<div> </div>
<div>Roger et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you think giving the UN more authority is a mistake, then what do you think about the WTO and NAFTA? The WTO as an organization and NAFTA as a trade agreement are both criticized by anti-globalization critics as lessening national sovereignty, but serving the interests of the multinational corporations and the class of super rich. Even Ross Perot during his presidential run mentioned the "sucking sound" of jobs lost to Mexico under NAFTA. The promises that NAFTA would open up a big market for US products in Mexico has proven so far to be false. It was thought that NAFTA would help solve the illegal immigration problem by furthering good paying jobs in Mexico, but we know this is so far not greatly true. Now they are planning a super highway from Mexico into the USA, potentially with Mexican trucks and drivers taking over some of the US trucking industry! Read about it at the link below:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497">http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>WTO rules and agreements that do not protect food safety in reality (maybe on paper) are one reason we have unsafe imports coming into the US, if I have my facts straight.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, it has been hoped the UN would help to stop war, genocide and improve human rights, but the Security Council is one road block to this goal. I understand that China's Security Council vote has blocked efforts to address the genocide in Darfur China has oil interests in the Sudan. Read about this at this link:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>A stronger UN might help to stop war and genocide...But the potential for abuse of this power is a matter of concern.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/23/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">lfalen</b> <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Ted<br>I think that much of what you say is correct. But giving more authority to a world body like the United Nations would make matters worse not better. Other than for The Security Council third world nations have an equal to that of the US. This would not improve health or environmental problems. The FDA and EPA should be strengthened The safety of all products coming into the US should be assured. I believe business should be based on the profit motive, with adequate government restrictions to insure safety and environmental concerns .
<br>Roger<br>-----Original message-----<br>From: "Ted Moffett" <a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a><br>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:33:07 -0700<br>To: lfalen <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">
lfalen@turbonet.com</a><br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Essay on Globalism by Ron Paul<br><br>> On 7/21/07, lfalen <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>><br>> > Having said that it is important to realize we live in a global society
<br>> > and market place. We have to be willing to compete in the global market.<br>> > Just do not place our laws second to anything else.<br>><br>><br>><br>> There are very problematic and apparently mutually exclusive rules governing
<br>> competing for profit in a global marketplace and not placing our laws second<br>> to anything else. Getting rid of trade barriers and government regulation<br>> of business has been promoted as a benefit to most all in an open worldwide
<br>> economy.<br>><br>> But the profit motive as a overriding rasion d'etre in the<br>> global economy with multinational corporations, will inexorably result in a<br>> disregard for some fundamental US domestic interests, US workers' wages and
<br>> jobs, safety and environmental law (Bush's "Clear Skies Act." Orwell would<br>> love it!), if not the US Constitution, etc.<br>><br>> How can US domestic businesses compete with businesses in nations with few
<br>> if any environmental or safety laws, without pressure to lower our standards<br>> that add costs to business? The EPA has lost power under the Bush<br>> administration:<br>><br>> Objections to Bush's "Clear Skies Act" from the National Council of
<br>> Churches:<br>><br>> <a href="http://www.ncccusa.org/news/04bushonair.html">http://www.ncccusa.org/news/04bushonair.html</a><br>><br>> Protection of the global climate is an essential requirement for faithful
<br>> human stewardship of God's creation on Earth. Our own National Academy of<br>> Sciences --- joining an overwhelming scientific consensus --- concluded in<br>> 2001 that carbon emissions from power plants are significantly contributing
<br>> to the increase in global warming. Yet, your initiative pointedly does not<br>> set mandatory standards of reduction for these emissions. A multi-pollutant<br>> approach must address all significant emissions from power plants, including
<br>> carbon emissions.<br>><br>> Clean air is as essential to life as a stable climate. Yet the Environmental<br>> Protection Agency reports that millions of Americans live in areas that have<br>> been deemed unhealthy to breathe. Power plants are the single greatest
<br>> source of industrial air pollution in the nation. The American Lung<br>> Association asserts that the attainment of reductions of sulfur dioxide,<br>> nitrogen oxides, and mercury that would take effect under the existing Clean
<br>> Air Act will be delayed for years if "Clear Skies" is adopted by Congress.<br>><br>> ---------------------<br>><br>> It is becoming increasing hard to separate what is an exclusively domestic
<br>> interest from an international one.<br>> For example, are US citizens expendable as warriors to protect the<br>> multinational economic system under the guise that they are protecting US<br>> citizens from attacks on our soil? The oil in the Middle East is not being
<br>> protected by our military just for US current or future consumption. Access<br>> to this oil is critical to keeping the multinational economic system<br>> functioning. It is argued that keeping this system functioning and
<br>> expanding is critical for US economic benefits, but at a cost to whom?<br>><br>> Ron Paul comments on the "elites" hypocritical pandering to the "American<br>> way" should be at the top of the list of political ruses for politicians.
