu­racy, intel­li­gence and ded­i­ca­tion to work­ing for our coun­try – tells Washington’s Blog that TPP con­tains pro­vi­sions which would severely harm America’s national secu­rity. Specif­i­cally, like some pre­vi­ous, ill-conceived treaties, TPP would allow for­eign com­pa­nies to buy sen­si­tive Amer­i­can assets which could sub­ject us to ter­ror attacks or eco­nomic blackmail.

Huff­in­g­ton Post quotes the New York Times and Wik­ileaks to explain how the dis­pute pro­vi­sions would gut the Amer­i­can legal system: The Wik­iLeaks analy­sis explains that this lets firms “sue” gov­ern­ments to obtain tax­payer com­pen­sa­tion for loss of “expected future profits.”

Let that sink in for a moment: “Companies and investors would be empow­ered to chal­lenge reg­u­la­tions, rules, gov­ern­ment actions and court rul­ings — fed­eral, state or local — before tri­bunals….” And they can col­lect not just for lost prop­erty or seized assets; they can col­lect if laws or reg­u­la­tions inter­fere with these giant com­pa­nies’ abil­ity to col­lect what they claim are “expected future profits.”

The Times‘ report explains that this clause also “gives greater pri­or­ity to pro­tect­ing cor­po­rate inter­ests than pro­mot­ing free trade and com­pe­ti­tion that ben­e­fits consumers.”

The tri­bunals that adju­di­cate these cases will be made up of private-sector (i.e., cor­po­rate) attor­neys. These attor­neys will rotate between serv­ing on the tri­bunals and rep­re­sent­ing cor­po­ra­tions that bring cases to be heard by the tri­bunals. This is a con­flict of inter­est because the attor­neys serv­ing on the tri­bunals will have tremen­dous incen­tive to rule for the cor­po­ra­tions if they want to con­tinue to get lucra­tive cor­po­rate business.

This ISDS mech­a­nism “Investor-State Dis­pute Set­tle­ment” tri­bunals cre­ated by TPP orig­i­nates from a time when investors in wealthy, devel­oped coun­tries wanted to invest in projects in unsta­ble “third-world,” “banana-republic”-style coun­tries but wor­ried that dic­ta­tors or rev­o­lu­tion­ary gov­ern­ments could decide to seize their prop­erty — a refin­ery, rail­road or fac­tory — leav­ing them with no recourse. So before invest­ing, the tar­get coun­try agrees that in the case of dis­putes, a tri­bunal is set up out­side and beyond the reach of the country’s jus­tice sys­tem (courts where the judge is a brother or other crony of the dic­ta­tor, for exam­ple), pro­vid­ing recourse in the event of unjust seizure of prop­erty. This would make invest­ment less risky.

How­ever, under agree­ments like the TPP, these pro­vi­sions apply to and over­ride the laws of mod­ern, sta­ble, devel­oped coun­tries with demo­c­ra­tic gov­er­nance and fair court sys­tems. The cor­po­rate rep­re­sen­ta­tives nego­ti­at­ing mod­ern trade agree­ments see such demo­c­ra­t­i­cally run gov­ern­ments as “bur­den­some” and chaotic, intro­duc­ing “uncer­tain­ties” and “inter­fer­ing” or “med­dling” with the cor­po­rate order. As one sup­porter of these ISDS pro­vi­sions put it, they pro­tect cor­po­ra­tions from “the waves of mad­ness that occa­sion­ally flit through the population.”

To give an idea of what would hap­pen to Amer­i­can law if TPP passes, just look at Equador …   Its courts awarded bil­lions against Chevron for trash­ing huge swaths of rain­for­est.  But then a pri­vate arbi­tra­tion panel sim­ply ignored the country’s court sys­tem. If TPP passes, we’ll be treated like a third world coun­try, and our Amer­i­can laws and courts will be ignored as well.

(Those opposed to a “one world gov­ern­ment” or a “new world order” should oppose TPP as the big fight.  Con­ser­v­a­tives might want to read this.  Remem­ber that one of the best def­i­n­i­tions of fas­cism – the one used by Mus­solini – is the “merger of state and cor­po­rate power”.  TPP (is?) a giant step in that direction.)

The back­ers of TPP – includ­ing Obama and many in Con­gress – are try­ing to approve a “fast track” pro­ce­dure this week that would pre­vent Con­gress from hav­ing any real input into the agree­ment, or to even have the oppor­tu­nity to debate what should be in the agreement.

But the treaty is so bad, that if we just defeat the attempt to fast-track it, it will die a nat­ural death as soon as it’s made pub­lic … and Con­gress has to engage in seri­ous debate on the hor­ri­ble agree­ment, and answer to its angry constituents.

The Amer­i­can peo­ple are already strongly opposed to TPP, and are dis­gusted by the pro­posed fast-tracking of the TPP vote. But we have to let our Con­gress mem­bers’ know how we feel on this.

Related Posts