Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US, OAS Members Sign New Environmental Agreements
VOA News ^ | February 18, 2005 | VOA News

Posted on 02/18/2005 5:36:56 PM PST by average american student

The United States and six members of the Organization of American States have signed new agreements on trade and the environment.

The agreements are aimed at strengthening environmental protection and creating a Secretariat for Environmental Matters to help implement the environmental provisions of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

The accords were signed in Washington D.C. Friday by senior representatives of the governments of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the United States.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; bush; bush43; cafta; congress; freetrade; immigration; internationalism; nwo; oas; presidentbush; term2; trade; traitor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-153 next last
To: lawdog

Excellent information. Thanks for posting.


51 posted on 02/18/2005 8:58:13 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: libertyman
Well, I'd say that 99.9% of my fellow FReepers voted for him, so you get what you deserve. There WERE other candidates out there back last November, those who would take US sovereignty & respecting our Constitution just as seriously as they neocons insist upon globalism & special interests: Peroutka (Constitution Party, who I voted for) & Badnarik (Libertarian Party).

But NOOOOOOO!!! Those who call themselves "conservatives" had to vote for the biggest spending President in American history, who, in many ways, is just as much of a big government guy as Kerry ever thought he was...& a fellow Skull & Bones member to boot! You reap what you sow.

I considered voting for Peroutka, but there was NO possibility of him winning the election. Even if a miracle did happen and he did win, he would have had zero support in Congress. He couldn't have got ANYTHING passed that he promised to do. I'm NOT saying this to disrespect him, it's just the way politics work. That only left Bush. Kerry was out of the question. President Bush has done some good things for America that Kerry would NEVER have done, but he is NOT a conservative.

Instead of everyone leaving the Republican Party, we need to take it away from the RINO'S. It's OUR party; a conservative party. The RINO'S need to start their own party. Even if EVERYONE on FR would have voted for Peroutka, he still would have lost by millions of votes. That's life, and we've been dealt a crappy hand. We have to stick together and work hard to rebuild the Republican Party. The only other thing we can do is raise so much Hell with the RINO'S that they are afraid of us.

52 posted on 02/18/2005 9:05:55 PM PST by NRA2BFree (NO AMNESTY, NO UN, NO PC, NO BS, NO MSM, NO WHINY @SS LIBERAL BEDWETTERS, NO LIBERAL JUDGES! YEAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree

If you had only known the # of times I've heard other folks say just what you said: "I like Peroutka, but I can't vote for him, 'cuz it's a wasted vote"...or "he can't win, so I gotta vote for President Bush". AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!! Speak about a self-fulfilling prophecy!

The reason he couldn't win the election was 'cuz nobody would stand up for principle & vote for him. Quit using excuses, &, like the commercial once said, JUST DO IT. (I mean no disrespect in saying that, ok?).

Whenever you come across a liberal, act as if you are voting for Nader or whoever else would take away votes from the Dims (they don't hafta know), learn the socialist talking points, & get THEM to to move even further Left.


53 posted on 02/18/2005 9:51:07 PM PST by libertyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin

Under these agreements, Castro will have as much say as our government, if he's smart enough to join. The sad thing is, very few people understand this.

Under CAFTA, NAFTA, TRASHTA et al, all nations have the same amount of representatives. The U.S. gets one vote amoung all the nations in the agreement. The agreements are binding.

What these trade agreements accomplish, is to place our nation's self-determination in abeyance, while international commttees make the decisions that affect us.

You can see a problem with that, right?


54 posted on 02/18/2005 10:00:00 PM PST by DoughtyOne (US socialist liberalism would be dead without the help of politicians who claim to be conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: average american student

One more dot.

REAL ID BILL PASSES (Sensenbrenner's illegal alien bill passes, will be attached to Iraq bill)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340612/posts

NYC:New York Hits Online Sellers of Cigarettes
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1341931/posts

McDonald's to pay $8.5 million in trans fat lawsuit (Here we go)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1341733/posts

States Mull Taxing Drivers By Mile
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1343737/posts

Not to far off?
Ordering a pizza

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf


55 posted on 02/18/2005 10:45:29 PM PST by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
He's betrayed ever person in America.

