WTF, Obama?!?!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 8:31 PM GMT
    Obama Trade Document Leaked, Revealing New Corporate Powers And Broken Campaign Promises

    "Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.

    The terms run contrary to campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 campaign."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html?icid=hp_front_top_art

    WTH is this all about?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jun 13, 2012 8:41 PM GMT
    It would appear that The Obama Administration is in the middle of the 2nd bad week in a row. Still to come in June...major Supreme Court rulings on Immigration and ObamaCare that aren't likely to go Obama's way either. The whole month may be bad for The Obama Administration
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 8:47 PM GMT
    Caslon19000 saidObama Trade Document Leaked, Revealing New Corporate Powers And Broken Campaign Promises

    "Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.

    The terms run contrary to campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 campaign."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html?icid=hp_front_top_art

    WTH is this all about?

    I don't think the environment is at issue. The real goal is what I bolded. Obama and much of the far left consider themselves as global citizens and are interested in increasing the power of international bodies and reducing sovereign rights of states. To them, "One World" is more than a slogan and why he really does not buy into American exceptionalism.

    The major eye opener is the current debate on the Law of the Sea Treaty being proposed to turn over much of the earth to the UN.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/julieborowski/2012/05/31/the_uns_law_of_the_sea_treaty_threatens_our_national_sovereignty/page/full/

    The latest threat to U.S. sovereignty is the United Nations’ Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) that is being pushed by the Obama administration. LOST rises from the dead every few years. For more than thirty years, the United States has refused to become a party to LOST for good reasons. But this could be the year that the United States surrenders its sovereignty over the seas to an international body if Obama gets his way.

    Under this treaty, the U.N. would have control over 71 percent of the Earth’s surface. This would be a huge step towards global governance. The Senate may vote to ratify the sea treaty as early as next week. President Ronald Reagan rejected LOST back in 1982, stating it would grant the U.N. the power to tax U.S. companies and redistribute wealth from developed to undeveloped nations.

    For the first time in history, the U.N. would have the authority to collect taxes from U.S. citizens. The thought of global taxation should send goose bumps down the spine of every American.

    Any form of global taxation would be a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. American citizens are already overtaxed and overregulated. The last thing we need is an unelected, unconstitutional international body imposing even more harmful taxes and regulations on us. LOST could end up costing trillions of dollars and the American people would have no say on how the money is spent.

    If the U.S. ratifies LOST, U.S. energy companies would be forced to pay a part of their royalties to the International Seabed Authority in Kingston, Jamaica. This supra-national governing body would be tasked with the mission of distributing revenue to “developing states” such as Somalia, Zimbabwe, and Burma. Like all forms of foreign “aid”, it’s likely that a big chunk of this money will end up in the hands of corrupt dictators thus propping up authoritarian regimes.

    The U.N. would be granted the power to regulate deep-sea exploration in U.S. waters. LOST would do irreparable harm to U.S. companies by forcing them to comply with global environmental rules. The treaty would create a new international tribunal known as the International Tribunal of LOST (ITLOS) to adjudicate a number of different issues.


    More on site ...

    Just to add, this is another of the huge differences between Obama and Romney HUGE
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 8:50 PM GMT
    "The real goal is what I bolded. Obama and much of the far left consider themselves as global citizens and are interested in increasing the power of international bodies and reducing sovereign rights of states. To them, "One World" is more than a slogan and why he really does not buy into American exceptionalism."

    There's your answer IMO.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 10:16 PM GMT
    I love all the bashing here about this (of which I think is bull "the deal" anyway) But.. Not one mention of the last line of this article.. I wonder why!

    Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.

    Well, Romney lovers?icon_question.gificon_question.gificon_question.gificon_question.gificon_question.gificon_question.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 10:42 PM GMT
    Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.

    Why?

    "While the current trade deal could pose a challenge to American sovereignty, large corporations headquartered in the U.S. could potentially benefit from it by using the same terms to oppose the laws of foreign governments. If one of the eight Pacific nations involved in the talks passes a new rule to which an American firm objects, that U.S. company could take the country to court directly in international tribunals.
    ...
    In early June, a tribunal at the World Bank agreed to hear a case involving similar foreign investment standards, in which El Salvador banned cyanide-based gold mining on the basis of objections from the Catholic Church and environmental activists. If the World Bank rules against El Salvador, it could overturn the nation's domestic laws at the behest of a foreign corporation."

    Who says Obama is antibusiness again?

    Of course, if Mitt Romney does this, it's pro-business. If Obama does it, he's a traitor to US sovereignty. (Just as much as Romneycare is successful and laudable by Republicans as Obamacare is "unconstitutional" by the same people who proposed individual mandates in the first place)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 11:08 PM GMT
    I dont think this business of international tribunals overruling the laws of a country is a good idea at all no matter what country it is.

    Who controls the tribunals? How do people get to have a say in their selection?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 11:13 PM GMT
    Caslon19000 saidI dont think this business of international tribunals overruling the laws of a country is a good idea at all no matter what country it is.

    Who controls the tribunals? How do people get to have a say in their selection?
    I agree with you.. but Romney seems to think that idea great!icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2012 11:22 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    Caslon19000 saidI dont think this business of international tribunals overruling the laws of a country is a good idea at all no matter what country it is.

    Who controls the tribunals? How do people get to have a say in their selection?
    I agree with you.. but Romney seems to think that idea great!icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif

    Obama seems to be gung-ho for it, too.

    It smacks of big business up to no-good with their total disregard for the wellfare of their country or any country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2012 12:02 AM GMT
    Caslon19000 said
    TropicalMark said
    Caslon19000 saidI dont think this business of international tribunals overruling the laws of a country is a good idea at all no matter what country it is.

    Who controls the tribunals? How do people get to have a say in their selection?
    I agree with you.. but Romney seems to think that idea great!icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif

    Obama seems to be gung-ho for it, too.

    It smacks of big business up to no-good with their total disregard for the wellfare of their country or any country.


    That's the issue here. It's what Big Business wants, so both parties will support it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2012 8:49 PM GMT
    He should just cut his losses and head back to Kenya. Ammirite?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14305

    Jun 14, 2012 10:23 PM GMT
    Both democrats and republicans are bought and sold to the wealthiest bidder. Go figure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2012 8:54 PM GMT
    it's June, not October...relax huffNpuffers.