Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[bushdoctor215]

Just running his mouth and producing only evidence that he has, NO EVIDENCE. Voter fraud has occured in every state but he says. "Ron Paul is beating Romney in his own state." LOL. You would be the worst lawyer ever!

By his/her logic, maybe that`s because of eating shrooms for breakfast. Now I feel stupid for even engaging them. I am guilty for falling for it. I don`t think the creepy mouse is going to influence anyone who isn`t already a lost cause anyway. Certainly not going to get that person off the couch and motivate them to actually register and then vote. People need to be inspired with honesty. That is what the good doctor does so well...

 

[ShroomDr]

i dont work pro bono.

I dont run my mouth, i use my fingers, and youre rarely worth an actual response.

Is Mitt working hard to rig the Utah (READ: MORMON) vote too?

 

[trem0lo]

C'mon Shroom, keep it it civil. We're all friends here, and Paul supporters are particularly passionate. Surely you can respect that.

FYI the Paul campaign is not necessarily about winning NOW, it's about creating a long-term movement that slowly and surely replaces the corrupt GOP at every level. Currently we have won the plurarlity of delegates in a handful of states, which gives us some leverage at the convention.

Bottom line is Romney needs our supporters to win, but he'll have to defy his own donors (big banks and big business) to get them. That'll happen when pigs fly. And the Paul supporters won't vote for anyone else. It will be an interesting convention in Tampa this summer for sure.

 

[bentom187]

i found a very intresting website you guys may want to check out. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G001

The Book and Author


When a reviewer wishes to give special recognition to a book, he predicts that it will still be read "a hundred years from now." The Law, first published as a pamphlet in June, 1850, is already more than a hundred years old. And because its truths are eternal, it will still be read when another century has passed. Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before — and immediately following — the Revolution of February 1848. This was the period when France was rapidly turning to complete socialism. As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Bastiat was studying and explaining each socialist fallacy as it appeared. And he explained how socialism must inevitably degenerate into communism. But most of his countrymen chose to ignore his logic. The Law is here presented again because the same situation exists in America today as in the France of 1848. The same socialist-communist ideas and plans that were then adopted in France are now sweeping America. The explanations and arguments then advanced against socialism by Mr. Bastiat are — word for word — equally valid today. His ideas deserve a serious hearing.


Frédéric Bastiat


The Law

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.



Life Is a Gift from God


We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

 

[bentom187]

americans elect is a scam!

[YOUTUBEIF]j2-5noa0gSw[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[GP73LPC]

The delegates are WORTHLESS according to RNC rules, unless youve won a plurality of the delegates in 5 states.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 2012_Republican National Convention# Delegate count



Every one of Ron Pauls delegates are WORTHLESS unless he wins 5 states. Wake up, its right there in the RNC rules.



Im not trying to discredit anyone, im pointing out obvious facts you blind RonPaul-iacs fail to acknowledge.

I keep saying i want him to run 3rd party, how does that morph into discrediting?



-

[YOUTUBEIF]UQMtlah4Iec[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[ShroomDr]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Beer Hall Putsches!

"win insiders over by making the outsiders more appropriate"

Sounds more like Vito Corleone or Lucky Luciano than the champion of democracy...



-

 

[GP73LPC]

it's sick American politics at it's slimiest... but legal... the GOP will hear from RP delegates at the convention. should be interesting to hear them roar, but nothing will come of it. Goldman Sachs already paid for the final ending

 

[ShroomDr]

ive certainly never said it wasnt legal... just less than noble.

Its certainly not the Plato, Socrates or Cicero way.

Im all for 'Fight fire with fire'; Ron Paul seems to claim to be above it, he obviously is not (and this is the point ive been trying to make).

 

[dagnabit]

Champion of democracy?

Who is that?
Democracy is not what the good doctor champions.

Why would he?

 

[SpasticGramps]

ive certainly never said it wasnt legal... just less than noble.

Its certainly not the Plato, Socrates or Cicero way.

Im all for 'Fight fire with fire'; Ron Paul seems to claim to be above it, he obviously is not (and this is the point ive been trying to make).

Plato believed in a strong authoritarian rule if anything of value was to be achieved. Plato's Republic is normally seen as a defense of authoritarian rule by an elitist ruling class of philosophers.

Socrates was just Aristotle's mouthpiece. Aristotle believed in man as a social animal who needed a sense of participation in his own destiny. He espoused a much looser, more collaborative, less authoritarian approach.

Two completely different and contrasting philosophies.

Ron Paul isn't a champion for democracy. He is a champion for the ideals of liberty enshrined in the spirit of the bill of rights and constitution.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Today's society strikes me as what happens when Plato's Republic get's taken to the extreme and faces it's inevitable failure as the proletariat are marginalized and victimized by a ruling class of pseudo-intellectuals who fancy themselves smarter than "we the people."

 

[BrnCow]

 

[ShroomDr]

youre correct, i was in typing the thinking in a hurry, i ment Aristotle not plato.

I would also agree with you here

"Ron Paul isn't a champion for democracy. He is a champion for the ideals of liberty enshrined in the spirit of the bill of rights and constitution."

The only problem is his (blind) supporters do not draw the distinction. I still feel my point is valid, Ron Paul is (attempting to) exploit the system, his supporters have no problem with this (if they are aware).

Im not saying Mitt and his fat cats dont use/exploit aspect too. Hell the money in politics is ruining any semblance of Democracy, but at least Mitt is going after popular votes and delegates.

If Mitt promised $100 for every person who voted for him, i would still find that slightly more 'attractive' than Ron Paul's 'delegate' approach.

One is gaining the support of the people, the other is using/exploiting/gaming the system. (Neither is particularly attractive).

-

 

[T_B_M]

How do you exploit the system when those are the rules? You know....Robert's Rules of Order?

 

[itisme]

How do you exploit the system when those are the rules? You know....Robert's Rules of Order?

Good quesgtion.

 

[itisme]

Ron Paul Statement on EPA Administrator Resignation

“If I am elected President, I will end the EPA's harassment of Texans, and all Americans, on my first day in office.” – Ron Paul
May 01, 2012 12:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time


LAKE JACKSON, Texas--(EON: Enhanced Online News)--Congressman and GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement regarding the resignation of Al Armendariz from the position of Region VI Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mr. Armendariz's jurisdiction included Texas, and his resignation follows a public outcry over remarks comparing the EPA to Roman soldiers, who would "crucify" American businesses that did not obey EPA dictates.


“Actions speak louder than words, and the EPA’s actions toward small businesses, farmers, and local communities in Texas clearly show that Mr. Armendariz's desire to figuratively crucify Americans with excessive regulations is an agency-wide sentiment.”
.
See comments below:

“Last week, I joined my GOP colleagues in the Texas delegation in calling for Mr. Armendariz's removal. So I am pleased with his resignation. However, I do not expect Mr. Armendariz's resignation to change anything at the EPA.

“Actions speak louder than words, and the EPA’s actions toward small businesses, farmers, and local communities in Texas clearly show that Mr. Armendariz's desire to figuratively crucify Americans with excessive regulations is an agency-wide sentiment.

“For example, Matagorda County, in my congressional district, is currently battling the EPA over its claim that the county is an 'Ozone Nonattainment Region,' even though emissions from the county have declined in recent years! This is just one of many examples of how the EPA has abused its authority by imposing onerous, job-destroying regulations on Texas' communities, businesses, and individuals.

“Obviously, the EPA's harassment of Texans will continue if President Obama is reelected. However, there is little in the record, as opposed to the rhetoric, of Governor Mitt Romney to suggest that he will act aggressively to rein in the administrative state.

“If I am elected President, I will end the EPA's harassment of Texans, and all Americans, on my first day in office. My Plan to Restore America not only cuts one trillion dollars of spending and balances the budget by the third year of my presidency, while cutting taxes, but it also imposes a moratorium on all new federal regulations.

“The people of Texas know better than anyone else in the nation that I am the only candidate they can trust to Restore America Now by cutting the federal government down to constitutional size.”

http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20120501006628/en

 

[bentom187]

He's now on the ballot at the RNC http://video.foxnews.com/v/1618128299001/

*Ron Paul to speak Wednesday at 7 pm at Cal Fullerton MOVED TO TITAN STADIUM SEATS 10,000*

get voucher to let you in, here:

http://ronpaulatfullerton-eorg.eventbrite.com/

 

[trem0lo]

If Mitt promised $100 for every person who voted for him, i would still find that slightly more 'attractive' than Ron Paul's 'delegate' approach.

One is gaining the support of the people, the other is using/exploiting/gaming the system. (Neither is particularly attractive).

-

Do you even know how the delegate/nomination process works and why it was put into place? Please read up on the difference between caucus and primary states and how they award delegates before you make yourself look more foolish.

Also please explain how Ron Paul supporters showing up at their local conventions to vote in a 100% legal democratic process is gaming the system.

You do realize that the GOP has been gaming the system since 2008 against Ron Paul. You know what they did in Nevada at the state convention in 2008 when Ron Paul was going to win? The local party left and turned off the lights. And they sent zero delegates the the national convention. They also stole the Louisiana delegate slate, but that's a different story of corruption.

So you can understand why Ron Paul supporters are generally pissed off with TPTB.

 

[itisme]

Talk about gaming the system....How many executive orders with this chump pass?

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c...international-law-for-the-united-states/14439

Obama Signs Executive Order Declaring International Law for the United States

On May 1, 2012, our Glorious Leader, Premier Barack Obama AKA Barry Soetoro AKA Barry the Rat, signed yet another Executive Order – Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation. This dictate is designed to standardize regulations between the United States and it’s so called trading partners.

What is a regulation? A law. So what is actually being attempted here is a standardization of international law. It is an absolute violation of the Constitution for the United States to legislate our law outside of our borders.

Considering the many international security agreements the traitors occupying our highest seats of power have entered into, this latest executive order can absolutely be used to institute gun confiscation laws/regulations, without any consent by our Congress or our Judicial. And once these foreign laws are brought to the United States under the various security agreements, foreign troops will be brought in to enforce the foreign laws upon the people of the United States.

So look at what we have now.
■The Patriot Act which allows unlimited spying on the American people by the government.
■The National Defense Authorization Act with Sections 1021 and 1022 for the military arrests and indefinite detention of American nationals without any due process of the law.
■HR 347 Trespass Law for the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act upon any citizen who dares to speak out against the insurgency.
■Executive Order National Defense Resources Preparedness Act, which allows the dictator to confiscate every resource of the United States, including we the people as conscripts to be put in servitude to the insurgency.

This is exactly what the Bolsheviks did to the Russian people in 1917. Now we have this new executive order for the implementation of laws not legislated by our Congress. If we were to allow ourselves to be disarmed by these international soviet socialists, the next step would be to eliminate everyone who refuses to acquiesce to collective slavery.

This latest executive order is nothing more than another act of blatant treason and we the American people must reject it absolutely.

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- – - – - – -
PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY COOPERATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote international regulatory cooperation, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), states that our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. In an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of Executive Order 13563.

The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Sec. 2. Coordination of International Regulatory Cooperation. (a) The Regulatory Working Group (Working Group) established by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), which was reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, shall, as appropriate:
(i) serve as a forum to discuss, coordinate, and develop a common understanding among agencies of U.S. Government positions and priorities with respect to:
(A) international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulatory actions;
(B) efforts across the Federal Government to support significant, cross-cutting international regulatory cooperation activities, such as the work of regulatory cooperation councils; and

(C) the promotion of good regulatory practices internationally, as well as the promotion of U.S. regulatory approaches, as appropriate; and

(ii) examine, among other things:

(A) appropriate strategies for engaging in the development of regulatory approaches through international regulatory cooperation, particularly in emerging technology areas, when consistent with section 1 of this order;

(B) best practices for international regulatory cooperation with respect to regulatory development, and, where appropriate, information exchange and other regulatory tools; and

(C) factors that agencies should take into account when determining whether and how to consider other regulatory approaches under section 3(d) of this order.

(b) As Chair of the Working Group, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall convene the Working Group as necessary to discuss international regulatory cooperation issues as described above, and the Working Group shall include a representative from the Office of the United States Trade Representative and, as appropriate, representatives from other agencies and offices.

(c) The activities of the Working Group, consistent with law, shall not duplicate the efforts of existing interagency bodies and coordination mechanisms. The Working Group shall consult with existing interagency bodies when appropriate.

(d) To inform its discussions, and pursuant to section 4 of Executive Order 12866, the Working Group may commission analytical reports and studies by OIRA, the Administrative Conference of the United States, or any other relevant agency, and the Administrator of OIRA may solicit input, from time to time, from representatives of business, nongovernmental organizations, and the public.

(e) The Working Group shall develop and issue guidelines on the applicability and implementation of sections 2 through 4 of this order.

(f) For purposes of this order, the Working Group shall operate by consensus.

Sec. 3. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies. To the extent permitted by law, and consistent with the principles and requirements of Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866, each agency shall:

(a) if required to submit a Regulatory Plan pursuant to Executive Order 12866, include in that plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, with an explanation of how these activities advance the purposes of Executive Order 13563 and this order;

(b) ensure that significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts are designated as such in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, on RegInfo.gov, and on Regulations.gov;

(c) in selecting which regulations to include in its retrospective review plan, as required by Executive Order 13563, consider:

(i) reforms to existing significant regulations that address unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements between the United States and its major trading partners, consistent with section 1 of this order, when stakeholders provide adequate information to the agency establishing that the differences are unnecessary; and

(ii) such reforms in other circumstances as the agency deems appropriate; and

(d) for significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts, consider, to the extent feasible, appropriate, and consistent with law, any regulatory approaches by a foreign government that the United States has agreed to consider under a regulatory cooperation council work plan.

Sec. 4. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) “Agency” means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

(b) “International impact” is a direct effect that a proposed or final regulation is expected to have on international trade and investment, or that otherwise may be of significant interest to the trading partners of the United States.

(c) “International regulatory cooperation” refers to a bilateral, regional, or multilateral process, other than processes that are covered by section 6(a)(ii), (iii), and (v) of this order, in which national governments engage in various forms of collaboration and communication with respect to regulations, in particular a process that is reasonably anticipated to lead to the development of significant regulations.

(d) “Regulation” shall have the same meaning as “regulation” or “rule” in section 3(d) of Executive Order 12866.

(e) “Significant regulation” is a proposed or final regulation that constitutes a significant regulatory action.

(f) “Significant regulatory action” shall have the same meaning as in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Sec. 5. Independent Agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof;

(ii) the coordination and development of international trade policy and negotiations pursuant to section 411 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2451) and section 141 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171);

(iii) international trade activities undertaken pursuant to section 3 of the Act of February 14, 1903 (15 U.S.C. 1512), subtitle C of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended (15 U.S.C. 4721 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2171 note);

(iv) the authorization process for the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(c) and its implementing regulations (22 C.F.R. 181.4) and implementing procedures (11 FAM 720);

(v) activities in connection with subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31 of the United States Code, title 26 of the United States Code, or Public Law 111-203 and other laws relating to financial regulation; or

(vi) the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

 

[itisme]

Talk about gaming the system....How many executive orders with this chump pass?

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c...international-law-for-the-united-states/14439

Obama Signs Executive Order Declaring International Law for the United States

On May 1, 2012, our Glorious Leader, Premier Barack Obama AKA Barry Soetoro AKA Barry the Rat, signed yet another Executive Order – Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation. This dictate is designed to standardize regulations between the United States and it’s so called trading partners.

What is a regulation? A law. So what is actually being attempted here is a standardization of international law. It is an absolute violation of the Constitution for the United States to legislate our law outside of our borders.

Considering the many international security agreements the traitors occupying our highest seats of power have entered into, this latest executive order can absolutely be used to institute gun confiscation laws/regulations, without any consent by our Congress or our Judicial. And once these foreign laws are brought to the United States under the various security agreements, foreign troops will be brought in to enforce the foreign laws upon the people of the United States.

So look at what we have now.
■The Patriot Act which allows unlimited spying on the American people by the government.
■The National Defense Authorization Act with Sections 1021 and 1022 for the military arrests and indefinite detention of American nationals without any due process of the law.
■HR 347 Trespass Law for the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act upon any citizen who dares to speak out against the insurgency.
■Executive Order National Defense Resources Preparedness Act, which allows the dictator to confiscate every resource of the United States, including we the people as conscripts to be put in servitude to the insurgency.

This is exactly what the Bolsheviks did to the Russian people in 1917. Now we have this new executive order for the implementation of laws not legislated by our Congress. If we were to allow ourselves to be disarmed by these international soviet socialists, the next step would be to eliminate everyone who refuses to acquiesce to collective slavery.

This latest executive order is nothing more than another act of blatant treason and we the American people must reject it absolutely.

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- – - – - – -
PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY COOPERATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote international regulatory cooperation, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), states that our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. In an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of Executive Order 13563.

The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Sec. 2. Coordination of International Regulatory Cooperation. (a) The Regulatory Working Group (Working Group) established by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), which was reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, shall, as appropriate:
(i) serve as a forum to discuss, coordinate, and develop a common understanding among agencies of U.S. Government positions and priorities with respect to:
(A) international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulatory actions;
(B) efforts across the Federal Government to support significant, cross-cutting international regulatory cooperation activities, such as the work of regulatory cooperation councils; and

(C) the promotion of good regulatory practices internationally, as well as the promotion of U.S. regulatory approaches, as appropriate; and

(ii) examine, among other things:

(A) appropriate strategies for engaging in the development of regulatory approaches through international regulatory cooperation, particularly in emerging technology areas, when consistent with section 1 of this order;

(B) best practices for international regulatory cooperation with respect to regulatory development, and, where appropriate, information exchange and other regulatory tools; and

(C) factors that agencies should take into account when determining whether and how to consider other regulatory approaches under section 3(d) of this order.

(b) As Chair of the Working Group, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall convene the Working Group as necessary to discuss international regulatory cooperation issues as described above, and the Working Group shall include a representative from the Office of the United States Trade Representative and, as appropriate, representatives from other agencies and offices.

(c) The activities of the Working Group, consistent with law, shall not duplicate the efforts of existing interagency bodies and coordination mechanisms. The Working Group shall consult with existing interagency bodies when appropriate.

(d) To inform its discussions, and pursuant to section 4 of Executive Order 12866, the Working Group may commission analytical reports and studies by OIRA, the Administrative Conference of the United States, or any other relevant agency, and the Administrator of OIRA may solicit input, from time to time, from representatives of business, nongovernmental organizations, and the public.

(e) The Working Group shall develop and issue guidelines on the applicability and implementation of sections 2 through 4 of this order.

(f) For purposes of this order, the Working Group shall operate by consensus.

Sec. 3. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies. To the extent permitted by law, and consistent with the principles and requirements of Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866, each agency shall:

(a) if required to submit a Regulatory Plan pursuant to Executive Order 12866, include in that plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, with an explanation of how these activities advance the purposes of Executive Order 13563 and this order;

(b) ensure that significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts are designated as such in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, on RegInfo.gov, and on Regulations.gov;

(c) in selecting which regulations to include in its retrospective review plan, as required by Executive Order 13563, consider:

(i) reforms to existing significant regulations that address unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements between the United States and its major trading partners, consistent with section 1 of this order, when stakeholders provide adequate information to the agency establishing that the differences are unnecessary; and

(ii) such reforms in other circumstances as the agency deems appropriate; and

(d) for significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts, consider, to the extent feasible, appropriate, and consistent with law, any regulatory approaches by a foreign government that the United States has agreed to consider under a regulatory cooperation council work plan.

Sec. 4. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) “Agency” means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

(b) “International impact” is a direct effect that a proposed or final regulation is expected to have on international trade and investment, or that otherwise may be of significant interest to the trading partners of the United States.

(c) “International regulatory cooperation” refers to a bilateral, regional, or multilateral process, other than processes that are covered by section 6(a)(ii), (iii), and (v) of this order, in which national governments engage in various forms of collaboration and communication with respect to regulations, in particular a process that is reasonably anticipated to lead to the development of significant regulations.

(d) “Regulation” shall have the same meaning as “regulation” or “rule” in section 3(d) of Executive Order 12866.

(e) “Significant regulation” is a proposed or final regulation that constitutes a significant regulatory action.

(f) “Significant regulatory action” shall have the same meaning as in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Sec. 5. Independent Agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof;

(ii) the coordination and development of international trade policy and negotiations pursuant to section 411 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2451) and section 141 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171);

(iii) international trade activities undertaken pursuant to section 3 of the Act of February 14, 1903 (15 U.S.C. 1512), subtitle C of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended (15 U.S.C. 4721 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2171 note);

(iv) the authorization process for the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(c) and its implementing regulations (22 C.F.R. 181.4) and implementing procedures (11 FAM 720);

(v) activities in connection with subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31 of the United States Code, title 26 of the United States Code, or Public Law 111-203 and other laws relating to financial regulation; or

(vi) the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA