Posted on 04/16/2002 5:41:39 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
News Max / CommentMax
Stiff Right Jab
Ending the Debate: Globalist-Styled 'Consent'
Steve Farrell
April 15, 2002
As Americans, there are some political principles that are so basic, so ingrained in our national psyche, so written in our hearts as humans endowed by our Creator with agency, that few, if any dispute their veracity.
Here's one: "Governments ... [derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Who doesn't believe this? In 1776, Jefferson penned it into the Declaration of Independence. He said, in essence, men will be ruled by law, but since government's sole duty is but a commission from the individual to protect his rights, writ large, no government can legitimately exist, let alone legislate, execute and adjudicate law without the people, whom he will serve, first saying, "OK, serve me" and next, "OK, these are the laws which I accept."
We call this consent. It is the divine heritage of the children of God.
One hundred thirty-eight years earlier, at the opening session of the General Court at Hartford, Conn., the Rev. Thomas Hooker affirmed the same: "[T]he foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people."
Before that, date it 1620, our Pilgrim fathers drew up a Mayflower Compact, of which the FREELY elected Gov. Bradford noted: "[I]t was thought good there should be an association and agreement, that we should combine together in one body, and to submit to such government and governors ... by COMMON CONSENT. ..." Everyone signed.
These men knew the score. They knew that God, as perfect and all-knowing as He is, yet invites, persuades, admonishes men to "choose ye this day," to join the Kingdom of God, or not. So what, then, of earthly kingdoms, run by imperfect men? Is not the right of consent in such as these even more vital?
As it is with true religion, so it is with proper government: Legitimacy is discredited as consent erodes.
There is a reason for this discussion. There is a bill presently up for a vote in the Senate (before April 22), already passed in the House (by one vote), which threatens your right of consent on two fronts. It is H.R. 3005, Trade Promotion Authority for the President.
Front One
Trade Promotion Authority for the President is being marketed by the GOP as a "fast track" to prosperity. A mailer I received from the GOP last week focused exclusively on one thing: Free trade makes America richer, so if you care about your family budget and hate paying taxes, support Trade Promotion Authority for the President.
Not so fast. In a government that is run by consent, there is something fundamentally unsound about the idea of "fast track" legislation. In fact, the bill's summary promises, as to fast track, that its central purpose is to "minimize debate."
The question is what good is consent, if debate is minimized? Or what good is consent, if consent becomes uninformed, left out in the dark, rushed, and therefore consigned to trusting in a president, his privy council and international corporations with a vested interest in using government to promote themselves to the exclusion of the liberty of the people?
Globalists fear gridlock. They claim the world is moving too fast for debate. Tough. The first logical solution is to remind the globalist that "gridlock" will diminish as government cuts back on regulation and returns to constitutional limits.
But secondly, a little gridlock was hoped for by our founders, to insure every issue is given its day in the sun, to insure consent is consent indeed and that national sellouts are not easily purchased.
Front Two
The text of H.R. 3005 states its second fundamental purpose as being the swift creation of a European Union clone for the Americas – the Free Trade Zone of the Americas (FTAA). In so stating, clause after clause mandates the necessity of insuring that a wide scope of U.S. laws – i.e., environmental law, labor law, minimum wage law, intellectual property law, welfare law – are brought into compliance with the laws of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the U.N.'s International Labor Organization, the FTAA and other international protocols, and to insure that the United States will be subject to international sanctions whenever we fail to comply.
In summary, what does this mean? Front one – fast track – minimizes consent by minimizing debate. Front two, FTAA, marginalizes, perhaps eliminates, consent by making U.S. law subject to international law, that is, subject to lawmakers from communist, socialist, fascist and Islamic fundamentalist nations that hate us.
Are you willing to consent to this? If H.R. 3005 is made law, you may not even be asked.
Contact Steve at cyours76@yahoo.com.
THIS Article at News Max / Special Commentary
Not so fast. In a government that is run by consent, there is something fundamentally unsound about the idea of "fast track" legislation. In fact, the bill's summary promises, as to fast track, that its central purpose is to "minimize debate."Guys, IS this what we really want?? Peace and love, George.
The question is what good is consent, if debate is minimized? Or what good is consent, if consent becomes uninformed, left out in the dark, rushed, and therefore consigned to trusting in a president, his privy council and international corporations with a vested interest in using government to promote themselves to the exclusion of the liberty of the people?
clause after clause mandates the necessity of insuring that a wide scope of U.S. laws – i.e., environmental law, labor law, minimum wage law, intellectual property law, welfare law – are brought into compliance with the laws of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the U.N.'s International Labor Organization, the FTAA and other international protocols, and to insure that the United States will be subject to international sanctions whenever we fail to comply.
In summary, what does this mean? Front one – fast track – minimizes consent by minimizing debate. Front two, FTAA, marginalizes, perhaps eliminates, consent by making U.S. law subject to international law, that is, subject to lawmakers from communist, socialist, fascist and Islamic fundamentalist nations that hate us.
===========================================
The only good explanation I could come up with was that David (ol Mr. GloBaloney-who-would-be-King hisownself) Rockefeller and his crony-lackeys couldn't jam their economic schemes down our throats as easily ... you know before the citizenry woke up.
And you know how scoundrels HATE honest sunshine.
Two years ago, at the Beijing+5 U.N. Women 2000 Conference, European development agencies threatened to withhold funds from Nicaragua because Max Padilla, head of the Nicaraguan Ministry for the Family, insisted on defining gender by its common meaning of "male and female."IF, Wendy McElroy has an excellent article {World Bank or World Government?:} at Jewish World Review. Can't post JWR's work, but it's a good read that begins with the above. Peace and love, George.The European agencies defined "gender" as a social construct that included gays and the transgendered.
===================================
Acquisition of land:Guys, This is a small excerpt from the beginning of this 37 page PDF {which I dislike} file. WHAT in the hell does "give national treatment to foreign-owned companies." MEAN??? Infowars, HOW do we verify the validity of this attrocity??? Guys, IMHO, being "secret", this is a GOOD file to download and save for confirmation. Peace and love, George.Mode 3 – NT: restrictions on ownership or purchase of land by non-US citizens in South Carolina, Oklahoma, Florida, Wyoming and Mississippi. EC Request: give national treatment to foreign-owned companies.
Mode 3 – NT: restrictions on purchase of public lands by non-US citizens in Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana and Oregon. EC Request: give national treatment to foreign-owned companies.
============================
This isn't what we want. But then it isn't about what the citizens want any more is it. It's what the globalists want.
Furthermore, why in the hell is the president even involved with trade?
I agree with you. There is no need for the pres to have even more PULL (thanks to you Mrs. Rand). In fact he shouldn't have any pull whatsoever in business matters. Stands to reason that we sure as he!! shouldn't give him more.
EBUCK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.