PDA

View Full Version : Phyllis Schlafly: Time to Say Goodbye to the WTO




LibertyEagle
08-02-2011, 01:23 AM
You may not agree with everything in the article, but she sure is right about the WTO.

Time to Say Goodbye to the WTO
by Phyllis Schlafly

http://www.eagleforum.org/gif/ps-r3.gif


The World Trade Organization just ruled against the United States again. A "dispute resolution panel" of WTO representatives from Pakistan, Portugal and Switzerland ruled that U.S. laws requiring Country Of Origin Labeling (COOL) violate free trade.

It's time for the United States to wave goodbye to this impertinent new-world-order bunch of bureaucrats in Geneva (a sort of Economic United Nations) who think they can dictate our trade policies. That's unconstitutional anyway because the U.S. Constitution specifically gives Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations."

The WTO is based on the one-country, one-vote pattern. That means the United States has no veto and only one vote out of 153 nations, the same vote as Cuba or Grenada or Rwanda. The WTO's Dispute Settlement Board deliberates and votes in secret, decides trade disputes, and cannot be vetoed by any nation.

Americans want to know where our foods come from, especially since nearly two-thirds of the fruits and vegetables and 80 percent of the seafood we eat come from foreign countries where health and sanitary standards are not remotely equivalent to ours. And we have a right to know, despite impudent foreigners who seek to deny us that right, and some U.S. retailers who want to conceal, how many foreign meats are ground into hamburger.

We've had media coverage of the deadly E.coli outbreak in Germany, but very little coverage of the production peculiarities common in Communist China, where fish is raised in waters containing raw sewage disguised with dangerous drugs and chemicals. Several years ago, China sold us pet food containing melamine, a chemical used to make plastics and fertilizers, causing hundreds of our dogs and cats to die.

continued... (http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/july11/11-07-22.html)

erowe1
08-02-2011, 05:03 AM
The Eagle Forum is a good example of how the religious right has a lot more natural allies of Ron Paul than the left-libertarian types like to imagine.

Napoleon's Shadow
08-02-2011, 06:54 AM
Word is that she likes Ron, but doesn't think he is viable.

erowe1
08-02-2011, 07:27 AM
Word is that she likes Ron, but doesn't think he is viable.

There are tons and tons of people like that.

I frankly don't blame them.

But they all have their thresholds for a candidate to prove they're viable, and with each step upwards that RP takes, he crosses more of those mental thresholds in potential supporters' minds, who then become actual supporters, which pushes him higher, so as to cross the higher mental thresholds that others have.

We just have to keep this snowball rolling, and there is a huge amount of yet untapped support out there to be gotten.

LibertyEagle
08-04-2011, 10:57 PM
I received an invitation to attend this, but unfortunately I cannot. I wanted to show this to you guys, because I thought it was interesting that one of their sessions is on "How to Pass Pro-Life State Laws that Save Babies". Not federal, but state.

http://i799.photobucket.com/albums/yy272/Nancy12345a/Schafly-1.png

erowe1
08-05-2011, 06:13 AM
I received an invitation to attend this, but unfortunately I cannot. I wanted to show this to you guys, because I thought it was interesting that one of their sessions is on "How to Pass Pro-Life State Laws that Save Babies". Not federal, but state.


Interesting. The phrase "that save babies" is no accident either. Most of the things pro-lifers get the most excited about are symbolic gestures that don't save babies, like the partial-birth abortion ban, the Mexico City policy, appointing judges, or redirecting funds from Planned Parenthood to some other abortion provider that has a different name.