<br>> -----------------------------------------<br>> Consider one issue that has been in the news recently, food safety. How can<br>> we allow free trade with other nations who may not follow our food safety<br>
> and testing standards without placing our laws second? The answer is we<br>> can't, not without very creative legislation that violates the spirit of the<br>> food safety laws. It's one thing to have standards in place, but without
<br>> the rigorous testing to enforce the laws, food safety is in name only:<br>><br>> U.S. food imports outrun FDA resources<br>><br>> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-03-18-food-safety-usat_N.htm">
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-03-18-food-safety-usat_N.htm</a><br>><br>> "The FDA has so few resources, all it can do is target high-risk things,<br>> give a pass to everything else and hope it is OK," says William Hubbard,a
<br>> former FDA associate commissioner who retired in 2005."The public probably<br>> has the perception … that they're more protected than they really are."<br>> --------------------<br>> Regarding another hot button issue that seems to defy political
<br>> partisanship, US jobs and wages, both so called liberals and conservatives<br>> raise questions about the loss of good paying jobs to cheap foreign labor,<br>> replaced by lower paying jobs. Of course the business and financial
<br>> "elites" that Ron Paul references pursue the cheapest labor they can find,<br>> anywhere in the world. If profit is their primary goal in competing in<br>> business, they'd be a fool not to. And even if they tried to show patriotic
<br>> loyalty to US workers by maintaining good paying US jobs, their less<br>> scrupulous competitors would force them out of business.<br>><br>> This story at the web link below is about cheap imported labor from India
<br>> into Dubai. And a Dubai company was going to take over US port security? I<br>> don't know of any egregious current examples in the US like this, but there<br>> is good data regarding lowering of wages in some professions, or loss of the
<br>> whole manufacturing base in some sectors, in the USA, from the influx of<br>> cheap "illegal immigrant" labor, and/or the moving of factories and<br>> businesses that take advantage of cheap abundant labor in other nations:
<br>><br>> <a href="http://news.aol.com/story/_a/dubai-skyscraper-becomes-worlds-tallest/20070721134709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001">http://news.aol.com/story/_a/dubai-skyscraper-becomes-worlds-tallest/20070721134709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
</a><br>><br>><br>> Most of the 4,000 laborers are from India.<br>><br>> Toiling in slave-like conditions in Dubai's sizzling summer with no set<br>> minimum wage and working in three shifts around the clock, they are building
<br>> the $1 billion skyscraper in the heart of Downtown Dubai, a 500-acre<br>> development project worth $20 billion.<br>><br>> Protests against labor abuse in Dubai are regularly recorded by human rights<br>
> groups but are rarely reported in local press. However, it's a prevailing<br>> belief the workers are happy with whatever pitiful salary they get to send<br>> home to dirt-poor families in India.<br>> --------------
<br>><br>> "...it's a prevailing belief the workers are happy..."<br>><br>> Sounds like the old south...Or a certain local religious leader...<br>> -------------------<br>> Simulation and hyper reality indeed!
<br>><br>> Politicians who are bought by the multinational economic system, wear the<br>> flag and salute! They simulate patriotism so well it is taken for reality,<br>> and the media delivers their patriotic holograms to float in peoples' homes
<br>> on their high definition wide screen monitors.<br>><br>> It is just as Baudrillard contends, if I can stretch his thinking onto the<br>> Procrustean bed of this theme... The simulation of patriotism for a strong
<br>> and independent nation, via modern media and tactics of advertising and<br>> marketing, public opinion surveying and focus groups, is projected and<br>> respected, while the real empire (the USA as a separate and sovereign
<br>> nation) is being undermined...Highly sophisticated psycho/social<br>> psychoanalytic methods are now applied with full force to the selling of<br>> politicians. Image is all. How else could Bush have won two elections for
<br>> president?<br>><br>> Globalism will win in the end...And US patriots will have holograms of the<br>> once sovereign and proud USA beamed into their compounds for "correct think"<br>> sessions...
<br>><br>> Ted Moffett<br>><br>><br></blockquote></div><br>