Yes, that's right, I said Phyllis Schlafly. She has read a bit and even quotes from the Gambling decision and also Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. Her main point seems to be that it's outrageous for the WTO to have authorized Antigua to "pirate" U.S. intellectual property. I'm not sure she's aware the rules explicitly provide for this. Thus, it's not clear if she's upset by the Arbitrator's decision or the rules themselves.
There was also this:
How is a foreign tribunal in Geneva able to put the United States in such a box? It's because the internationalist free-trade lobby cooked up a sleazy deal to force the World Trade Organization on Americans in 1994 during the week after Thanksgiving, when Americans were preoccupied with Christmas shopping and festivities.
Americans sure are easily distracted!
Her more general point about the WTO is the following:
The World Trade Organization is a direct attack on U.S. sovereignty because it claims it can force any nation to change its laws to comply with World Trade Organization rulings. Article XVI, paragraph 4, states: "Each Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations, and administrative procedures with its obligations." The World Trade Organization has the final say about whether U.S. laws meet World Trade Organization requirements.
In this presidential season, the World Trade Organization should make easy target practice for any candidate to speak up and defend U.S. sovereignty against globalists who, under the mantra of "free trade," willingly allow the World Trade Organization to say which laws the U.S. may or may not adopt.
While the majority of trade skeptics are on the left, this is a good illustration of trade skepticism from the right.
I can't figure out what her position on "free trade" is, though. She says: "The World Trade Organization is not 'free trade' at all, but is a supra-national body in Geneva that sets, manages and enforces World Trade Organization-made rules to govern global trade." But would she support "free trade" outside the context of trade agreements, like Ron Paul would? I don't see an answer in this piece.
