Exxon Prosecuted For Agreeing With The 83% Consensus

6 Responses to Exxon Prosecuted For Agreeing With The 83% Consensus

1. Jack Barton says:

   November 19, 2015 at 3:07 am

   Which led us to lies, damned lies, statistics and lunatic, leftwing über liberal logic.

   Reply
2. Gail Combs says:

   November 19, 2015 at 12:09 pm

   O/T but very important.

   Our concern is a treaty that locks us in to the CAGW insanity. While we focused on the Paris-ite Circus in December, I think it just got slipped in the back door.

   Thursday they just released the 5,544-page text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership The agreement involving 12 countries comprises nearly 40 percent of global economic output.

   I did read ALL of the Obummercare bill and the Food Safety Modernization bill but I just don’t have the will to read this monstrosity. I spent the morning looking at what various articles have to say.

   In light of Kent Clizbe’s concern over illegal immigration I was trying to find support for the skuttlebut that, like the EU there is open borders and no limit to movement.

   From The Hill by former Bill Clinton advisor Dick Morris

   The TPP, generally supported by pro-free-trade Republicans but opposed by labor-union Democrats, reportedly contains a barely noticed provision that allows for the free migration of labor among the signatory nations. Patterned after similar provisions in the treaties establishing the European Union, it would override national immigration restrictions in the name of facilitating the free flow of labor.

   The draft treaty, now under discussion among 12 Pacific Rim nations, including the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Vietnam and Japan, makes provision for needed labor to move across national boundaries without restraint. While much of the commentary on the deal has been focused on high-skill, white-collar migration, it could easily be interpreted as allowing farm workers and others to flow back and forth without legal regulation…..

   Curtis Ellis, executive director of the American Jobs Alliance, calls the trade deal “a Trojan horse for Obama’s immigration agenda” on The Hill’s Contributor’s blog. He notes that “one corporate trade association says bluntly that ‘The TPP should remove restrictions on nationality or residency requirements for the selection of personnel.’ ” http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/239633-dick-morris-tpp-mass-immigration

   I did finally find a Synopsis FROM THE US GOVERNMENT
   It had this nasty surprise:

   ENVIRONMENT
   As home to a significant portion of the world’s people, wildlife, plants and marine species, TPP Parties share a strong commitment to protecting and conserving the environment, including by working together to address environmental challenges, such as pollution, illegal wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, illegal fishing, and protection of the marine environment….
   They reaffirm their commitment to implement the multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) they have joined. The Parties commit to provide transparency in environmental decision-making, implementation and enforcement….. Finally, the Parties commit to cooperate to address matters of joint or common interest, including in the areas of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and transition to low-emissions and resilient economies.

   THE TEETH!
   Unlike some other treaties the TPP has enforcement. Worse, as can be seen if you read between the lines it has ENFORCEMENT FOR OTHER TREATIES! The Groniad says this about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement:

   Leading arbitration lawyer, George Kahale (chairman of Curtis, Mallet-Provost, Colt & Mosie LLP, an international law firm) says there are critical loopholes in the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s investment chapter that leave Australia wide open:

   ….an MFN clause is tantamount to a classic wipeout move. It would enable foreign corporations from TPP states to make a claim against Australia based on the ISDS provisions in any other trade deal Australia has signed, no matter which country it was signed with. That means it does not matter how carefully the TPP is drafted: foreign investors can cherrypick another treaty Australia has signed, and sue the Australian government based on the provisions included in that treaty…..”
   http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/10/tpps-clauses-that-let-australia-be-sued-are-weapons-of-legal-destruction-says-lawyer

   Back to the US Government synopsis we find:

   DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
   The Dispute Settlement chapter is intended to allow Parties to expeditiously address disputes between them over implementation of the TPP. ….TPP Parties aim to have these disputes resolved through impartial, unbiased panels. … hearings will be open to the public unless the disputing Parties otherwise agree, and the final report presented by panels will also be made available to the public. Panels will consider requests from non-governmental entities located in the territory of any disputing Party to provide written views regarding the dispute to panels during dispute settlement proceedings.

   Should consultations fail to resolve an issue, Parties may request establishment of a panel, which would be established within 60 days after the date of receipt of a request for consultations or 30 days after the date of receipt of a request related to perishable goods. Panels will be composed of three international trade and subject matter experts independent of the disputing Parties, with procedures available to ensure that a panel can be composed even if a Party fails to appoint a panelist within a set period of time. These panelists will be subject to a code of conduct to ensure the integrity of the dispute settlement mechanism. … The final report must be presented no later than 30 days after the presentation of the initial report and must be made public within 15 days, subject to the protection of any confidential information in the report.

   To maximize compliance, the Dispute Settlement chapter allows for the use of trade retaliation (e.g., suspension of benefits), if a Party found not to have complied with its obligations fails to bring itself into compliance with its obligations. Before use of trade retaliation, a Party found in violation can negotiate or arbitrate a reasonable period of time in which to remedy the breach….

   How about Immigration? And the adding of other countries without the approval of Congress?

   …. The TPP facilitates the development of production and supply chains, and seamless trade, enhancing efficiency and supporting our goal of creating and supporting jobs, raising living standards, enhancing conservation efforts, and facilitating cross-border integration, as well as opening domestic markets.

   Platform for regional integration. The TPP is intended as a platform for regional economic integration and designed to include additional economies across the Asia-Pacific region.…

   CROSS-BORDER TRADE IN SERVICES
   Given the growing importance of services trade to TPP Parties, the 12 countries share an interest in liberalized trade in this area….market access, which provides that no TPP country may impose quantitative restrictions on the supply of services (e.g., a limit on the number of suppliers or number of transactions) ….TPP Parties accept these obligations on a “negative-list basis,” meaning that their markets are fully open to services suppliers from TPP countries….TPP Parties agree to permit free transfer of funds related to the cross-border supply of a service. In addition, the chapter includes a professional services annex encouraging cooperative work on licensing recognition and other regulatory issues, and an annex on express delivery services.

   TEMPORARY ENTRY FOR BUSINESS PERSONS
   The Temporary Entry for Business Persons chapter encourages authorities of TPP Parties to provide information on applications for temporary entry, to ensure that application fees are reasonable, and to make decisions on applications and inform applicants of decisions as quickly as possible. TPP Parties agree to ensure that information on requirements for temporary entry are readily available to the public, including by publishing information promptly and online if possible, and providing explanatory materials. The Parties agree to ongoing cooperation on temporary entry issues such as visa processing. Almost all TPP Parties have made commitments on access for each other’s business persons, which are in country-specific annexes.

   RAH and Colorado will love this one. Lets let China make our Army equipment and North Korea our government Computers!

   GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
   TPP Parties share an interest in accessing each other’s large government procurement markets through transparent, predictable, and non-discriminatory rules….

   And what about our government services like the Post Office, drivers license bureau… Can’t leave those out.

   …In addition to updating traditional approaches to issues covered by previous free trade agreements (FTAs), the TPP incorporates new and emerging trade issues and cross-cutting issues. These include issues related to the Internet and the digital economy, the participation of state-owned enterprises in international trade and investment…

   Reply
   • Gail Combs says:

     November 19, 2015 at 12:20 pm

     Lew Rockwell’s Law: Whatever the name of a law states, the result will be the opposite.
     aka mirror-speak H/T Jett Rucker (@ Mises)

     As Rothbard wrote about the NAFTA myth:

     The folks who have brought us NAFTA and presume to call it “free trade” are the same people who call government spending “investment,” taxes “contributions,” and raising taxes “deficit reduction.” Let us not forget that the Communists, too, used to call their system “freedom.”

     Stolen from:
     https://mises.org/blog/tpp-and-trade-rhetoric

     Reply
3. au1corsair says:

   November 19, 2015 at 4:36 pm

   Scientific data doesn’t support the anthropogenic climate change narrative–so environmentalists must appeal to the court or become irrelevant, their agenda discredited.

   What will happen when Exxon wins?

   Reply
   • rah says:

     November 19, 2015 at 4:40 pm

     Maybe Exxon should counter sue just as Mark Steyn did?

     Reply
     • Gail Combs says:

       November 19, 2015 at 5:36 pm

       Good Idea, go after the green peas spokes idiots as individuals for slander/libel

       Reply