There is nothing in this story to justify your remarks. We have great environmental standards in the US and the Central American countries have crappy environmental standards. Who is to saying any of the US standards will change? You are freaking out over the word environmental and I'm positive you no nothing about this agreement or what it calls for.

Unbelievable!!!

Yeah.

56 posted on 02/18/2005 11:29:15 PM PST by Once-Ler (Beating a dead horse for NeoCon America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler
We have great oppressive environmental standards in the US and the Central American countries have crappy environmental standards. so many of our businesses will relocate off shore. They are helped along by financial incentives they receive when they commit to the unconstitutional public/private partnerships that are the driving engine behind the "capacity building" in foreign countries by decreasing "capacity" here.
57 posted on 02/18/2005 11:35:14 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Good Lord! 6 computers!!! We could be talking about thousands of dollars just all for the pipe dream of billions of dollars in trade. It's insidious.

You guys are a riot.


58 posted on 02/18/2005 11:36:10 PM PST by Once-Ler (Beating a dead horse for NeoCon America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
These two statements of yours are contradictory. Care to clarify?

That's because there is a contradiction, although the second sentence is less than precise. It probably should have read, 'The opportunity to use of international law and the courts to dilute Constitutional protection of citizens' rights was cleary that document's most egregious flaw.'

The point is that there is a difference between what was the common understanding and intent of those who ratified the Constitution and the way its few loopholes have been used. The former is the real Constitution: the common understanding of enumerated powers granted to the Federal government by the people when they ratified the document. The latter, a set of words to re-interpret by legal ruse, with the intent of using the police power of government in a manner not originally alotted by the people.

The two aren't the same, althogh they both pertain to the Constitution.

Consider that phrase, "two thirds of Senators present." Two thirds of a bare quorum is still less than a majority. Why not require two thirds of the whole Senate when altering the supreme law of the land? Worse, note that the section bears no mention of requiring a quorum.

Think it doesn't happen? I know of one treaty which committed the entire land mass of the United States and all its financial resources to preventing ANY species from going extinct, effectively mandating a complete halt to natural selection, The Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. According to the Congressional Record, there was no recorded vote, no record of a quorum, no debate, nor were there any committee hearings. Worse, the cover letter from the Secretary of State, describing the scope of the treaty, conveniently omitted discussing the language that gave the treaty such massive scope!

There was NO ACTION on that treaty (there was no law attached to it), until forty years later.

Why not stipulate that terms of any treaty which exceed Constitutionally enumerated powers are void? I am told by those who should know that because the fledgling United States could not borrow money successfully from European powers as a loose confederation, and that certain requirements were stipulated (IIRC by the French) for a national government before they would loan the money.

Then there is the commerce clause...

It is my opinion, having read Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention debate, the Federalist, the anti-Federalist papers, Hume, some Hobbs, and Locke, etc., that those loopholes were intentional, else Hamilton would have not made such an effort to gloss them over. The argument made in Federalist 75 on the manner of the ratification of treaties is laughable.

59 posted on 02/18/2005 11:36:48 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
Under CAFTA, more than 80% of U.S. consumer and industrial exports and over half of U.S. farm exports to Central America would become duty-free immediately.

Thanks for finding this and posting. Whew! I was starting to think from the isolationist rhetoric being posted that the US was DOOMED to communism instead of more capitalism.

Unfortunately, I see none have replied so I guess they didn't think they had to read anything factual that might conflict with their knee-jerk hand-wringing.

60 posted on 02/18/2005 11:45:03 PM PST by Once-Ler (Beating a dead horse for NeoCon America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: libertyman
Peroutka (Constitution Party, who I voted for) & Badnarik (Libertarian Party).

Ha HA HA Ha snicker snicker snort.

a fellow Skull & Bones member to boot!

Bwa ha ha ha ha. ROTFLOL. Stop it you're killing me.

