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.
===========================================
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.