16 year Study concludes NAFTA is a complete failure.

Author Topic: 16 year Study concludes NAFTA is a complete failure.  (Read 20460 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TBroads

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Ron Paul Supporter
16 year Study concludes NAFTA is a complete failure.
« on: October 31, 2007, 10:01:54 AM »
NAFTA is really the "Second Fighting Of The Alamo"... I hope Texans will continue to uphold the traditions of their forefathers until reinforcements (the rest of the nation) can come to their aid.

Alex's "Battle For The Republic" needs to be watched... again and again...

WAKE UP AMERICA...

| - - - - -


NAFTA at 20 -  A Complete Failure for US - a Success for the NWO

Download:
Quote
http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

NAFTA’s 20-Year Legacy
and the Fate of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
www.tradewatch.org - February 2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html
NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality
Posted:  01/06/2014 3:19 pm EST

My New Year's celebrations this year were haunted by memories of January 1, 1994 -- the day that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect. I remember crying that day, thinking about the proud men and women in union halls across America, the Mexican campesinos and the inspiring Canadian activists I had met during the fight against NAFTA, and hoping desperately that our dire predictions would be proved wrong.

They were not. In short order, the damage started. And, we started to document it.

For NAFTA's unhappy 20th anniversary, Public Citizen has published a report that details the wreckage. Not only did promises made by NAFTA's proponents not materialize, but many results are exactly the opposite.

Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after "investor-state" tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies.

The study makes for a blood-boiling read. For instance, we track the specific promises made by U.S. corporations like GE, Chrysler and Caterpillar to create specific numbers of American jobs if NAFTA was approved, and reveal government data showing that instead, they fired U.S. workers and moved operations to Mexico.

The data also show how post-NAFTA trade and investment trends have contributed to middle-class pay cuts, which in turn contributed to growing income inequality; how since NAFTA, U.S. trade deficit growth with Mexico and Canada has been 45 percent higher than with countries not party to a U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and how U.S. manufacturing exports to Canada and Mexico have grown at less than half the pre-NAFTA rate.

NAFTA's actual outcomes prove how damaging this type of agreement is for most people, demonstrating why NAFTA should be renegotiated or terminated. The evidence makes clear that we cannot have any more such deals that include job-offshoring incentives, requirements we import food that doesn't meet our safety standards or new rights for firms to get taxpayer compensation before foreign tribunals for laws they don't like.

Given NAFTA's record of damage, it is equal parts disgusting and infuriating that now President Barack Obama has joined the corporate Pinocchios who lied about NAFTA, recycling similar claims to try to sell the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is NAFTA on steroids.

As Americans have lived with NAFTA's effects since its Jan. 1, 1994, start, public opinion has shifted dramatically, from a narrow divide during the 1993 NAFTA debate to overwhelming opposition today. A 2012 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that 53 percent of Americans believe the U.S. should "do whatever is necessary" to "renegotiate" or "leave" NAFTA, while only 15 percent believe the U.S. should "continue to be a member of NAFTA." That opposition cuts across party lines, class divisions and education levels, perhaps explaining the growing controversy over the proposed deepening and expansion of the NAFTA model through the TPP.

This transpartisan public opposition to NAFTA-style pacts is what underlies the growing transpartisan opposition in Congress to President Obama's request that Congress delegate away its constitutional authorities through Fast Track trade authority. Were it not for Fast Track's creation of a legislative luge run through Congress for NAFTA, the deal would not have been implemented.

Fast Track was an extreme scheme cooked up by Richard Nixon that was only ever used 16 times, including for NAFTA. It empowered a president to sign a trade agreement before Congress voted on it with a guarantee that the executive branch can write legislation not subject to committee markup that would implement the pact and alter wide swaths of existing U.S. law. Fast Track guaranteed House and Senate votes on this bill within 90 days, with all floor amendments forbidden and a maximum of 20 hours of debate.

In the 19 years since NAFTA and the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization were passed under Fast Track, Congress has woken up to the fact that these pacts rewrite wide swaths of non-trade laws, and Democratic and GOP presidents have had a hard time convincing Congress to put on the Fast Track handcuffs. Fast Track has only been in effect for five years (2002-2007) since then. The same coalition of chronic U.S.-job-offshorers, agribusiness monopolists, Big Pharma, oil and gas giants and the think tanks they fund are gearing up a big push to revive Fast Track because they know that is the only way the TPP could get through Congress.

Among the findings of the NAFTA at 20 study:
•Rather than creating in any year the net 200,000 jobs per year promised by former President Bill Clinton on the basis of Peterson Institute for International Economics projections, job loss from NAFTA began rapidly:


• American manufacturing jobs were lost as U.S. firms used NAFTA's new foreign investor privileges to relocate production to Mexico to take advantage of that country's lower wages and weaker environmental standards. U.S. job erosion worsened as a new flood of NAFTA imports swamped gains in exports, creating a massive new trade deficit that equated to an estimated net loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004. A small pre-NAFTA U.S. trade surplus of2.5 billion with Mexico turned into a huge new deficit, and a pre-NAFTA29.1 billion deficit with Canada exploded. The NAFTA-spurred job loss has not abated during NAFTA's second decade, as the burgeoning post-NAFTA U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has not declined.





• More than 845,000 U.S. workers in the manufacturing sector have been certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) since NAFTA because they lost their jobs due to imports from Canada and Mexico or the relocation of factories to those countries. The TAA program is quite narrow, covering only a subset of jobs lost at manufacturing facilities, and is difficult to qualify for. Thus, the NAFTA TAA numbers significantly undercount NAFTA job loss.



•NAFTA contributed to downward pressure on U.S. wages and growing income inequality. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, two out of every three displaced manufacturing workers who were rehired in 2012 experienced wage reductions, most of more than 20 percent. As increasing numbers of workers displaced from manufacturing jobs joined the glut of workers competing for non-offshorable, low-skill jobs in sectors such as hospitality and food service, real wages have also fallen in these sectors since NAFTA. The resulting downward pressure on wages has fueled recent growth in income inequality.
•Scores of NAFTA countries' environmental and health laws have been challenged in foreign tribunals through the controversial "investor-state" dispute resolution system. Foreign corporations have extracted more than360 million in compensation from NAFTA governments via investor-state tribunal challenges against toxics bans, land-use rules, water and forestry policies and more. More than12.4 billion is currently pending in such claims, including challenges of medicine patent policies, a fracking moratorium and a renewable energy program.
•The average annual U.S. agricultural trade deficit with Mexico and Canada under NAFTA stands at $800 million, more than twice the pre-NAFTA level. U.S. beef imports from Mexico and Canada, for example, have risen 130 percent since NAFTA. This stands in stark contrast to the promises made to U.S. farmers and ranchers that NAFTA would allow them to export their way to newfound wealth and farm income stability. Despite an overall 188 percent rise in food imports from Canada and Mexico under NAFTA, the average nominal price of food in the United States has jumped 65 percent since NAFTA went into effect.
•The reductions in consumer goods prices that have materialized have not been sufficient to offset the losses to wages under NAFTA. U.S. workers without college degrees (63 percent of the workforce) likely have lost a net amount equal to 12.2 percent of their wages under NAFTA-style trade even after accounting for gains from cheaper goods. This net loss means a loss of more than3,300 per year for a worker earning the median annual wage of27,500.
•The export of subsidized U.S. corn did increase under NAFTA, destroying the livelihoods of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and about 1.4 million additional Mexican workers whose livelihoods depended on agriculture.


• The desperate migration of those displaced from Mexico's rural economy pushed down wages in Mexico's border maquiladora factory zone and contributed to a doubling of Mexican immigration to the United States following NAFTA's implementation.





• Though the price paid to Mexican farmers for corn plummeted after NAFTA, the deregulated retail price of tortillas - Mexico's staple food - shot up 279 percent in the pact's first 10 years.



•Facing displacement, rising prices and stagnant wages, more than half the Mexican population, and more than 60 percent of the rural population, still falls below the poverty line, despite the promises that NAFTA would bring broad prosperity to Mexicans.


• Real wages in Mexico have fallen significantly below pre-NAFTA levels as price increases for basic consumer goods have exceeded wage increases. A minimum wage earner in Mexico today can buy 38 percent fewer consumer goods than on the day that NAFTA took effect. Despite promises that NAFTA would benefit Mexican consumers by granting access to cheaper imported products, the cost of basic consumer goods in Mexico has risen to seven times the pre-NAFTA level, while the minimum wage stands at only four times the pre-NAFTA level.




Despite the overwhelming evidence of NAFTA's failure, the Obama administration has made it a priority for this year to sign the TPP, a sweeping pact with 11 Pacific Rim nations premised on expanding the NAFTA model. Past efforts to expand NAFTA throughout Latin America via a Free Trade Area of the Americas and to Asia via an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Free Trade Agreement failed as the major economies in each region sought to avoid the damage they observed NAFTA causing within the United States and Mexico.

Given NAFTA's devastating outcomes, few of the corporations or think tanks that sold it as a boon for all of us in the 1990s like to talk about it, but the reality is that their promises failed as millions of people were severely harmed.

Now the same interests that dished out lies to sell NAFTA are at it again to push the TPP, but the difference is that 20 years of the NAFTA experience has turned Americans against these sorts of deals.

If there is any upside to NAFTA, let it be that its 20 years of damage helps to build the activism outside, and the sense of political liability inside, Congress that are needed to ensure that Fast Track is permanently dust-binned and the NAFTA model is not expanded through TPP.

USMC 'Nam Vet '67-68 Tet Offensive
Patriot, Revolutionary, Activist
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears their people, there is liberty.
                                        ---- Thomas Jefferson

Offline Matt Hatter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,543
CANADA! Fight Back SPP!
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2007, 03:11:16 PM »
This was forwared to me by email and Im posting it here. Please be active. Take this and Pass it on and email our leaders and make our voices herd!
________________________________________
Dear Friends of Democracy and Canadian Patriots

Urgent!  - Please circulate this email to your contact lists.

I have just posted a video on our CanadiansNanaimo channel on Youtube which proves that the three Surete Du Quebec officers masquerading as radical protesters with rocks were trying to provoke the SQ riot police with violence. This video outlines the case for a full public inquiry into this illegal covert police action. You can watch the video entitled 'Hard Evidence - Police provoke Violence at SPP Protest' here at  http://youtube.com/watch?v=DCRsj06wT64  .

Please watch this video, comment on it and rate it then send the link to everyone you know that treasures our democracy and wants to keep Canada free, and sovereign.

If you want to know more about the SPP and TILMA or know of others who could use a good primer on these undemocratic processes then check out another youtube video that we have launched called 'Trading Democracy for Corporate Rule - part 1 - Ten Reasons to Oppose the SPP and TILMA' watch it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp5HOLvKn2I and then pass this link on to everyone you know. I am so shocked by what I have learned working on this documentary that I wanted to get this information out in advance of finishing the full length documentary I'm working on.

You can help!

Send Emails to all of the following Federal politicians and ask them if they respect the Canadian constitution and the rule of law and if they do when will they stand up and call for a full public inquiry into the illegal covert police actions at the SPP protest in Montebello. Send a copy to your Member of Parliament and your local media. If these politicians don't reply, send a copy each week until they do!
 