61 posted on 02/18/2005 11:50:30 PM PST by Once-Ler (Beating a dead horse for NeoCon America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler

I don't believe you are really ignorant of the amount of money that is sent south ever year that belongs to the US taxpayer. Are you just joking in hopes that Americans won't learn the truth?


62 posted on 02/18/2005 11:55:03 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
Instead of everyone leaving the Republican Party, we need to take it away from the RINO'S.

That is the only chance we have!

63 posted on 02/18/2005 11:57:55 PM PST by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler

CAFTA does not provide new tariff cuts for Central American goods. Already, most textile and apparel products enter the United States duty-free under the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) program.CAFTA allows such duty-free treatment for goods meeting a looser rule of origin--i.e. goods with less U.S. or Central American content--but nothing in CAFTA provides new cost-reducing benefits for the region. It just eliminates the requirement of U.S. fabric and other inputs to make the products that will continue to enter duty-free.

--opening the way for China to overwhelm the textile industry in the western hemisphere.


64 posted on 02/19/2005 12:01:44 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Kitten Festival

The United States has formed a new Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Trade is supposed to bring countries together, but this week Honduras and the Dominican Republic announced they were pulling their small troop contingents out of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. Their governments decided they would rather follow the example of the new Socialist regime in Spain than stay true to the commitments they made to their largest trading partner, the United States, which had just granted them commercial preferences.
--William R. Hawkins

What were you saying about steadfast allies?


65 posted on 02/19/2005 12:05:09 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
Enforce the Monroe Doctrine.
66 posted on 02/19/2005 12:06:20 AM PST by endthematrix (Declare 2005 as the year the battle for freedom from tax slavery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: average american student

PING


67 posted on 02/19/2005 12:08:56 AM PST by AnimalLover ((Are there special rules and regulations for the big guys?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
I don't believe you are really ignorant of the amount of money that is sent south ever year that belongs to the US taxpayer.

Please educate me on the amount and why it is being sent. If available, government sources are more convincing than your memory.

68 posted on 02/19/2005 12:09:20 AM PST by Once-Ler (Beating a dead horse for NeoCon America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Under CAFTA, more than 80% of U.S. consumer and industrial exports and over half of U.S. farm exports to Central America would become duty-free immediately.

If you read it again you will see it is talking about US exports to Central America not Central American imports to the US. Your comments about CBI are interesting but not on topic.

69 posted on 02/19/2005 12:13:26 AM PST by Once-Ler (Beating a dead horse for NeoCon America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: libertyman
If you had only known the # of times I've heard other folks say just what you said: "I like Peroutka, but I can't vote for him, 'cuz it's a wasted vote"...or "he can't win, so I gotta vote for President Bush". AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!! Speak about a self-fulfilling prophecy!

I NEVER said a vote for Peroutka was a "wasted vote." It just happened that the President would probably have to appoint a couple of Supreme Court Judges this term, and there was NO WAY that John Kerry would have appointed conservative judges. At the very least with Bush, we have a 50 -50 chance that he will appoint conservative judges. Those judges are life time appointments so this was not the election to take that chance.

The reason he couldn't win the election was 'cuz nobody would stand up for principle & vote for him. Quit using excuses, &, like the commercial once said, JUST DO IT. (I mean no disrespect in saying that, ok?).

The reason he couldn't win the vote is because people realized that even if he won, we would have 4 years with a do nothing President because he had NO support in Congress. I voted for the man that I thought would be best for me, my family and America. THAT is NOT an excuse, FRiend. :)

Whenever you come across a liberal, act as if you are voting for Nader or whoever else would take away votes from the Dims (they don't hafta know), learn the socialist talking points, & get THEM to to move even further Left.

I don't have time to play in little RAT games. :)

70 posted on 02/19/2005 12:14:12 AM PST by NRA2BFree (NO AMNESTY, NO UN, NO PC, NO BS, NO MSM, NO WHINY @SS LIBERAL BEDWETTERS, NO LIBERAL JUDGES! YEAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: JustAnotherSavage
What is a Secretariat?

If memory serves, he was a horse.


Secretariat

darn GOOD horse too ;-)

71 posted on 02/19/2005 5:57:40 AM PST by Condor51 (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Gen G Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
Under CAFTA, more than 80% of U.S. consumer and industrial exports and over half of U.S. farm exports to Central America would become duty-free immediately. To address asymmetrical development and transition issues, CAFTA specifies rules for lengthy tariff phase-out schedules as well as transitional safeguards and tariff rate quotas (TRQs) for sensitive goods.

Clearly, this is an unconstitutional restriction on the U.S. government's ability to intervene in the market. We're all going to lose our jobs! It's a race to the bottom!

72 posted on 02/19/2005 6:06:15 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: No phonys allowed

will there be emmigration available should we want to get the heck out of this overcrowded country??


73 posted on 02/19/2005 6:15:17 AM PST by television is just wrong (Our sympathies are misguided with illegal aliens...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; KiloLima
The agreements are aimed at strengthening environmental protection and creating a Secretariat for Environmental Matters to help implement the environmental provisions of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

Now are you sure that all this does is commit member nations to enforce their own environmental laws? If so, why is an "Environmental Secretariat" needed?

74 posted on 02/19/2005 6:45:31 AM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: television is just wrong
Lets just let them ALL come across the boarder !!!
All of the TRUE Conservitaves can move south Seal the boarder behind us and Start Over LOLROTF
75 posted on 02/19/2005 6:49:56 AM PST by Bevofox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: JohnBDay
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" - Article 2, Section 2

Fortunately (for the state) the Constitution "poses not serious threat to our form of government.".

In a semantic end run around the Constitution NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA and FTAA are all called "agreements" and not "treaties". Therefore the difficult to attain 2/3's senate vote requirement is neatly avoided.

76 posted on 02/19/2005 6:53:19 AM PST by NMC EXP (Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: average american student

No one is perfect, and I have yet to find a politician I agree with 100%. In the real world the political contributor come before the common citizen.
At least he’s a darn sight better than Hanoi John would have been.


77 posted on 02/19/2005 6:53:22 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
CAFTA requires that each nation enforce its own environmental laws and not circumvent them in an effort to undercut the costs of producing whatever product is being exported.

If anything, we over-enforce our own environmental laws, so this will have no effect on us. The panels that are being set up to hear complaints about labor law or environmental law are going to have an effect on these developing countries, but I can't see how it effects us.

There is nothing in CAFTA which gives it the power to change US law on any matter.

The people on this thread criticizing this agreement obviously know NOTHING about the actual agreement. This agreement so overwhelmingly benefits the US that it's amazing these other countries agreed to it.

78 posted on 02/19/2005 7:11:18 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
CAFTA does not provide new tariff cuts for Central American goods. Already, most textile and apparel products enter the United States duty-free under the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) program.

That's correct. But the important point is that it phases out the tariffs on American exports to those countries, which means we will sell more to them.

It also opens up their government monopolies on such things as insurance and phone and internet service to American competition. The end result is that American companies can expand and the citizens of those countries will get the benefits of competition in the marketplace, better service, and lower prices.

Everyone wins.

79 posted on 02/19/2005 7:17:15 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: average american student
Interesting topic. Thanks for the article.

I have had experience in transactions across the Canadian-USA border both before and after NAFTA and my experiences tell me there is no such thing as "free trade". These transactions cost plenty in fees and paperwork.

Also the transactions do not only take place between countrys. They take place between people and/or companys and no one works against their own best interests. There are always profits and benefits for both partys.

80 posted on 02/19/2005 7:30:31 AM PST by concrete is my business (keep your friends close and your enemies even closer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concrete is my business

Of course there are costs involved. The goal of "free trade" is the elimination of the tariffs which make trade prohibitive.


81 posted on 02/19/2005 7:39:21 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

You are right. My point is for the actual partys involved, the costs are often just shifted to a different column on the invoice. In my experience, real costs are not necessarily lowered and with Canadian-USA trade many costs have gone up. We had tons of duty free goods before NAFTA.


