More on the Deep, Dark Secrets of CAFTA
Story"At 2,400 pages, the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) isn't really about trade. Frankly, you don't need 2,400 pages to eliminate tariffs and regulations on exports and imports. But, you might need 2,400 pages to smuggle through a new set of transnational corporate rights disguised by complicated legalese . . . Any naive Congressperson who thinks CAFTA is merely about free trade should look carefully at its provisions on government contracts and corporate lawsuits . . . For any purchases over $117,000 (eventually to be lowered to $58,000), CAFTA forces governments to open up bidding to transnational corporations. That means that states will not longer be able to give preference to home-based businesses, and so mom and pop stores in Central America and the U.S. will suddenly be competing with the Bechtels and the Halliburtons of the world . . . Perhaps CAFTA's most worrisome provision expands the rights that corporations got under NAFTA to sue national governments over any laws perceived as barriers to trade and foreign investment. For instance, when California banned a carcinogenic gasoline additive called MTBE because it was seeping into the state's drinking water, the chemical manufacturer, Methanex, sued California for infringing on its trade rights under NAFTA and demanded $970 million in compensation."
Well, that's just great. Thank you, congress-critters; and thank you, el presidente, for making this all possible. The good news is that current jurisprudence, upheld by the Supreme Court, still gives the individual states plenty of leeway when it comes to legitimate police powers (like laws specifically to protect the public health). But We the People, I fear, need to take the initiative to start enforcing sovereignty from the local level. This means using public trespassing laws to round up immigrants, this means
fining corporations that attempt to evade laws meant to protect the people. Our national government will not listen to us. We're going to need to start fixing things at the local level first if we want to make any progress.
_____________________________________________
Argumentum ad hominem does not a valid argument make. The person to whom this applies ought to know what I'm talking about. In my experience, those who resort to argumentum ad hominem can be safely refuted as having no valid counter-argument.
That sort of tactic is really pathetic. I expect it from democrats and other leftists, but I hold conservative and libertarian types to a much higher standard. Very bad form, guys.
You also completely ignore the fact that CAFTA is unconstitutional. If you actually have a valid counter-argument, use it. We have nothing to fear from the truth . . . but apparently you do.
_____________________________________________
Post a Comment
Return Home