Prime Minister Stephen Harper at Harper.S@parl.gc.ca
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day at Day.S@parl.gc.ca
the members of the Public Safety committee
Chair Garry Breitkreuz         - Conservative - BreitG@parl.gc.ca
 
Vice chairs
Hon. Roy Cullen - Liberal - CulleR@parl.gc.ca
Penny Priddy – NDP - PriddP@parl.gc.ca
 
Members
Hon. Sue Barnes - Liberal - BarneS@parl.gc.ca
Bonnie Brown - Liberal - BrownB@parl.gc.ca
Gord Brown - Liberal - BrownG@parl.gc.ca
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh - Liberal - DosanU@parl.gc.ca
Dave MacKenzie - Conservative - MackeD@parl.gc.ca
Colin Mayes - Conservative - MayesC@parl.gc.ca
Serge Ménard – BQ - MenarSe@parl.gc.ca
Rick Norlock - Conservative - NorloR@parl.gc.ca
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac – BQ - ThiLac.E@parl.gc.ca

The Opposition Leaders
Jack Layton - NDP - layton.j@parl.gc.ca
Hon. Stéphane Dion - Liberal - DionS@parl.gc.ca
Gilles Duceppe - BQ - DucepG@parl.gc.ca

To find out more about the SPP and TILMA visit www.canadians.org and www.canadiansnanaimo.org If you would like to make a financial contribution to this documentary project please visit http://canadiansnanaimo.org/how-to-help

Yours in Solidarity
Paul Manly
paul@manlymedia.com
604 506-7651 cell
Box 1093 Stn A
Nanaimo B.C.
V9R 6E7
www.manlymedia.com

Offline Pupil

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 936
    • Galactic Defender Zik!
Re: CANADA! Fight Back SPP!
« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2007, 03:20:52 PM »

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
NAFTA Superhighway to go right over rebuilt Brach Davidian Church
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2008, 01:45:26 PM »
  Listen to the 2nd hr of  today's Alex Jones Show (Monday, 1-7-08, 2nd half hour).

                   Rudy "Judy" Gulliani and the rest of the necons are beyond evil.

edit:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10243823
Branch Davidians See Conspiracy in Highway Project
by Dina Temple Raston
May 18, 2007 3:26 PM ET

The Branch Davidians are trying to make a comeback.

The sect may be best known for its 51-day standoff that ended in the deaths of four federal agents, and a blaze that engulfed its church and killed 80 members. In the ashes of that debacle, the Branch Davidians have built a new church, adopted a new leader and found a new confrontation: a major Texas highway that threatens their land.
...

Branch Davidians preach interpretations from the Book of Revelations mixed with conspiracy theory. For example, Pace says the government attacked Mount Carmel because Koresh's followers had discovered a secret plan to arm the gangs in the nation's prisons. He says the government was going to use the gangs and call for martial law, and that the government attacked the compound because it wanted to cover up its plot.

With that in mind, it isn't too surprising that when the Texas Department of Transportation announced plans to build a super highway that might run right through Mount Carmel, the Branch Davidians saw conspiracy written all over it.

"It'll go right through our buildings, where we live, right through this place I am standing – going to be a swath right through on this corner that runs right through our wellness center, our museum and even our cemetery," Pace said. "It is going to miss that neighbor's house over here and that neighbor's house over there. I think that is pretty strategic."

This isn't just Branch Davidian paranoia. The Metropolitan Planning Organization in Waco confirmed that the 77 acres that make up Mount Carmel are included in a study for the road — although the Branch Davidians are hardly alone. The highway, known as the Trans-Texas Corridor, could gobble up more than a half-million acres of private property. Texas would obtain the land through eminent domain, which allows the government to seize land for public good. Still, the news of the highway plays into the Branch Davidians' worst fears.
...


| - - - 


http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3186108
Highway Through 'Hallowed' Ground
MOUNT CARMEL, Texas, May 17, 2007
By DAN MORRIS and TERRY MORAN

Twelve-year-old Benjamin Pace is clearly enjoying himself as he steers the family riding mower in lazy arcs around the lawn under a hot Texas sun.

His mother, Alexa, sweeps clippings from the nearby sidewalk. Family friend Ophelia Santoyo waters rose bushes alongside the yard. The scent of the grass and the drone of the mower complete a scene of domestic tranquillity repeated thousands of times a day in towns and suburbs across America.

...

Fending off a Super Highway

Pace's latest cause may just attract some anti-government types to Mount Carmel. The state of Texas is considering building a north-south superhighway through the Waco area, part of a massive statewide project known as the Trans-Texas Corridor.

One county map, drawn up merely for "guesstimating costs," the county insists, shows the highway going straight through Mount Carmel.
...
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline xatom227

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 593
"Presidents are not elected by ballot, they are selected by blood."   -  David Icke

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."  -  J. Edgar Hoover

Offline MikiQuick123

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,302
Clinton Papers Expose Lies On NAFTA
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2008, 11:30:01 PM »
UPDATED: Papers Expose Lies of Clinton, Emanuel & Gergen On NAFTA
by davidsirota
Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:15:39 AM PDT


Finally, the dishonesty is being unmasked. Finally, we see just how much we're being lied to when it comes to economic policy. Finally, we see it hasn't just been Hillary Clinton lying about her role in championing NAFTA, but we see it is the entire Clinton machine.

davidsirota's diary :: ::
For the last few weeks, Hillary Clinton has been claiming that she never supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). She has explicitly claimed "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."

Clinton's record of speeches over the last decade, of course, tells a much different story. In 1996, she toured Texas to promote NAFTA. In 1998, she visited Davos, Switzerland to thank corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." In her memoir a few years ago, she touted NAFTA as one of her husband's big successes. And in 2004, she told reporters that "NAFTA has been good for New York and America."
And yet, despite all of this evidence, Clinton has worked to confuse voters by insisting that she has always been fighting against NAFTA. As I've written in another post, it is a tactic reminiscent of Joe Lieberman denying he supported the Iraq War in the lead up to his 2006 election contest with Ned Lamont. And it is a tactic that Establishment shills have tried to embolden. As just one example, the esteemed David Gergen has used his television platform to back up Clinton's historical revisionism - and Gergen has been cited by others as "proof" Clinton's claims are true - despite, of course, her very own words.

But now with the release of Clinton's White House schedules, the veneer has been torn off, and the brazen dishonesty is finally on display for everyone to see. As Reuters reports:

"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton now argues that the North American Free Trade Agreement needs to be renegotiated, but newly released records showed on Wednesday she promoted its passage...Among the thousands of details of daily life for Clinton, there was a November 10, 1993, entry -- a 'NAFTA Briefing drop-by,' in Room 450 of the executive office building next door to the White House, closed to the news media. Approximately 120 people were expected to attend the briefing, and Clinton was to be introduced by White House aide Alexis Herman for brief remarks concluding the program."

ABC's Jake Tapper digs even deeper, noting that at one of the meetings, Gergen "served as a sort of master of ceremonies as various women members of the Cabinet talked up NAFTA." In other words, Gergen has been on television deliberately lying for the Clinton campaign, as he was actually running these NAFTA-promoting events with Clinton. Tapper goes on to interview people who were in the room.

This revelation comes just as the other appendages of the Clinton machine attempts to revise history even further. This week, Rahm Emanuel - the chief White House lobbyist who rammed NAFTA through Congress - authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed praising candidates for indicting NAFTA and claiming "I share their concern for Americans who have lost their jobs to global competition." To quote my book Hostile Takeover, this is "the same Rahm Emanuel who penned an op-ed in the conservative Wall Street Journal pressuring Democrats to capitulate and pass the 2000 China trade deal - a move perfectly timed to help secure the critical votes that ultimately passed the deal."

The facts are clear: The Clinton machine joined with K Street to manufacture the very international economic policies that are destroying the economy. And yet, this same machine now claims to have had nothing to do with those economic policies - at the very moment, the machine is pushing a NAFTA-style Colombia Free Trade Agreement in Congress. We are, in short, experiencing the renaissance of "Clintonism" - an ideology that treats Americans like we are stupid and treats basic undebatable facts as commodities to be manipulated and perverted for personal gain. And that renaissance should make everyone question all the recent promises by Clinton about changing NAFTA.

Had she simply acknowledged she was for NAFTA and that now she's not for NAFTA, that might give her some credibility. But, then, this is a candidate who just a few months ago laughed at a serious question about NAFTA, claiming "all I can remember are a bunch of charts." In other words, this is a candidate and a campaign machine that is absolutely uninterested in how these policies have devastated the middle class - and hostile to an honest discussion about those policies. So the question now is simple: Can a Wall-Street backed candidate who denies the undeniable past be trusted with the future?

UPDATE: Just to show you how complacent the media is in the face of lies, the New York Times' headline about the papers is "The Early Word: Clinton Papers Reveal Little." Yes - the fact that the papers directly refute the very claims about NAFTA she used to win Ohio is not news to the New York Times.UPDATE II: Jake Tapper has more on how the "schedules show her holding at least five meetings in 1993 aimed at helping to win congressional approval of the deal." Clinton's official defense is now that  "numerous contemporary accounts make clear that Hillary Clinton was personally opposed to NAFTA, and her position on NAFTA was and remains consistent." That's nice "contemporary accounts" as a euphemism for "historical revisionism" - and, of course, those accounts come from people like David Gergen, who we now know is lying.

UPDATE III: The Obama campaign held a conference call with reporters on the NAFTA issue and just issued this memo.

UPDATE IV: The Clinton campaign issues a statement saying "The fact is that independent accounts make clear that Senator Clinton did not support NAFTA and that she is the candidate Americans can trust to fix it." The "independent" accounts the campaign cites are those of David Gergen - who now has been shown to have lied himself about the whole affair.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/20/111456/222/328/480723
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"-Edmund Burke

Offline DCUBED

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,882
  • Sieg Heil!
NAFTA Countries to Introduce Simultaneous Legislation to Stop SPP
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2008, 03:24:26 PM »
http://blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=6132

NAFTA Countries to Introduce Simultaneous Legislation to Stop SPP

Elected representatives from Canada , the U.S. , and Mexico have agreed to a plan to introduce simultaneous legislation in an effort to stop the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America. This cross border cooperation will go a long way in further exposing the North American Union agenda.

In addition, legislators have agreed to launch a Task Force to renegotiate NAFTA that will be chaired by NDP Trade Critic Peter Julian. It also includes U.S. Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), the Honourable Yeidckol Polevnsky (Senator of Mexico State and Vice-president of the Mexican Senate) and the Honourable Victor Quintana (Deputy of the State Chihuahua, Mexico). This is all in an effort to overhaul NAFTA and make it a more fair trade deal. Julian will also be working with Kaptur and Mike Michaud (D-ME) to try and defeat the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

Julian said, “The NDP has been campaigning across Canada to expose and stop the SPP. We’ve held over 20 public forums in more than twenty cities and a dozen more are being planned for the spring of 2008. These forums have been held to speak out on the grave concerns surrounding the SPP and to help ensure that Canadians from coast to coast to coast get informed and have their say. This trinational initiative with colleagues from the U.S. and Mexico takes us to a new stage in our fight to stop the SPP.”

 Discontent towards NAFTA is festering in Mexico , which has seen huge protests by farmers. Since 1994, one quarter of the rural population of Mexico and two million jobs have left the country. Mexican Senator Polevnsky said, “It is indispensable that legislators from all three North American partner countries work together to design an alternative project that takes into account each nations sovereignty, environmental protection, economic competitiveness, migration, and labor rights.” 

With all this talk about renegotiating NAFTA, the U.S. ambassador to Canada , David Wilkins recently acknowledged that he believes that it is too important to do away with or make any dramatic changes to. He pointed to the fact that, regardless who wins the American presidential election, NAFTA will stand. The SPP is an expansion of NAFTA, and is essentially the framework for a North American Union. On the heels of the next SPP Leader Summit that will be held in New Orleans on April 21 and 22, opposition towards a North American Union is growing in Canada , the U.S. , and Mexico.

The citizens of all three NAFTA countries must demand more transparency in regards to the SPP. Some believe that it might be better to scrap NAFTA and just start from scratch. The reality remains the same - in a North American Union, Canada, the U.S. , and Mexico would cease to exist as sovereign nations. This is a decision that should not be left up to corporate elites, bureaucrats or politicians, but to the will of the people.
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”  - Arthur Conan Doyle

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." J. Edgar Hoover

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
SPP Trade Summit Sparks Economic Controversy
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2008, 08:07:26 PM »
Trade Summit Sparks Economic Controversy
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19505590&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
By: Joe Murray, The Bulletin
04/22/2008

A broken border in the American Southwest. Loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to Mexico. Suppressed wages. An increasingly unpopular North American Free Trade Agreement. A proposed NAFTA super highway creating a de facto North American Union.

All of these issues, plus the overarching question of national sovereignty, were placed on full display yesterday as leaders from the U.S., Mexico and Canada converged on New Orleans to partake in the fourth North American summit, which some fear is a veiled attempt to further integrate the three nations into an economic union modeled of its European counterpart.

President George W. Bush joined Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the Big Easy for the two-day summit held to further advance the work undertaken by the trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership, created in 2005 to minimize bureaucratic red tape and increase cooperation among the three nations.

In terms of an agenda, Dan Fisk, NSC senior director for Western Hemisphere Affairs, told reporters last week, "The five priorities are, first, enhancing global competitiveness; second, smart and secure borders; third, sustainable energy and environment; fourth is safe food and products; and the fifth is emergency management and preparedness."

In regards to the issues of trade and intercontinental relations between the three countries, the White House has faced growing opposition from the conservative wing of the president's party and blue collar Democrats.

As Mr. Bush arrived in the Crescent City, a coalition of conservatives led by Howard Phillips held a press conference challenging the president's attempt to economically integrate the three nations.

Invoking the bureaucratic, not democratic, process that birthed the European Union, Mr. Phillips argued, "A North American Union could be achieved in much the same way."

"With no approval by Congress, his Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is working to bureaucratically harmonize the policies of the three North American countries through more than 20 unelected, unaccountable Executive Branch working groups." Democrats, too, are weary of the trade summit.

Responding to the concerns of workers and locked in a bitter primary battle, both Democratic candidates have publicly condemned free trade-deals, thus making trade among the three nations a top priority at the summit. The three heads of state will most likely attempt to change the perception NAFTA was an economic disaster.

Collectively speaking, the three nations in North America form the world's largest trading block, as trading among the three nation amounts to $930 billion annually. In explaining "North America 101" to reporters, Mr. Fisk noted Canada is the U.S's largest trading partner and Mexico is our third.

With the U.S. dollar steadily sinking and the U.S. facing a recession, many Americans have increased their criticism of free trade agreements, arguing such agreements have cost U.S. jobs. In Pennsylvania, a study by the Alliance for American Manufacturing found NAFTA cost Pennsylvania 44,173 jobs from 1993-2004; roughly 4,016 a year.

Despite the fact that her husband, then-President Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, Hillary Clinton has increased her opposition to the 1994 trade deal, as well as other free trade measures.

"As smart as my husband is, he does make mistakes," Mrs. Clinton stated while campaigning in Pittsburgh last week. "We've now had 15 years of experience with NAFTA, and the evidence is clear that we have to change the basic provisions." This is the sentiment the White House hopes to combat.

"The North American relationship works. We believe it works well for all three countries, but we also believe we can make it work better," White House spokesman Tony Fratto stated during a press gaggle last week.

Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us


“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline Catalina

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,511
  • Government Censorship, Protecting You From Reality
NEW ORLEANS - President Bush chastised lawmakers on Tuesday for letting international trade deals falter in Congress and criticized Democratic presidential contenders for wanting to scrap or amend the vast North American free-trade zone.

At the close of a two-day summit, Bush, along with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, stood solidly behind the North American Free Trade Agreement. Under NAFTA, trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico has swelled from roughly $290 billion in 1994 to an estimated $1 trillion by the end of this year.

"Now is not the time to renegotiate NAFTA or walk away from NAFTA," Bush said. "Now is the time to make it work better for all our people. And now is the time to reduce trade barriers worldwide."

The summit was overshadowed by Tuesday’s Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary race between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have threatened to pull the U.S. out of NAFTA or renegotiate it to push for more protections for workers and the environment.

With fears about job security already being fanned by downturns in the economy, trade has become a key issue of the presidential election. Bush argued that NAFTA has fostered prosperity in all three countries and that Clinton and Obama are wrongly using anti-trade messages to lure working class voters. Free-trade opponents say expanded international trade helps businesses, but threatens U.S. jobs and keeps wages from growing.

Bush warned that without NAFTA, migratory pressure from Mexico would be worse.

"If you do away with NAFTA, there’s going to be a lot of Mexicans, more Mexicans out of work," Bush said. "It will make it harder on the border.

"So people who say, ’Let’s get rid of NAFTA’ because of a throwaway political line, must understand this has been good for America and it’s also been good for Mexico and Canada."

Bush said he was less worried about the future of NAFTA than the pending trade deals he wants Congress to ratify with South Korea, Panama and Colombia. Bush singled out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., saying if she doesn’t schedule a vote on Colombia she will have to take responsibility for killing the deal.

Not only will Pelosi have turned her back on a U.S. ally, Bush said, she will fuel anti-U.S. sentiment in Latin America and embolden leftist leaders like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

"She’s going to have to explain why the voices of false populism have been strengthened, why anti-Americanism could flourish," the president said, "when America turns its back on a strong leader" like Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

In Washington, Pelosi accused Bush of taking a partisan potshot. She said the United States must address its own economic weaknesses before signing any more trade pacts abroad.

"Democrats stand ready to work with the president to bring the Colombia Free Trade Agreement to a vote in the House, but the timing has to be that of America’s working families, not the timing of the president," she said in response.

Asked about the state of the U.S. economy, Bush said: "We’re not in a recession. We are in a slowdown."

"I’m obviously concerned for our consumers," the president said. He was asked whether the rising cost of gasoline will erode the potential positive impact of the $168 billion economic stimulus package passed by Congress, but he did not answer specifically.

"No question that rising gasoline prices are like a tax on our working people," Bush said.

Bush said he chose to host his final North American summit in New Orleans to showcase the city’s rebirth from the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Calderon, who will host the next summit in Mexico, said NAFTA should be strengthened, not canceled. He implored Congress to ratify the Colombian trade pact.

"It’s extremely important, I think, to bear in mind that when you provide more opportunities for trade in the Latin American region, there will be many more opportunities for prosperity," said Calderon, who also warned of heightened migratory pressure from Mexico if NAFTA was dissolved. "It needs to be made very clear that the prosperity of Latin America, particularly that of Mexico, is a crucial factor for the prosperity of the people of North America."

Harper said he was confident that Bush’s successor would come to understand the importance of NAFTA and the commercial relationships in North America.

"I think that a rejection of or turning our backs to such as ally as Colombia could create log-term problems for our countries in South America," Harper said.

Besides trade, the three leaders talked about food and product safety standards, harmonizing auto production standards, emergency response, combatting trade of counterfeit and pirated goods, fighting organized crime, low-carbon energy, intellectual property rights, global warming and reducing bottlenecks and congestion at border crossings, such as Detroit-Windsor and San Diego-Tijuana.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/general/view.bg?articleid=1088935&srvc=rss
Spare no cost for truth's sake, neither depart from it for any gain. -Proverbs 23:23

Bestow not the gifts that God has given you to get worldly riches. -Proverbs 23:4

blackwater

  • Guest
"Deep Integration" — the unDemocratic Expansion of NAFTA
« Reply #9 on: May 10, 2008, 03:16:32 AM »
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4276


Quote
"Deep Integration"—the Anti-Democratic Expansion of NAFTA

Laura Carlsen | May 30, 2007
   

printable PDF version

Email this page to a friend

Give us your feedback
Americas Program, Center for International Policy (CIP)    
americas.irc-online.org

The North American Free Trade Agreement is the most advanced experience of the U.S.-led free trade model in the world. The expansion of NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership reveals the road ahead for other nations entering into Free Trade Agreements. It is not a road most nations—or the U.S. public—would knowingly take if they knew where it led.

The first problem is that very few people do know. The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was launched at a meeting of Presidents George W. Bush, Vicente Fox, and Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas. It was heralded as the next step in regional integration and as part of what some observers have dubbed the "NAFTA Plus" agenda.

The Waco meeting of the "Three Amigos" resulted in little visible progress. However, it set in motion an underground process that spawned its own working groups, rules, recommendations, and agreements—all below the radar of the legislatures and the public in the three nations. These rules and trinational programs have profound effects on the environment, the daily lives of citizens, and the future of all three countries. Unknown people, representing the interests of a narrow elite, are building an agenda that allows for virtually no public debate or input.
What is the Security and Prosperity Partnership?

From its origins in Waco, the SPP has developed through several formal meetings, including a March 31, 2006 meeting of heads of state in Cancun, a ministerial meeting in Canada in February of this year, and a secret meeting of high-level government, military, and business people in Banff in September of 2006, which was outed by Canadian civil society watchdogs.

The official U.S. web page describes the SPP as: "... a White House-led initiative among the United States and the two nations it borders—Canada and Mexico—to increase security and to enhance prosperity among the three countries through greater cooperation. The SPP is based on the principle that our prosperity is dependent on our security and recognizes that our three great nations share a belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions. The SPP outlines a comprehensive agenda for cooperation among our three countries while respecting the sovereignty and unique cultural heritage of each nation."

The definition reveals important aspects of the "partnership" while hiding others.

The fact that it is "White House-led" is beyond doubt. When the heads of state met in Waco and in subsequent meetings to follow up on NAFTA, both Canada and Mexico had some very serious concerns. Canada was embroiled in trade conflicts with the United States (soft lumber, beef) that it wanted to see resolved in the context of cooperation supposedly embodied in NAFTA.

The stark contradiction between open borders for merchandise and criminalization of immigrants had led over the decade-plus of NAFTA to an untenable position for Mexico's rightwing government. On the one hand, it had a commitment to greater integration under the free trade model; on the other it was under tremendous political pressure to defend Mexicans migrating to the United States.

None of these issues made it into the SPP. Instead, the trinational agenda was hijacked by U.S. security concerns, and corporate demands for fewer obstacles to border-hopping production and sales. From the outset, the "deep integration" proposed under the SPP was indeed White House-led and highly selective in what (and who) it included in its purview.

The SPP is not a law, or a treaty, or even a signed agreement. All these would require public debate and participation of Congress, both of which the SPP has scrupulously avoided. And yet "the dialogue" seeks to make trilateral decisions of the executive branch and business binding to the point of modifying national regulations in all three countries involved.

The SPP has a surprising amount of official trappings for a non-agreement. In addition to a U.S. webpage (http://spp.gov/), it has a Myths vs. Facts page (in response to criticisms), a ministerial council, annual meetings and progress reports, working groups, documents, recommendations and, purportedly, "a vision." Over the past two years since its debut, it has acquired a trilateral dynamic, regulatory authority and strategic importance, especially to the United States.

Because of the lack of transparency surrounding this process, it takes some serious digging to reveal the strategy embodied in the SPP. A few key documents serve as a basis. One is the Council on Foreign Relations 2005 paper "Building a North American Community" which states the need for foreign investment in Mexico's petroleum sector, common external tariffs, access to resources for the private sector, and greater labor mobility, among other things. Another is the 2007 report of the North American Competitiveness Council. These reports cannot be seen as blueprints however. First, they must pass through the political screen of the White House. The 2005 recommendation for full labor mobility by 2010 may be a logical step but cannot pass that filter and make it onto the SPP agenda.

Even the recommendations that have been adopted under the SPP are difficult to discern in public policy. The three governments, instead of releasing lists of commitments acquired under the SPP, tend to reveal a series of piecemeal measures that only by inference can be related to the trinational agreement.
The Real Objectives of the SPP

The Bush administration has three fundamental objectives embodied in its SPP: to create more advantageous conditions for transnational corporations and remove remaining barriers for the flow of capital and crossborder production within the framework of NAFTA; to assure secure access to natural resources in the other two countries, especially oil; and to create a regional security plan based on "pushing its borders out" into a security perimeter that includes Mexico and Canada.

1. "Competitiveness:" the Economic Agenda for Deep Integration

The major problem with the rhetoric of competitiveness in North America is that the premise is patently false. Although they have created an internal system that has generated increased trade and investment flows among themselves, Mexico, Canada, and the United States do not operate in the global market as a block with common interests. This is obvious in multilateral forums like the World Trade Organization and in the numerous conflicts that arise among the three nations in the context of NAFTA.

This should come as no surprise. The golden rule of global economic integration today is the ability of investment and financial flows to travel in search of where they can make the most profit. Regional loyalty plays no part in this equation. Although the SPP cites the need to compete as a block against China, the reason China has become a world player so quickly owes itself in large part to the quantity of business that U.S. companies do there, and they have no qualms about closing plants in the United States or Mexico to take advantage of the cheap labor and growing market that China offers.

So what is really at stake here? The SPP has focused on simplifying procedures for doing business, creating more unified norms and standards, and actually making it easier for U.S. companies to ship production offshore, eliminate specific labor and environmental standards in Mexico or Canada in the interest of "harmonization," and assuring that harsher security measures don't interfere with crossborder business.

The power imbalance in the negotiations implies a loss in the application of their criteria for Mexico and Canada. For Mexico, the harmonization process—like NAFTA before it—does not take into account its less-developed status or the pressing social needs of its people that could mandate special protections or safeguards. Many of the priorities of the SPP are only priorities for a small handful of powerful actors, such as greater patent protection (Mexico holds very few patents) or joint anti-piracy campaigns (piracy is a major employer in Mexico and benefits low-income consumers).

In negotiations between equal partners concerned with public well-being, very different issues would be on the table. The discourse of "three great nations united in a common cause" falls apart when compared to the actual content of the agreements and shows instead two great nations subordinated to the powerful interests of the United States.

2. Access to Natural Resources

The document of the Council on Competitiveness begins its energy chapter stating that "the prosperity of the United Status relies heavily on a secure supply of imported energy." For U.S. oil companies and its geopolitical interests, Mexico's nationalized petroleum sector and state-run company, PEMEX, has been a major thorn in the side. First because companies relish the opportunity to invest in the reserves there and are limited by current Mexican law, and secondly because with the sector under government control, Mexico can decide when and how much it wants to export to the United States based on its own national needs.

But for the vast majority of Mexicans, nationalization of the oil industry is celebrated as a source of national pride and a strategic instrument of development. Instead of coming out with recommendations to privatize the sector immediately, SPP documents have cited the low productivity of PEMEX as a major regional problem, mandated studies of its poor performance—not of its role in national development—and begun to prepare the ground for more private investment. The competitiveness council recommends spinning off non-associated gas production into a separate entity that they suggest be called GASMEX.

3. Regional Security

NAFTA was signed before the current Bush administration took office and before the terrorist attack of September 11. SPP on the other hand, was born in the "War on Terrorism" era and reflects an inordinate emphasis on U.S. security as interpreted by the Department of Homeland Security. Head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, along with Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice and Sec. of Finance Carlos Gutierrez, are the three ministers charged with attending SPP ministerial conferences. The matter goes beyond the veneer of national security believed to be necessary to politically sell any plan involving international engagement these days. It really is central to the NAFTA-plus agenda.

The SPP makes the relationship between the U.S. trade and security agendas explicit, under the pretext of greater integration. Its accords mandate border actions, military and police training, modernization of equipment, and adoption of new technologies, all under the logic of the U.S. counter-terrorism campaign.

For Mexico and Canada, this new priority of regional integration is not only misplaced, but expensive and politically threatening. Mexico has historically been reticent to allow U.S. agents to operate in its territory due to a history in which the United States has posed the greatest threat to its national security. It also has a policy of neutrality in international affairs that pre-empts its governments from becoming embroiled in conflicts that do not directly affect the nation.

Measures to coordinate security have pressured Mexico to militarize its southern border and adopt repressive measures toward Central and South Americans presumably in transit to the United States. The false conflation of undocumented immigration with security in the United States has also led to measures that have little to do with their own national security and cause friction with friendly nations, such as the decision to require visas for citizens of Brazil and Ecuador to enter Mexico.

As Mexico's drug problem grows, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have initiated training programs for elements of the Mexican Army (now unconstitutionally involved in the "drug war"), federal and state police, and intelligence units. The stated objective is to standardize strategic plans and practices. The irony is the long history of failure of the United States in fighting its own drug war, beginning with the fact that it continues to be the market that feeds Mexico's burgeoning drug cartels.

Aside from real questions about their effectiveness, these programs raise serious questions of national sovereignty and national priorities. There simply are few reasons to believe that U.S. security is synonymous with a strategic security plan for Mexico or Canada. While some threats are indeed international and intelligence-sharing as well as coordinated action are necessary, these mechanisms should be focused, and thought out in the context of each nation's own security agenda.

In many ways, by taking on the U.S. security agenda Canada and Mexico put themselves at greater risk. When the Mexican Congress dutifully presented a revised counter-terrorism law in Congress this year, an opposition congressman argued against differentiating "international terrorism" from the recognized crime of terrorism: "We don't want to be immersed in a cycle where the enemies of other nations are automatically put forth as our own enemies." Moreover, in all three countries significant civil society movements have questioned whether the high-tech solutions put forth by Homeland Security (and that economically benefit major military suppliers) are really the best and most resource-efficient answer to security challenges. But, again, the decisions are being made without public knowledge or consultation for the most part.
Integration Behind Closed Doors

There is no better example of the secrecy that has cloaked the NAFTA-plus or SPP negotiations than the meeting held in Banff, Canada Sept. 12-14, 2006. Sponsored by the non-governmental North American Forum, the governmental and high-level nature of the secret meeting was difficult to conceal once Canadian groups publicized the draft agenda. The meeting was chaired by former U.S. Sec. of State and Bechtel executive George Schultz, former Mexican Finance Minister Pedro Aspe, and former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed; keynote addresses were slated to be provided by then-Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Canadian Ministers of Energy Greg Melchin and Public Safety Stockwell Day. Luminaries of the U.S. military-industrial complex mixed with government officials including Thomas Shannon, Assistant Sec. for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs in the State Department, Adm. Tim Keating, Commander of NORAD/USNORTHCOM, and officials from energy, natural resources, and defense departments. The team that wrote up the Council on Foreign Relations report was on deck, as were private sector players.

Despite the unprecedented policymaking power in the room—and issues on the table such as military-to-military cooperation, a North American energy strategy, and border infrastructure and prosperity—none of the privileged participants or governments involved felt it necessary to inform the press or public about the event that Shannon reportedly later referred to as "parallel to the SPP."

Information is not publicly available on who makes up the working groups either. An appendix of the Competitiveness Council report, oddly enough lists the representatives of the Mexican and Canadian private sectors by name, but lists only companies on the U.S. side. These include Chevron, Ford, General Electric, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Merck, New York Life, Procter & Gamble, and Wal-Mart.

So where are the environmental council, the labor council, and the citizen's council in this process? None of these exist. The SPP is an invitation-only affair and representatives of these sectors were explicitly not invited.

It is no coincidence that the meetings that define regional integration under the SPP take place behind closed doors. It is a process run by and for elites that seeks to avoid public scrutiny or protest. The "silent integration" that is the follow-up to NAFTA relies on anonymity, no accountability to Congress or the public, the absence of public debate, and as little information to the public as possible.

The regulatory changes and programs that have resulted and will continue to result from SPP negations are born with a common genetic defect. They were born of a "North American vision" that was never consulted with the citizens of the three nations, and that even at the level of the governments involved is more a hodgepodge of diplomatic arm-twisting, U.S. security hype, and corporate wish-lists, than a goal of continental well-being.
Deepening the Chaos

There are many problems with the SPP and the White House's goal of "deep integration" but perhaps the most fundamental is that it takes place at a time when North American integration faces a crisis. Economic integration under NAFTA has led to job loss and erosion of job security and quality in the United States, while also increasing unemployment in Mexico. Over 13 years, the model has confirmed, rather than reversed, Mexico's status as the less-developed partner; the rise in immigration to the United States attests to the failure of NAFTA in development. It has not increased the United States' competitive edge although it has delivered record profits to a few major global traders. Unfortunately for the majority, those "few" are now driving the efforts to deepen integration under the NAFTA plus Homeland Security model.

But to deepen it would mean deepening the contradictions and the problems that have led most Americans to express in polls their rejection of the current model, and spurred widespread public protest in Mexico and Canada.

There are four more Free Trade Agreements currently before Congress. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America demonstrates that this model of economic integration has taken on a momentum of its own, unaccountable to legislatures and citizens, and driven by interests that do not represent the public good. Citizens and their representatives need to mount a concerted effort to re-examine these policies, to bring them to light, and to halt movement forward until a strong and informed consensus exists on their value to society.

Laura Carlsen is director of the IRC Americas Program. The Americas Program is online at http://americas.irc-online.org/.


 

http://drugsandoil.com

blackwater

  • Guest
This guy hasn't heard of the SPP?????
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2008, 02:54:42 PM »
http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=c7be9116304b1e14&-session=TheDailyNews:42F943DA0ca6018ABCUYl3B27B3E




Quote

Amero-ca the oh, so dubious

By Michael A. Smith
The Daily News

Published May 18, 2008

A reader recently asked why we were being derelict in our duty to report about the “Amero.”

“The what?” I asked. This brought a derisive, “what fools” groan and an explanation sort of like this:

The amero is the American version of the euro, the common currency of the European Union, which we’ll be forced to adopt when the Powers That Be complete creation of the North American Union.

The amero would replace the U.S. and Canadian dollars and the Mexican peso. Conversion to the amero already was under way. President Bush, the president of Mexico and Canada’s prime minister had met at Bush’s Crawford ranch to strike a deal merging the countries and nobody, but nobody, was reporting it.

Stick “Amero” in Google, Reader advised. So I did.

There is an awful lot about the amero on the Internet. Most of it strikes me as typical conspiracy fodder. A lot of the Web sites covering it seem to be selling gold and coins.

Snopes.com, which often explains in one stop why nobody, but nobody, is reporting something, has analyses of both the amero and the merger theories. Snopes’ verdict: False.

But then there’s this 2006 vintage video on Youtube of some talking head from CNBC interviewing a senior vice president of Jefferies International, a huge and apparently well-known investment house.

Steve Previs, the vice president, tells pretty much the same story as our exasperated reader, making the talking head a little twitchy.

Meanwhile, the few times it’s mentioned, the mainstream press (which, best I can tell, means “owns its own equipment” and “employs actual reporters”) treats the amero as a joke. So, is the amero real or conspiracy theory?

The whole theory seems built around the Previs interview. I couldn’t find any mention of him on Jefferies’ Web site, but I found a little bio with an e-mail address on a money-trading Web page.

I e-mailed him more than two weeks ago but have not heard back. I also called the VP for marketing in Jefferies’ New York office and left a message. I got a message from a PR Missy, but she stopped returning my calls when she found out what I was up to. I don’t blame her. No one wants to get her company labeled as conspiracy nuts. So, at this point, we just don’t know.

Here’s a couple of things we do know, though:

Making sweeping changes in a country requires political capital. I doubt W — whose approval ratings are at a historical low — has enough to get a dead-end street named after himself, much less change the currency.

The Web pages milking the amero are some of same ones that hyped the Y2K disaster theory. The stories all ran next to ads for freeze-dried food — a friend still has a year’s meals and 10,000 rounds of ammunition for an SKS carbine stored in his garage — and Krugerrands. We all know how that turned out.

CNBC was among the organizations providing the endless analytical hype that drove the dot-com boom. It didn’t matter, the experts said, that the companies had no products, nor assets — you should buy, buy, buy. We all know how that turned out.

Michael A. Smith is associate editor of The Daily News. Want to join the vast conspiracy? Check out the Editors’ Notes blog at galvnews.com.


Offline cl2008

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
Petition against NAFTA
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2008, 11:05:49 AM »
Everyone please sign this.  Thanks 

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/690575743

Offline press for truth

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
Press for Truth confronts Paul Martin about Bilderberg and the SPP
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2008, 02:41:43 AM »

I asked him about his Bilderberg involvement and about signing the SPP. I also gave him a copy of a film I produced (The Nation's Deathbed)

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fNF4LjGvSww

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
Nafta's unhappy anniversary
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2009, 03:13:06 AM »
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jan/01/nafta-anniversary-us-mexico-trade

For both the US and Mexico, Nafta has failed to deliver on its economic promises. It's time for it to be renegotiated.


In Mexico, the fifteenth birthday is a special time, an ornate coming of age celebration – the quinceañera – complete with dancing and piñatas. On January 1, the North American Free Trade Agreement turns 15, but it does not seem like anyone in Mexico is going to throw any parties for the groundbreaking trade agreement.

Celebrations in Washington are likely to be muted as well. President-elect Barack Obama swept to victory on a platform critical of Nafta and similar trade agreements, and he will have a Congress that has continued to shift away from such free-trade policies.

Obama also promised to take a "time-out" on trade agreements while a thorough review of US trade policy is carried out. He should make good on that promise. And unlike the campaign, which focused exclusively on how these agreements have brought limited benefits for people in the US, the review should take a hard look at Mexico's experience as well. It is not a pretty picture.

In Washington, many people almost take it for granted that Mexico was the big winner from Nafta. After all, the Mexican government got exactly what it wanted from the agreement: exports to the US increased sevenfold, much of it in manufacturing, and foreign direct investment jumped to four times pre-Nafta levels. With inflation down and productivity up, the Mexican economy was ready for takeoff.

It didn't happen. The economy grew slowly – an annual rate of 1.6% per capita. This was low by historical standards. The economy grew 3.5% per year from 1960-79, under the widely criticised policies of "import substitution". And it was low by developing country standards. China, India and Brazil all vaulted ahead of Mexico, following a much less orthodox set of policies that would be illegal for Mexico under Nafta.

Slow growth means limited job creation, all the more so with US exports displacing "inefficient" domestic producers. Estimates vary, but Mexico probably gained about 600,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector since Nafta took effect, but the country lost at least two million in agriculture, as cheap imports of corn and other commodities flooded the newly liberalised market.

So Mexico saw a net loss of employment under Nafta, and this at a time when the country's baby boom has about one million young people entering the work force each year. No wonder an estimated half-million Mexicans make the increasingly perilous and militarised crossing to the US each year, double the migration rate before Nafta, which, remember, was promised to end the migration problem by allowing Mexico to "export goods, not people".

No wonder some Mexicans are calling for their own government to renegotiate Nafta on its fifteenth birthday. The wage gap with the US has gotten bigger, not smaller, with US wages nearly six times Mexico's. About half the population can't find formal employment. Poverty rates and inequality are down only slightly, in part because remittances from Mexicans who migrated to the US are up six-fold since Nafta took effect.

Nafta's defenders may be right to say that the agreement was a success for Mexico, if success is just about increasing trade and investment. No one can deny that Mexico received preferential access to the coveted US market and huge inflows of US capital. But those who care about economic development ask for – and were promised – more. They ask that economic and trade policies benefit the population at large. On this, Nafta has failed.

This has important implications for US trade policy, and for any developing country seeking to sign a trade agreement with the US. Nafta is the template for such agreements. If Mexico, with a 2,000-mile border with the US, a strong history of bilateral trade and trade preferences that meant something during what turned out to be the longest economic expansion in US history, didn't prosper from its trade agreement, other developing countries are not likely to either.

The incoming Obama administration should make good on its promises to review Nafta. Indeed, review US trade policy as a whole. And examine not only its impacts on US workers and farmers but its development impacts in Mexico.

Then let's start from scratch and fashion trade agreements that are worthy of grand celebrations on both sides of our borders.
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Offline Amerokah

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
16 year Study concludes NAFTA is a complete failure.
« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2009, 10:37:59 PM »
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/north-america-mainmenu-36/813

Obama's Canada Visit Spotlights NAFTA

Written by Warren Mass     
Friday, 20 February 2009 22:04 


President Barack Obama made his first visit international trip as president on February 19, as he made a seven-hour visit to Canada’s capital city of Ottawa. The U.S. president was honored by a double line of Royal Canadian Mounted Police at Ottawa’s airport and was welcomed by Canada’s governor general, Michaëlle Jean, who escorted him inside the terminal. The governor general is the representative of Britain's Queen Elizabeth II in Canada.

Most of Obama’s discussions, however, took part with Canada’s head of government, Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

While the two leaders touched briefly on issues such as both nations’ roles in Afghanistan, environmental regulations related to Canadian extraction of oil from tar sand, and border security, trade policies dominated their discussions.

During his visit, the U.S. president sought to reassure Canadians that the “Buy American” clause in the $787 billion U.S. economic recovery plan would not threaten free trade. “I provided Prime Minister Harper an assurance that I want to grow trade and not contract it,” Obama said on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill. “I don’t think that there was anything in the recovery package that is adverse to that goal.” AFP reported that the clause originally restricted infrastructure projects outlined in the massive plan to using only U.S.-made materials. However, the limitations were later watered down to comply with U.S. treaty obligations.

In response to Obama’s statement, Harper said: “We expect the United States to adhere to its international obligations. I have every expectation, based on what the president's told me and what he said publicly many times in the past, that the United States will do just that.” However, in a follow-up comment about the U.S. stimulus program, Harper added a pointed caveat: “If we pursue stimulus packages, the goal of which is only to benefit ourselves ... we will deepen the world recession, not solve it.”

One area where Obama tread lightly was the possibility of renegotiating parts of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which includes the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Such revamping of NAFTA was part of Obama’s 2008 election platform.

While indicating that he was still willing to strengthen labor and environmental standards in the pact, he gave no sign that he would push for quick changes. “My hope is that ... there's a way of doing this that is not disruptive to the extraordinarily important trade relationships that exist between the United States and Canada,” he said.

Harper also seemed to address the issue of renegotiating NAFTA cautiously: “We can address some of these concerns, which I understand, without, you know, opening the whole NAFTA and unraveling what is a very complex agreement.”

NAFTA was approved by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. At the time, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that the agreement was “the architecture of a new international system.” Kissinger also labeled NAFTA as “the most creative step toward a new world order since the end of the Cold War."

While NAFTA is generally referred to by its supporters as a “free trade” agreement, Prime Minister Harper just identified it as “a very complex agreement.” Which is an accurate description of the mammoth 1,700-page agreement that created some 33 new international commissions, committees, secretariats, and sub-groups to oversee North American trade.

Since freedom, in its classic sense, is generally the by-product of a minimum of governmental regulation, true free trade would leave entrepreneurs free to conduct business in the best interests of themselves and their customers — governed only by natural market forces. Therefore, a so-called free-trade agreement that is identified as “very complex,” seems like something of an oxymoron.

The North American Free Trade Agreement in reality has little to do with genuine free trade and a great deal to do with economic consolidation and eventual political union. Anyone who wants to see where NAFTA will eventually lead needs only to look at Europe. A series of NAFTA-like agreements (the European Coal and Steel Community, the Common Market, the European Atomic Community and the European Community) eventually led to the formation of the European Union. With its own flag, anthem, Parliament, court, currency, and embassies, the EU is rendering national sovereignty for its member nations a thing of the past.

During the campaign, Obama's statement that he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA was interpreted by many Americans to mean that he wanted to move away from the agreement. But just the opposite is the case: by reforming NAFTA to include environmental and labor regualtions, the result would strengthening the super-national entity that was intended from the beginning to provide the foundation for a North American Union. Despite the fact that President Obama and Prime Minister Harper both seem reluctant to disturb NAFTA very much at present, future discussion among the leaders of the three North American countries, and where those discussion might lead, bear close watching.

 

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
NAFTA and SPP are destabilizing the entire country of Mexico
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2009, 09:59:36 PM »
Mexico City - The speaker of the lower house of Mexico's Guerrero state legislature was shot dead Thursday, the authorities said in state capital Chilpancingo.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/americas/news/article_1496548.php/State-lawmaker-murdered-in-Mexico


The police report said Armando Chavarria Barrera was found dead in front of his home, in the passenger's seat of his vehicle. He had been hit by two bullets.

Chavarria Barrera, of the state's ruling leftist Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD), was considered a potential candidate for state governor.

In a separate incident on Thursday, three human heads were found in three coolers in the town of Coyuca de Catalan, also in Guerrero, the local Public Security Ministry said.

Two black bags and a blanket holding dismembered human body parts were found near the coolers. The authorities believe these may be the three bodies that correspond to the dismembered heads. A piece of paper with a message had been left by the gruesome finding, although the authorities did not disclose its content.

More than 4,400 people have died in Mexico since January in incidents linked to organized crime and drug trafficking.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Ten alleged Mexican drug cartel leaders indicted in U.S. [whoah]
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2009, 10:02:04 PM »
Ten alleged Mexican drug cartel leaders indicted in U.S.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/20/mexico.drug.indictments/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
By Terry Frieden CNN Justice Producer


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ten suspected Mexican drug cartel leaders and 33 alleged drug traffickers have been indicted in New York and Chicago -- accused in illicit drug sales of more than $5 billion, federal authorities said Thursday.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, left, and Attorney General Eric Holder announce the indictments Thursday.

"These indictments are among the most significant drug conspiracy charges ever returned in Chicago," U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said.

Fitzgerald was among several officials who joined Attorney General Eric Holder to announce the indictments at a Justice Department news conference.

A Justice Department news release said eight of the 43 people indicted had been arrested during the past week in Chicago and Atlanta, Georgia, but the alleged cartel leaders remained at large.

But later department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney told CNN, "Approximately half of the 58 have been arrested in either the United States or Mexico. ... The number is literally changing as we speak."

She said some already had been freed on bond.

Authorities said 10 additional defendants who were couriers or customers of the cartels were charged earlier in Chicago. Five others also have been charged previously, bringing the total to 58 defendants, they said.

Along with the indictments, the U.S. government is seeking the forfeiture of more than $5.8 billion that federal authorities said has been shipped to Mexico from drug cocaine sales in the United States and Canada.

More than $22 million in cash bound for the cartel, known as "The Federation," was seized during the investigation, federal authorities said.

Officials said three of the suspected leaders of the Sinaloa cartel and The Federation are among those indicted. They are identified as Joaquin "el Chapo" Guzman-Loera, Ismael "el Mayo" Zambada-Garcia and Arturo Beltran-Leyva.

Those three are "allegedly among the most powerful drug traffickers in Mexico," the Justice Department news release said.

"The indictments announced today are the result of a sweeping national and international effort to stem the flow of drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border and into our communities," said Benton Campbell, the top federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, New York.
The news release said all but one of the defendants, if captured and successfully prosecuted, would face a maximum sentence of life in prison.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Ten alleged Mexican drug cartel leaders indicted in U.S. [whoah]
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2009, 10:08:48 PM »
Always remember that Indira Singh believes that Pat Fitzgerald is in place to protect the real criminals.

and the number of drug traffickers is a fairly clear sign of this being a freemason approved operation.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline unitedstrokesofamerica

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,452
  • DOMO SMASH DA NWO!!!!
Re: Ten alleged Mexican drug cartel leaders indicted in U.S. [whoah]
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2009, 10:12:00 PM »
There is a new sheriff in town.....


Brazil urges South America, U.S. summit over bases

QUITO, (Reuters) – Brazilian President Luiz Inacio  Lula da Silva yesterday urged regional leaders to seek a summit  with the United States to defuse tensions over a Colombian plan  to allow U.S. troops more access to its military bases.

The U.S. proposal to use seven Colombian bases has fueled a  fight between U.S. ally Colombia and Andean leftist leaders in  Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia and also stirred concern from  Chile and regional heavyweight Brazil.

Yesterday’s summit of the Unasur regional group in Quito was  was called to hand over the group’s presidency to Ecuador and  discuss issues such as financial systems and counter-narcotics  but the U.S.-Colombia base plan dominated. Venezuelan President  Hugo Chavez, a fierce U.S. foe, and his allies blasted the  proposal as an aggression.

Washington has given Colombia, the world’s No. 1 cocaine  producer, more than $5 billion in aid to fight drug traffickers  and rebels. It now wants to relocate a hub for anti-drug  operations from Ecuador to Colombia.

Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who did not attend yesterday’s summit, says the plan is an extension of existing  accords.
Colombia’s defense minister will attend an Aug. 24 meeting  with his South American counterparts to discuss the bases, a  Colombian Foreign Ministry official told the summit.

In proposing a summit with the United States to discuss the  base plan, Lula said, “People will hear things that they don’t  like but we have to talk clearly. This will be resolved with  conversation, with people showing up.

“At a given movement, Unasur can call for a meeting with  the United States to discuss topics of interest to the  region.”
Uribe has toured South America to ease concern about the  U.S. plan and more moderate governments said it was a sovereign  matter. But leftists led by Chavez were furious and the  socialist leader has taken economic measures against Colombia.

“I have the moral obligation to warn about the danger,”  Chavez said. “This could be the start of a new tragedy … The  winds of war are beginning to blow.”

Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, who began a second term  yesterday, called the base plan “an open provocation.”
Tensions have simmered in the Andes since last year when  Colombian troops raided across the border to kill a Colombian  FARC rebel commander in his camp in Ecuador. Venezuela and  Ecuador briefly moved troops to their borders before the crisis  was defused at a summit in the Dominican Republic.

U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday denied the United  States is planning to set up military bases in Colombia as part  of the upgraded security agreement and said he has no intention  of sending large numbers of additional troops.

The plan is expected to increase the number of U.S. troops  in Colombia above the current total of less than 300 but not  above 800, the maximum permitted under the existing military  pact, officials have said.

“It is essential to call a meeting of the presidents of  Unasur,” said Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, offering  to host a new summit. “A state of belligerency is being created  in the region.”
"You gotta remember, establishment, it’s just a name for evil. The monster doesn’t care whether it kills all the students or whether there’s a revolution. It’s not thinking logically, it’s out of control."
— John Lennon (1969)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEej1feA9N8

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Ten alleged Mexican drug cartel leaders indicted in U.S. [whoah]
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2009, 10:18:58 PM »
There is a new sheriff in town.....


Brazil urges South America, U.S. summit over bases

QUITO, (Reuters) – Brazilian President Luiz Inacio  Lula da Silva yesterday urged regional leaders to seek a summit  with the United States to defuse tensions over a Colombian plan  to allow U.S. troops more access to its military bases.

The U.S. proposal to use seven Colombian bases has fueled a  fight between U.S. ally Colombia and Andean leftist leaders in  Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia and also stirred concern from  Chile and regional heavyweight Brazil.

Yesterday’s summit of the Unasur regional group in Quito was  was called to hand over the group’s presidency to Ecuador and  discuss issues such as financial systems and counter-narcotics  but the U.S.-Colombia base plan dominated. Venezuelan President  Hugo Chavez, a fierce U.S. foe, and his allies blasted the  proposal as an aggression.

Washington has given Colombia, the world’s No. 1 cocaine  producer, more than $5 billion in aid to fight drug traffickers  and rebels. It now wants to relocate a hub for anti-drug  operations from Ecuador to Colombia.

Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who did not attend yesterday’s summit, says the plan is an extension of existing  accords.
Colombia’s defense minister will attend an Aug. 24 meeting  with his South American counterparts to discuss the bases, a  Colombian Foreign Ministry official told the summit.

In proposing a summit with the United States to discuss the  base plan, Lula said, “People will hear things that they don’t  like but we have to talk clearly. This will be resolved with  conversation, with people showing up.

“At a given movement, Unasur can call for a meeting with  the United States to discuss topics of interest to the  region.”
Uribe has toured South America to ease concern about the  U.S. plan and more moderate governments said it was a sovereign  matter. But leftists led by Chavez were furious and the  socialist leader has taken economic measures against Colombia.

“I have the moral obligation to warn about the danger,”  Chavez said. “This could be the start of a new tragedy … The  winds of war are beginning to blow.”

Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, who began a second term  yesterday, called the base plan “an open provocation.”
Tensions have simmered in the Andes since last year when  Colombian troops raided across the border to kill a Colombian  FARC rebel commander in his camp in Ecuador. Venezuela and  Ecuador briefly moved troops to their borders before the crisis  was defused at a summit in the Dominican Republic.

U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday denied the United  States is planning to set up military bases in Colombia as part  of the upgraded security agreement and said he has no intention  of sending large numbers of additional troops.

The plan is expected to increase the number of U.S. troops  in Colombia above the current total of less than 300 but not  above 800, the maximum permitted under the existing military  pact, officials have said.

“It is essential to call a meeting of the presidents of  Unasur,” said Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, offering  to host a new summit. “A state of belligerency is being created  in the region.”

Brazil is part of BRIC who is a challenge to the G7...

interesting
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline unitedstrokesofamerica

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,452
  • DOMO SMASH DA NWO!!!!
Re: Ten alleged Mexican drug cartel leaders indicted in U.S. [whoah]
« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2009, 10:28:20 PM »
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, Canada and the United States       VS.      Brazil, Russia, India, China, Iran and every other country we have pissed off over the past 50 years. 




 This is not looking good, when you start to see all the unrelated stuff meshing all at once bad things are sure to come.
"You gotta remember, establishment, it’s just a name for evil. The monster doesn’t care whether it kills all the students or whether there’s a revolution. It’s not thinking logically, it’s out of control."
— John Lennon (1969)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEej1feA9N8

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
All this coming soon to the USA...
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Ten alleged Mexican drug cartel leaders indicted in U.S. [whoah]
« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2009, 10:50:46 PM »
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, Canada and the United States       VS.      Brazil, Russia, India, China, Iran and every other country we have pissed off over the past 50 years. 




 This is not looking good, when you start to see all the unrelated stuff meshing all at once bad things are sure to come.

never forget that Russia is also in the G8 (G7 +Russia).  This has led many to believe that there is a higher elite that includes Britain overseeing the G7 and Russia overseeing the BRIC working with each other behind the scenes for a New World Order
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
Re: Ten alleged Mexican drug cartel leaders indicted in U.S. [whoah]
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2009, 12:30:01 AM »
never forget that Russia is also in the G8 (G7 +Russia).  This has led many to believe that there is a higher elite that includes Britain overseeing the G7 and Russia overseeing the BRIC working with each other behind the scenes for a New World Order

That's why I've always said that I don't believe the Russians are the "good guys"  fighting the NWO.

I think everyone is just jockeying to secure their position in the NWO.
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Ten alleged Mexican drug cartel leaders indicted in U.S. [whoah]
« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2009, 07:15:52 AM »
That's why I've always said that I don't believe the Russians are the "good guys"  fighting the NWO.

I think everyone is just jockeying to secure their position in the NWO.

the original cold war was BS. many worked on both sides of the "iron curtain"
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Mexico’s Economy Shrank Most in More Than 25 Years
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=agGIL_otYf1M
By Jens Erik Gould

Aug. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Mexico’s economy contracted at the fastest pace in more than 25 years last quarter as the global recession and swine flu caused a plunge in industrial output and services.

Latin America’s second-largest economy shrank 10.3 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier, the national statistics agency said today. Manufacturing shrank 16.4 in the second quarter and the service industry contracted 10.4 percent.

Mexico’s slump has deepened and job losses have accelerated as the recession in the U.S., which buys about 80 percent of the nation’s exports, saps demand for manufactured goods. Still, seasonally adjusted quarterly data shows the economy performed better in the second quarter than in the first.

“The economy had a heart attack and you’re starting to see a recovery,” said Rafael de la Fuente, chief Latin American economist at BNP Paribas SA in New York. “The bottom of the recession is behind us.”

The economy shrank 1.1 percent in the second quarter from the first quarter, compared with a 5.9 percent contraction in the first quarter from the previous three months, according to seasonally adjusted figures from the statistics agency.

“We’ll have a better GDP in the third quarter compared with the second, and in the fourth compared with the third,” Central Bank Governor Guillermo Ortiz said yesterday in an interview with UNAM TV. “But on average for the year, it will be very ugly.”

Worst in Region

Mexico’s GDP, the broadest measure of a country’s output of goods and services, will contract the most this year among the region’s largest economies, said Claudio Loser, former Western Hemisphere director for the International Monetary Fund.

“Exports have declined very sharply and we don’t yet see a reaction to the slow improvement in economic activity in the U.S.,” Loser said in a conference call.

Analysts had estimated gross domestic product would shrink 10.6 percent, according to the median estimate of 23 economists surveyed by Bloomberg.

The decline in second-quarter GDP was the biggest quarterly fall since at least 1980, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The outbreak of swine flu in April and May will probably reduce GDP by 0.5 percent this year, Ortiz has said.

Auto Industry

Volkswagen AG, Europe’s largest automaker, said in June it would reduce production of four models in Mexico for about six weeks as demand stalled amid the global recession. Mexican production of cars and light trucks fell 48 percent in June from the same month a year earlier, the nation’s Automobile Industry Association said.

Mexico’s peso will depreciate because of the contraction in the economy, Rogelio Ramirez de la O, the Mexico City-based economist who predicted the 1994 peso devaluation, said in a conference call today.

The currency was little changed at 12.8875 per U.S. dollar at 5:05 p.m. New York time.

The central bank forecasts Mexico’s economy will shrink as much as 7.5 percent this year, which would be the most since 1932. Brazil’s economy will only contract 0.34 percent this year, according to a survey by that country’s central bank.

The shrinking economy has cut tax collection. That, along with falling oil revenue, will widen the budget deficit this year to the equivalent of 3 percent of GDP from 2.1 percent in 2008 and in 2007, the government predicts.

President Felipe Calderon said this month that officials may propose a combination of debt, higher taxes and lower spending in a bid to keep a lid on next year’s budget gap. Standard & Poor’s cut the outlook on Mexico’s debt to “negative” from “stable” in May because of the country’s dependence on oil revenue.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Online jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,768
    • The Great Deception
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

charrington

  • Guest
16 year Study concludes NAFTA is a complete failure.
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2010, 12:07:24 PM »

Who benefited from the North American Free Trade Agreement? Given the continuing decline in American manufacturing jobs, many people assume the winner in the accord must have been Mexico.

Unions and a portion of the Democratic Party have argued that the accord helped push American jobs south of the border to Mexico, where companies can take advantage of low wages and lax regulation. When the issue emerged again last year during the Democratic primary, the benefits to Mexico were never questioned.

But a study released Wednesday by the  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace finds that Mexico has fared poorly under the accord.

“After 15 years, it seems clear that Nafta’s promise of broad-based dynamic growth did not come true in Mexico,” write the study’s authors,  Eduardo Zepeda of the Carnegie Endowment and Timothy A. Wise and Kevin P. Gallagher of the  Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts.

In one crucial way, Nafta did deliver as expected: Exports and foreign direct investment tripled from the early 1990s as Mexico became a leading supplier of cars, electronics and a broad variety of industrial parts to the United States. Productivity in Mexican manufacturing rose 80 percent.

But annual economic growth averaged only 1.6 percent per capita between 1992 and 2007 — low even by Mexican standards until the 1980s.

The authors blame several problems that contributed to the low growth. While those problems are not exclusively Nafta’s fault, the authors argue that they are part of a broader Nafta-based economic strategy that shunned the public sector’s role in promoting growth.

For example, despite the increase in foreign direct investment, domestic investment decreased.

There are several reasons for this. Local companies went out of business because they could not compete with imports. Foreign companies that invested in Mexico did not source from Mexico, and Nafta’s conditions prevented Mexico from requiring local purchases. At the same time, public investment fell because Mexico adopted strict fiscal policies to achieve macroeconomic stability. The study estimates that Mexico’s overall investment rate has hovered around 19 percent of gross domestic product, compared to China’s rate of about 40 percent over the last two decades.

American jobs did move south, particularly into the export sector. The growth in services — new supermarkets, banks, tourism — also created jobs. But overall, Mexico was unable to create enough jobs to make up for all the jobs lost because of competition from imports, particularly purchases of ...
MORE

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/did-nafta-actually-help-mexico/

| - - - - - -

update:

....

But a study released Wednesday by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
[ http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/nafta_trade_development.pdf ]  finds that Mexico has fared poorly under the accord.

“After 15 years, it seems clear that Nafta’s promise of broad-based dynamic growth did not come true in Mexico,” write the study’s authors, Eduardo Zepeda of the Carnegie Endowment and Timothy A. Wise and Kevin P. Gallagher of the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts.


Offline IndigoMoon

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Is the March 22, 2012 Obama Executive Order tied to NAFTA?
« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2012, 12:04:24 AM »
Executive Order:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/22/executive-order-improving-performance-federal-permitting-and-review-infr

Just the beginning- go to link to read order:
Executive Order -- Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

IMPROVING PERFORMANCE OF FEDERAL PERMITTING
AND REVIEW OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to significantly reduce the aggregate time required to make decisions in the permitting and review of infrastructure projects by the Federal Government, while improving environmental and community outcomes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. (a) To maintain our Nation's competitive edge and ensure an economy built to last, the United States must have fast, reliable, resilient, and environmentally sound means of moving people, goods, energy, and information. In a global economy, we will compete for the world's investments based in significant part on the quality of our infrastructure. Investing in the Nation's infrastructure provides immediate and long-term economic benefits for local communities and the Nation as a whole.

The quality of our Nation's infrastructure depends in critical part on Federal permitting and review processes, including planning, approval, and consultation processes. These processes inform decision-makers and affected communities about the potential benefits and impacts of proposed infrastructure projects, and ensure that projects are designed, built, and maintained in a manner that is consistent with protecting our public health, welfare, safety, national security, and environment. Reviews and approvals of infrastructure projects can be delayed due to many factors beyond the control of the Federal Government, such as poor project design, incomplete applications, uncertain funding, or multiple reviews and approvals by State, local, tribal, or other jurisdictions. Given these factors, it is critical that executive departments and agencies (agencies) take all steps within their authority, consistent with available resources, to execute Federal permitting and review processes with maximum efficiency and effectiveness, ensuring the health, safety, and security of communities and the environment while supporting vital economic growth.

Offline laresistance

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
NAFTA Partners Take Steps to Boost Trilateral Relationship
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2012, 07:41:50 AM »
While bilateral initiatives have dominated North American issues over the last couple of years, the trilateral relationship has suffered. With a series of high-level meetings, the U.S., Canada and Mexico are taking steps to boost the NAFTA partnership. First, the defense ministers met to discuss shared continental security threats. This was followed by a leaders summit which pledged to deepen trade, regulatory, energy and security cooperation. The recent meetings have caused some to once again take notice of the incremental efforts to merge all three countries into a North American Union.

In what was hailed as an historic event, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay, Mexican Secretary of National Defense Guillermo Galvan, and Mexican Secretary of the Navy Mariano Mendoza recently held the Inaugural Meeting of North American Defense Ministers. As part of a framework they agreed to, “ Develop a joint trilateral defense threat assessment for North America to deepen our common understanding of the threats and challenges we face. Explore ways to improve our support to the efforts of civilian public security agencies in countering illicit activities in our respective countries and the hemisphere, such as narcotics trafficking. Explore how we can collaborate to increase the speed and efficiency with which our armed forces support civilian-led responses to disasters. Continue to work together to strengthen hemispheric defense forums.” The ministers also committed to enhancing cooperation in the fight against transnational criminal organizations. The trilateral defense meeting is part of the ongoing efforts to establish a fully integrated North American security perimeter.

On April 2, President Barack Obama hosted Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon for the sixth North American Leaders Summit. In a joint statement they reaffirmed their, “commitment to further develop our thriving political and economic partnership with a consistent and strategic long-term vision.” The leaders acknowledged that, “continued North American competitiveness requires secure supply chains and efficient borders. We remain committed to achieving this through co-operative approaches.” With respect to regulatory initiatives, they agreed to move forward trilaterally in areas such as “vehicle emission standards, railroad safety, the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Workplace Chemicals, and aligning principles of our regulatory approaches to nanomaterials.” They also announced the creation of the North American Plan for Animal and Pandemic Influenza. Following the leaders summit, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk engaged in discussions with Canadian Trade Minister Ed Fast and Mexico’s Secretary of the Economy Bruno Ferrari, as part of the NAFTA Commission Meeting.

read full article http://beyourownleader.blogspot.ca/2012/04/nafta-partners-take-steps-to-boost_09.html

Offline ekimdrachir

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,144
  • METATRON ON
    • Go Outside
Cross-Border Forces ( NAFTA NAU NWO GESTAPO )
« Reply #30 on: December 09, 2012, 02:28:33 PM »

Offline laresistance

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Beyond NAFTA: Shaping the Future of North American Integration
« Reply #31 on: December 11, 2012, 07:40:14 AM »
In a move that signalled the importance placed on the NAFTA partnership, Mexico’s new president visited the U.S. and Canada before his inauguration. This was seen as a step forward in further strengthening political, economic, energy and security ties between all three countries. Other recent high-level meetings and policy papers are also shaping the future of North American integration.

Before his recent trip to the U.S., Mexico’s new President Enrique Pena Nieto emphasized in a Washington Post editorial the opportunity both countries have to build on their economic partnership. He explained that, “in NAFTA we have a solid foundation to further integrate our economies through greater investments in finance, infrastructure, manufacturing and energy.” As part of his government’s strategy to reduce violence, he stated that it is, “important that our countries increase intelligence-sharing and crime-fighting techniques and promote cooperation among law enforcement agencies.” In a White House press release, Pena Nieto invited President Barack Obama to participate in the next North American Leaders Summit which will take place in Mexico sometime in 2013. With regards to U.S.-Mexico relations, Obama said that he was also looking forward to finding ways, “to strengthen our economic ties, our trade ties, our coordination along the border, improving our joint competitiveness, as well as common security issues.”

According to the new policy brief, A New Agenda with Mexico put out by the Woodrow Wilson Center, “declines in illegal immigration and organized crime violence in Mexico, open up an opportunity for U.S. policymakers to deepen the economic relationship.” The report recommended working, “together with Mexico and Canada to strengthen regional competitiveness and to grow North American exports to the world.” It further elaborated on how, “Economic issues can drive the next phase in deepening U.S.-Mexico cooperation. Investments in trusted shipper programs, pre-inspection programs, and enhanced border infrastructure will be crucial.” The study called on Washington to offer more, “support for Mexico’s criminal justice institutions, and strengthen U.S. anti-money laundering efforts in order to combat organized crime and violence.” It also recommended engaging, “Mexico more actively on hemispheric and extra-hemispheric foreign policy issues, ranging from terrorism to international trade and finance, as Mexico’s role as a global power grows.”
 
In a recent article, Laura Carlsen, director of the Americas Policy Program scrutinized some the new Mexican president’s policy initiatives. In the area of security, she pointed out that, “A real change in paradigm would require two measures that the Pena government has said it will not take: withdrawing the armed forces from counternarcotics efforts and renegotiating security cooperation with the U.S. government.” She noted, “Pena Nieto has reassured the U.S. that his administration will continue the drug war.” Carlsen acknowledged how, “The U.S. government has actively promoted and supported the drug war model of enforcement and interdiction through the Merida Initiative and spearheaded the massive expansion of U.S. counternarcotics activities in the country.” She further added, “U.S. defense, intelligence and security companies depend on the Mexican drug war to obtain multi-million dollar government contracts. The Pentagon and other U.S. agencies have achieved unprecedented freedom to act and even direct actions on Mexican soil.” As far as economic policy goes, Carlsen was also critical of President Pena Nieto’s commitment to deepen rather than fix NAFTA.

read full article http://beyourownleader.blogspot.ca/2012/12/beyond-nafta-shaping-future-of-north_10.html

Offline John_Back_From_The_Club_O

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,166
    • From Hell to Veins
NAFTA At 20. A 'Suck-Cesspit' Story If There Ever Was One!
« Reply #32 on: March 20, 2013, 12:41:24 AM »
OLAY!
--------------------------------------------
NAFTA at 20: The New Spin
http://www.fpif.org/articles/nafta_at_20_the_new_spin

Only a few years ago, analysts were warning that Mexico was at risk of becoming a “failed state.” These days, the Mexican government appears to be doing a much better PR job.

Despite the devastating and ongoing drug war, the story now goes that Mexico is poised to become a “middle-class” society. As establishment apostle Thomas Friedman put it in the New York Times, Mexico is now one of “the more dominant economic powers in the 21st century.”

But this spin is based on superficial assumptions. The small signs of economic recovery in Mexico are grounded largely on the return of maquiladora factories from China, where wages have been increasing as Mexican wages have stagnated. Under-cutting China on labor costs is hardly something to celebrate. This trend is nothing but the return of the same “free-trade” model that has failed the Mexican people for 20 years.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was ratified in 1993 and went into effect in 1994, was touted as the cure for Mexico’s economic “backwardness.” Promoters argued that the trilateral trade agreement would dig Mexico out of its economic rut and modernize it along the lines of its mighty neighbor, the United States.

The story went like this:

NAFTA was going to bring new U.S. technology and capital to complement Mexico’s surplus labor. This in turn would lead Mexico to industrialize and increase productivity, thereby making the country more competitive abroad. The spike in productivity and competiveness would automatically cause wages in Mexico to increase. The higher wages would expand economic opportunities in Mexico, slowing migration to the United States.

In the words of the former President Bill Clinton, NAFTA was going to “promote more growth, more equality and better preservation of the environment and a greater possibility of world peace.” Mexico’s president at the time, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, echoed Clinton’s sentiments during a commencement address at MIT: “NAFTA is a job-creating agreement," he said. "It is an environment improvement agreement.” More importantly, Salinas boasted, “it is a wage-increasing agreement.”

As the 20th anniversary of NAFTA approaches, however, the verdict is indisputable: NAFTA failed to spur meaningful and inclusive economic growth in Mexico, pull Mexicans out of unemployment and underemployment, or reduce poverty. By all accounts, it has done just the opposite.

The Verdict Is In

Official statistics show that from 2006 to 2010, more than 12 million people joined the ranks of the impoverished in Mexico, causing the poverty level to jump to 51.3 percent of the population. According to the United Nations, in the past decade Mexico saw the slowest reduction in poverty in all of Latin America.

Rampant poverty in Mexico is a product of IMF and World Bank-led neoliberal policies—such as anti-inflationary policies that have kept wages stagnant—of which “free-trade” pacts like NAFTA are part and parcel. Another factor is the systematic failure to create good jobs in the formal sectors of the economy. During Felipe Calderon’s presidency, the share of the Mexican labor force relying on informal work—such as selling chewing gum and other low-cost products on the street—grew to nearly 50 percent.

Even the wages in the manufacturing sector, which NAFTA cheerleaders argued would benefit the most from trade liberalization, have remained extremely low. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mexican manufacturing workers made an average hourly wage of only $4.53 in 2011, compared to $26.87 for their U.S. counterparts. Between 1997 and 2011, the U.S.-Mexico manufacturing wage gap narrowed only slightly, with Mexican wages rising from 13 to 17 percent of the level earned by American workers. In Brazil, by contrast, manufacturing wages are almost double Mexico’s, and in Argentina almost triple.