82 posted on 02/19/2005 7:47:49 AM PST by concrete is my business (keep your friends close and your enemies even closer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: No phonys allowed

CAFTA does not change any immigration laws. It even goes out of its way to state that explicitly.


83 posted on 02/19/2005 8:03:56 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler
Unfortunately, I see none have replied so I guess they didn't think they had to read anything factual that might conflict with their knee-jerk hand-wringing.

Yes, I had to read (some) it before I passed some type of judgment. To sum up CAFTA: trading without tariffs - good news for the free traders.

We are a suspicious lot here when it comes to international agreements and treatise - we don't trust any politician, may they trade on our Constitution.

84 posted on 02/19/2005 8:26:26 AM PST by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: average american student; Admin Moderator

Your title is misleading. Where does it say the president signed CAFTA?


85 posted on 02/19/2005 8:38:17 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
CAFTA requires that each nation enforce its own environmental laws

From the text of CAFTA. It requires that countries participating in it PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. IMPLEMENT this Agreement in a manner consistent with environmental protection and conservation, promote sustainable development, and strengthen their cooperation on environmental matters;

Sustainable development is a framework for a socialist system that uses the environment to take away property rights and undermine our Constitutional goverment. There are many many threads on this site that discuss sustainable development in depth and how it has affected our property rights, our education system, our system of laws and our sovereignty.

If you read the CAFTA agreement and understand the meaning of the words it uses, you will understand it gives central American countries signing up to it a legal means to affect US law in a number of areas through the tribunuals of the WTO and other INTERNATIONAL BODIES.

You haven't read the CAFTA have you? Plenty people on this site have read some or all of what the USTR cares to make public. There is PLENTY for sovereign Americans to fear in that unConstitutional trade agreement.

It is also a set up for creating a socialist union of states exactly like the European Union via the FTAA:

RECOGNIZE the interest of the Central American Parties in strengthening and
deepening their regional economic integration; and CONTRIBUTE to hemispheric integration and provide an impetus toward establishing the Free Trade Area of the Americas;

Economic integration is one step to the western hemispheric government.
Unlimited migration into the US is another.
86 posted on 02/19/2005 8:39:50 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Your title is misleading. Where does it say the president signed CAFTA?

1) The title says "signs on to CAFTA" it does not say "signed".

2) "signs on to" means tacit or explicit approval not a signature.

3) If you think bush's trade entourage agreed to the documents in question without bush's sanction and approval you are to put it kindly, mistaken.

4) Stand on your own hind legs and debate the issue - don't run to the AM.

Sheesh.

87 posted on 02/19/2005 8:44:14 AM PST by NMC EXP (Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
That's correct. But the important point is that it phases out the tariffs on American exports to those countries, which means we will sell more to them.

Their purchasing power is miniscule. What this agreement does is open up the Carribean as another path for China to flood the US markets with their products, especially textiles.

There is an extremely unhealthy favoritism in this administration toward China:

And the United States, China's Cold War enemy, is benignly watching the Asian economic superpower move into its backyard.

For decades China and Taiwan used dollar diplomacy to win over small Caribbean nations where small projects building roads, bridges, wells and fisheries go a long way.

But Beijing's growing economic clout is tipping the scales in the region.

Caribbean trade with China reached $2 billion last year, a 42.5 percent increase from 2003, the Chinese news agency Xinhua reported.

The United States has applauded China's economic offensive, seeing it as a herald of political reform.

"China's intensified interest in the Western Hemisphere does not imply a lack of focus by the United States," Roger Noriega, the U.S. assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere affairs, said in a recent letter to the editor of New Jersey's Newark Star Ledger.

"The United States has long stood for expansion of global trade and consolidating democracy."

This year, two Caribbean countries -- Dominica and Grenada -- switched allegiance to China, abandoning Taiwan, which China calls "a renegade province."


***
China is winning the geopolitical games. The US is giving away the store.
88 posted on 02/19/2005 8:47:17 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: NMC EXP
United States and Central America Sign Historic Free Trade Agreement
05/28/2004

Tariffs on 80% of U.S. Exports to Central America are Eliminated Immediately

WASHINGTON – U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick and Ministers of five Central American countries today signed the U.S. Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) a historic agreement that will eliminate tariffs and trade barriers and expand regional opportunities for the workers, manufacturers, consumers, farmers, ranchers and service providers of all the countries.

“For the United States, the signing of CAFTA opens a new chapter in the history of our relationship with Central America. CAFTA will put the U.S. relationship with Central America on a more solid mutual foundation, firmly grounded in our shared commitment to democracy, free markets, free people, and hope,” said Zoellick.

The signing of the final agreement, a 2,400 page document, took place in the Hall of the Americas at the headquarters of the Organization of American States (OAS), where President Bush first announced his plan to negotiate an FTA with Central America during a speech in January 2002.

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2004/May/United_States_Central_America_Sign_Historic_Free_Trade_Agreement.html
89 posted on 02/19/2005 8:50:31 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: demlosers

Why don't you read one of the agreements sometime. Maybe you could post the text. Readers will see for themselves that the agreements are only about trade in a small part. The other purposes of the agreements are clear, if you would only read them.


90 posted on 02/19/2005 8:52:15 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: NMC EXP
I might add, that the office of Trade Minister is unConstitutional, and if Congress had not abdicate their authority to regulate trade, Roberty Zoellick would not be able to sign anything. But there it is, from the US Trade Representatives office, Zoellick signs, Bush fasttracks, congress and the American people are shoved out of the loop.

The thing IS signed. The USTR says so.
91 posted on 02/19/2005 8:55:26 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
The signing of the final agreement, a 2,400 page document

1) "Agreement" - not a treaty therby bypassing the Constitution's requirement for a 2/3's senate vote to ratify.

2) "2,400 page" - which means it ain't about free trade. That would take one paragraph.

92 posted on 02/19/2005 8:56:28 AM PST by NMC EXP (Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

This treaty will effect a lot more than trade. It will strengthen our ties to Central America before Chavez widens his grasp to alienate them. You can be sure that Chavez intends to expand beyond his current borders, it is just a matter of time.


93 posted on 02/19/2005 9:02:44 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NMC EXP
"Agreement" - not a treaty therby bypassing the Constitution's requirement for a 2/3's senate vote to ratify.

Treaty language is embedded in the 2400 pages, which is the stealh method used to override constitutional protections. In fact many trade agreements sign on to implement UN rules, ILO labor regulations for example. Read the text for the Australia America FTA to see it.
94 posted on 02/19/2005 9:08:50 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Eva

Its going to make us more vulnerable to Chavez. He has already begun to form South American trading blocs, one called ALBA. This means countries siding with Chavez will still have unlimited immigration into the US when the FTAA is signed. Its is opening the door for a literal invasion of enemies to free society. Don't think for a minute they will play nice, with China's help, they will wreak havoc whenever they can.


95 posted on 02/19/2005 9:12:48 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: NMC EXP
1) The title says "signs on to CAFTA" it does not say "signed".

I was using the past tense, so it is irrelevant. The title in the thread is still misleading because the title in the article of VOA News says US, OAS Members Sign New Environmental Agreements and at the last paragraph it says:

The accords were signed in Washington D.C. Friday by senior representatives of the governments of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the United States.

It does not say the president signed it. and by the way I was correct when I said the title is misleading.

Read the article, and not just what you want to see

96 posted on 02/19/2005 9:15:57 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: JustAnotherSavage
What is a Secretariat?

It was the name of a race horse.

97 posted on 02/19/2005 9:19:08 AM PST by verity (The Liberal Media is America's Enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: verity; JustAnotherSavage

The NAFTA secretariat is defined as:

The NAFTA Secretariat, comprised of a Canadian Section, a Mexican Section and a United States Section, is responsible for the administration of the dispute settlement provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).


98 posted on 02/19/2005 9:25:41 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Where is your sense of humor?


99 posted on 02/19/2005 9:28:09 AM PST by verity (The Liberal Media is America's Enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: verity

I think JustAnotherSavage was interested in a serious answer. No offense to you.


100 posted on 02/19/2005 9:30:05 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-153 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson