Friday, June 24, 2005

A Week of Links: Agenda 21, Real ID, Skinner Box, CAFTA, More

We've gotten behind again, so (with one exception below) I am going to save time by posting links instead of complete articles. The articles all show how much trouble we are in, and it is going to get worse before it gets better.

Newcomer Nancy Levant offers a stark look at life in America according to Sustainable Development (Agenda 21).

Another item from Nancy Levant, showing how Real ID and the Patriot Act will undermine what is left of individual liberty in America if real Americans do not get up off their duffs and do something while it is still possible in principle to criticize the government without being arrested and thrown in jail.

Newcomer Phillip Collins discusses the encroaching police state in light of B.F. Skinner's well-funded "technology of behavior," well-funded, that is, by the Human Ecology Fund assembled in 1955 by the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, controlled by the CIA to pursue the behavioral sciences for the purposes of learning more about how to control human beings.

Ron Paul on the United Nations. Don't reform it, because it is an illegitimate organization anyway. Get the U.S. out; then get rid of it--permanently!

The Bush Administration is still pushing for CAFTA! (For this one the link didn't work, so here is the complete article courtesy of Joan Masters. Sue me.)

For CAFTA, Party Pressure and Pork
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 22, 2005; D01

Earlier this month, at a closed-door meeting of Democrats, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) was blunt: Any Democrat who votes for the Central American Free Trade Agreement will allow an embattled Republican to squirm off the hook and vote no. A vote for CAFTA, she said, was a vote to keep the GOP in the majority.

It was a speech that was tough enough to make the party's free-traders cringe, said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), but both parties are treating the coming showdown over CAFTA like a political donnybrook. Democratic leaders are leaning hard on members to keep defections to a tiny minority, while the Bush administration considers major concessions on sugar crop subsidies and China trade.

If those don't work, administration officials may have to resort to old-fashioned political pork. "With the Democrats almost united, we have to deal with the most protectionist Republicans in Congress, and that means [dealing with] textiles, sugar and whoever else comes along," said one U.S. trade official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because negotiations are ongoing. "If you take 170 Democrats off the playing field, it means we're going to have to cut some deals."

"An awful lot is stake here, and control of Congress is the grand prize," said Moran, one of only five Democrats who have publicly pledged to vote for the treaty. "The stakes are very, very high."

From an economic standpoint, the Central American Free Trade Agreement appears to be a relatively minor treaty. The accord would extend NAFTA-like trading preferences to El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic, six countries whose combined economies -- at $85 billion in 2003 -- are smaller than the Czech Republic's.

But with a growing backlash against free trade, the treaty has grown in political importance. Republican Rep. Bob Inglis, whose upstate South Carolina district includes much of the nation's decimated textile industry, said he has received more than 1,000 inquiries on CAFTA, making it the hottest issue since he returned to Congress this year.

In past trade agreements, dozens of Democrats have joined Republican majorities to help secure passage. But this time, as few as 10 may vote for it. That means Republicans from hard-hit districts representing textile mills, machine-tool manufacturers and sugar growers will have to vote yes if President Bush is to avoid a major political defeat.

"What's different is how much this has become a party-line issue for the Democrats, which has really raised the pressure on Republicans," said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

Administration officials had hoped to win passage of the treaty before Congress's July 4 recess, but they acknowledge they do not have the votes -- yet. Indeed, Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.) said between 20 and 23 House Republicans are solidly against the treaty.

But the White House is working hard to chip away at the opposition on both sides of the aisle. On June 15, in a letter to 14 members of the House Democratic Hispanic Caucus, Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez tried to answer concerns over the enforcement of labor laws in the CAFTA countries, offering "a long-term, sustained commitment to labor capacity-building" in Central America as well as an international donors conference before the end of July to win aid to the countries' labor ministries and labor courts.

A U.S. trade official, speaking on condition of anonymity because negotiations are ongoing, said the White House has secured $20 million to beef up enforcement of labor and environmental laws in the CAFTA countries.

Sugar-state lawmakers late last week presented the White House with a series of demands drafted by the sugar industry to assuage concerns that the treaty would undermine the U.S. system of sugar price supports. They include government purchases of surplus U.S. sugar to make up for new imports from Central America and assurances that sugar will be excluded from future trade deals.

And yesterday, Bush invited 14 wavering House members to the White House to listen to their demands. Inglis told Bush he could vote for the treaty only if a separate, binding agreement is reached with each of the signatories to ensure that cheap Chinese textiles could not be brought into Central America, then shipped duty-free to the United States. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio) said Bush is unlikely to win him over, but he wanted to hear how far the White House is willing to go to force China to float its currency.

Such overtures have some leading Democrats convinced CAFTA will ultimately pass, perhaps by a single vote. Rep. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over trade, said he has not been swayed by a personal visit from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and an audience with the president. But, he said, others probably will be.

"I always had thought it would be impossible to pass this thing because of the hemorrhaging of Republican votes," he said, "but that was before I saw what they were doing to get Democratic votes. If there's no limit to what they'll pay, they've got to win."

So far, trade officials concede such talks have yielded only limited results. After one conversation with Bush and three with Gutierrez, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.) said he has been won over.

"I am interested in doing the right thing, not in making one political party look bad," Cuellar said. "We cannot politicize this type of agreement."

But Democratic leaders aren't about to bend. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Robert Menendez (N.J.) said the White House cannot cut development assistance to Latin America and allow congressional Republicans to pass anti-immigrant measures, such as the recent clampdown on driver's license issuances, then come to Latino lawmakers promising aid in exchange for their votes.

"I make of it all to be hollow promises, too little, too late and, to be honest with you, incredibly offensive," he said.


A glance back at CAFTA's precursor, NAFTA:

NAFTA documents can be found via several sites listed here:

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:12 AM




( 2) The Parties shall interpret and apply the provisions of this Agreement in the light of its objectives set out in paragraph 1 AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.



Jane Lesko, Idaho Eagle Forum

Download Attachment: -NAFTA -- PREAMBLE AND OBJECTIVES .pdf

(Not really a despised PDF file, lol.)

Well, I should had taken a literature writing class that would had taught me how to read between the lines. It seems that many writers go in circles not really getting to the main straight forward point. I still cannot get what exactly are the key points which are so bad about agenda 21. The writing is very eloquent and seems to have the interest of the well being of the planet but maybe I am missing something. Why isn't agenda 21 discussed in the media? Who is the right person to interpret that document? We must have special journalism classes that evidently I missed taking. It seems that you need to interpret a lot of what you read, for writers are going in circles around subjects. Journalism has taken a whole new spin by spinning subject matter. Documents could be written to seem so benevolent but yet are not and hidden provisions or stipulations included that the lay person may not be able to see until too late. The average person is busy working are trying to earn a living raising their children that it's scary that many are missing a lot of these new laws and changes to our way of life. Not everyone has a degree in journalism and many will miss the true motives behind a lot of what is being written. It's incredible but I think our colleges are going to have to teach new courses for students so they can learn how to interpret what they read. I still feel clueless about agenda 21 and I never really new that Cafta had a provision on codex alimentarious that may affect our access to supplements. What is going on in journalism these days? Does the average american now need in addition to their regular professions take special journalism classes just so that they can interpret what is truly going on around them? 75% of what we read these days spins in circles. Maybe we truly do not want to know the true answer to our problems in our society so we allow the non-ending media spin to go on forever. Perhaps this is why we are not solving the issues and they will only GET WORSE. I will take a reading fast for a while and just pray that divine intervention will guide us.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?