Mexico’s stagnant wages are celebrated by free traders as an opportunity for U.S. businesses interested in outsourcing. According to one report by the McKinsey management consulting firm, “for a company motivated primarily by cost, Mexico holds the most attractive position among the Latin American countries we studied. … Mexico’s advantages start with low labor costs.”

But even as the damning evidence against NAFTA continues to roll in, entrenched advocates of the trade agreement have been busy crafting new arguments. In his recent book, Mexico: A Middle Class Society, NAFTA negotiator Luis De la Calle and his co-author argue that the trade agreement has given rise to a growing Mexican middle class by providing consumers with higher quality, U.S- made goods. The authors proclaim that “NAFTA has dramatically reduced the costs of goods for Mexican families at the same time that the quality and variety of goods and services in the country grew.”

Most of the economic indicators included in the book conveniently fail to account for the 2008-2009 financial crisis, which hit Mexico worse than almost any other Latin American country. The result has been skyrocketing inequality. As the Guardian reported last December, “ever more Mexican families have acquired the trappings of middle-class life such as cars, fridges, and washing machines, but about half of the population still lives in poverty.”

The indicators of consumption that suggest the rise of Mexico’s middle class also exclude the dramatic increase in food prices in recent years, which has condemned millions of Mexicans to hunger. Twenty-eight million Mexicans are facing “food poverty,” meaning they lack access to sufficient nutritious food. According to official statistics, more than 50,000 people died of malnutrition between 2006 and 2011. That’s almost as many as have died in Mexico's drug war, which dramatically escalated under Calderon and has continued under President Enrique Peña Nieto.

The food crisis has coincided with the “Walmartization” of the country. In 1994 there were only 14 Walmart retail stores in all of Mexico. Now there are more than 1,724 retail and wholesale stores. This is almost half the number of U.S. Walmarts, and far more than any other country outside the United States. The proliferation of Walmart and other U.S. big-box stores in Mexico since NAFTA came into effect has ushered in a new era of consumerism—in part through an aggressive expansion built on political bribes and the destruction of ancient Aztec ruins.  

The arguments developed prior to the signing of NAFTA focused primarily on the claim that the trade agreement would make Mexico a nation of producers and exporters. These initial promises failed to deliver. Throughout the NAFTA years, the bulk of Mexico’s manufacturing “exports” have come from transnational car and technology companies. Not surprisingly, Mexico’s intra-industry trade with the United Sates is the highest of any Latin American country. Yet the percentage of Mexican companies that are actually exporters is vanishingly small, and imports of food into Mexico have surged.

Same Snake Oil, Different Pitch

Because their initial promises utterly failed to deliver, the NAFTA pushers are now hyping “consumer benefits” to justify new trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. One of the most extreme examples of this spin is an article in The Washington Post that celebrates a “growing middle class” in Mexico that is “buying more U.S. goods than ever, while turning Mexico into a more democratic, dynamic and prosperous American ally.” Devoid of all logic, it goes on to say that “Mexico's growth as a manufacturing hub is boosted by low wages.” How can low wages make people more prosperous?

The Post also boasts that in “Mexico’s Costco stores, staples such as tortilla chips and chipotle salsa are trucked in from factories in California and Texas that produce for both sides of the border.” Is this something to celebrate? The influx of traditional Mexican food staples, starting with maize, and goods from the United States has displaced and dislocated millions of Mexican small-scale farmers, producers, and small businesses. And not only that, Mexicans’ increasing consumption of processed foods and beverages from the United States has made the country the second-most obese in the world.

In essence, NAFTA advocates have been reduced to saying: “so maybe NAFTA didn’t help Mexico reduce poverty or increase wages. But hey! At least it gave it Walmart, Costcos, and sweat shops.”

The bankruptcy of NAFTA’s promises is only compounded by the poverty of this consolation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
THANK GOD FOR NAFTA!!! NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8zNsUTWsOc
The Crowd Shouted... “Give us Barabbas!” ... and People, The NWO Gave Him To You.
http://www.dominicanajournal.org/give-us-barabbas/

https://www.greatagain.gov

Offline FrankRep

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
[Video] Henry Kissinger: NAFTA, the Architecture for the New World Order
« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2013, 09:48:13 PM »
Henry Kissinger: NAFTA, the Architecture for the New World Order


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKKwZl1BTxk


Henry Kissinger: NAFTA -- it will represent the most creative step towards a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the cold war. The revolution sweeping the Western hemisphere points to an international order based on cooperation. It is this revolution that is at stake in the ratification of NAFTA. What congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement, but the Architecture of a new international system - Los Angeles Times, 1993





Stop the Free Trade Agenda

STOP FREE TRADE AGENDA is a major new action project of The John Birch Society with the purpose of preserving our personal freedoms and national independence by stopping congressional approval of any new multilateral free trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). A vote to approve the TPP agreement is expected in late 2013; a vote on the TTIP agreement is expected in 2015. The global power elites view multilateral free trade agreements as one of their main vehicles for establishing, step by step, socialistic regional governments controlled by themselves as steppingstones toward a socialistic global government under the United Nations.




How the Free Trade Agenda Is Knocking Down America -- The New American (PDF) Special Report
http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/pdf/FreeTradeAgendaSpecialReport.pdf


September 2, 2013


The Special Report includes the following articles:

- The "Free Trade" Agenda Threatens Our Rights
- Global Merger: Piece by Piece
- The EU: Regionalization Trumps Sovereignty
- Trade Promises... and Trade Reality
- North American Union: From NAFTA to the NAU
- Fast-track: Enabler of the "Free Trade" Agenda
- Regional Scheme for the Pacific Rim
- EU/U.S. — Transatlantic Convergence
- Preserve Your Rights: Stop the "Free Trade" Agenda


Tools to STOP the "Free Trade" Agenda - Pamphlet, Reprints, CDs, TNA Special Issues
https://www.jbs.org/shop-jbs/stop-the-free-trade-agenda


Facebook:

Choose Freedom - STOP the Free Trade Agenda

Offline FrankRep

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
Re: [Video] Henry Kissinger: NAFTA, the Architecture for the New World Order
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2013, 02:02:36 PM »
Saint Augustine Tea Party meeting: Stop the Free Trade Agenda


Date: August 27, 2013
Time: 6:30PM

Village Inn
900 N Ponce De Leon Ave
St. Augustine, Florida






Keith Dunn, Field Coordinator of the John Birch Society, will be speaking at the Saint Augustine Tea Party meeting on Tuesday, August 27th, according to an announcement received by Historic City News today.

According to Dunn, the term “free trade” is often used these days in multinational agreements, although such arrangements do not eliminate government involvement in trade, but rather create multinational entities to regulate it.

Dunn will discuss the John Birch Society’s action project and how the deceptive “free trade” agenda is threatening our national independence, our personal freedoms, and our jobs.

Historic City News readers are invited to attend Tuesday, August 27, at 6:30 p.m. at the Village Inn located at 900 North Ponce de Leon Boulevard in St Augustine.

The John Birch Society’s mission statement is: Less government, more responsibility, and – with God’s help – a better world.

Offline laresistance

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
NAFTA and the Next Phase of North American Integration
« Reply #35 on: January 28, 2014, 07:59:46 AM »
In preparation for the upcoming North American Leaders Summit which will be held in Toluca, Mexico on February 19, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry recently held a meeting with his Canadian and Mexican counterparts. Over the last number of years, not as much attention has been given to the trilateral relationship. Instead, the U.S. has essentially pursued a dual-bilateral approach with both Canada and Mexico on key issues including border and continental perimeter security, as well as regulatory and energy cooperation. On the heels of its 20th anniversary, there once again appears to be renewed interest in broadening and deepening the NAFTA partnership as part of the next phase of North American integration.

After 20 years of NAFTA, there is a growing sense from proponents of the deal that the time is right to take new steps towards North American economic integration. Beyond all those who view NAFTA as a success, there is a dark side and a legacy of broken promises. When NAFTA was introduced, it represented the architecture for a new international system. It became the template for future trade agreements which have been used to promote even greater corporate control. The TPP negotiations which are currently underway would expand the failed NAFTA model to even more countries. Furthermore, with the U.S., Canada and Mexico all a part of the massive trade talks, it also provides an opportunity to upgrade NAFTA without having to reopen it.

read full article http://beyourownleader.blogspot.ca/2014/01/nafta-and-next-phase-of-north-american.html

Offline laresistance

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
NAFTA Partners Pushing North American Competitiveness Integration Agenda
« Reply #36 on: March 04, 2014, 08:49:34 AM »
The recent North American Leaders Summit in Mexico was seen as a perfect opportunity to try and kickstart the trilateral partnership. While there was no headline grabbers or major breakthroughs, the NAFTA partners still moved forward on some crucial issues that centered around North American competitiveness. They developed a shared set of priorities and established a roadmap for enhancing cooperation in areas such as trade, transportation, energy, as well as border facilitation. This includes creating a North American trusted traveler program which is part of ongoing efforts to establish a fully integrated continental security perimeter. During separate bilateral meetings, Canada and Mexico also took steps towards strengthening political, economic and security ties.

Going into the North American Leaders Summit, there were various disputes between the NAFTA partners which threatened to derail the event. Nevertheless, the leaders managed to put on a united front. They committed to pushing a North American competitiveness agenda, along with other priority areas for action. In the end, any success at this year’s trilateral meeting will not be able to be properly measured until the next leaders summit which will be hosted by Prime Minister Harper in 2015. At that point, we will have a better indication on any progress that was made in implementing key deliverables that were announced and not to mention any subsequent initiatives that are also later launched. Although some of the buzz words have changed and the path towards achieving deeper integration has been altered, the goal for a North American Union remains the same.

read full article http://beyourownleader.blogspot.ca/2014/03/nafta-partners-pushing-north-american.html

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,200
Re: 16 year Study concludes NAFTA is a complete failure.
« Reply #37 on: July 01, 2014, 12:29:37 PM »
PrisonPlanet Forum > Globalization and the plan for NWO > US Sovereignty and Border Crisis > Unfair Trade Agreements-NAFTA/GATT/WTO/EU > Post reply ( Re: Video - Ron Paul: Oppose Free Trade Agreements ( like NAFTA ) )
Video - Ron Paul: Oppose Free Trade Agreements ( like NAFTA)

Ron Paul: Oppose Free Trade Agreements
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFLRuMHAK_w




Ron Paul says Free Trade Agreements erode National sovereignty, destroy jobs, and only serves the special interests. So-called "Free Trade" is Government-managed trade.




How the Free Trade Agenda Is Knocking Down America -- The New American (PDF) Special Report
http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/TNA2917.pdf
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,768
    • The Great Deception
Re: 16 year Study concludes NAFTA is a complete failure.
« Reply #38 on: July 01, 2014, 12:51:19 PM »
Petraeus: NAFTA Has Replaced America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa_trfcJdME

Here is Bill Clinton essentially apologizing for NAFTA, and destroying Haiti's agricultural economy with rice imports! "We Made a Devils Bargain: Fmr. President Clinton Apologizes for Haiti Trade Policies"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtTeDv5FbNw
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,200
Re: 16 year Study concludes NAFTA is a complete failure.
« Reply #39 on: July 01, 2014, 01:24:32 PM »

Fresh out of Bilderberg, Betrayus cracks out of turn ...

http://www.cps.org.uk/about/news/q/date/2014/06/23/liberty2014-seen-around-the-world-23-million-times/
Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rz3QYwEMEGc
#Liberty2014 - the livestream

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2012/11/10/petraeus-end-triggered-by-threats-reveal-dilemma/1696527/



Immigration Reform 2013-2014 - Mis-Trust Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa_trfcJdME
Petraeus: NAFTA Has Replaced America
Published on Jun 20, 2014

Petraeus spoke at the Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty and took the opportunity to dance of the grave of a sovereign America, declaring it has been replaced with a North American Union and saying that's a good thing ...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/18585-after-america-comes-north-america-gen-petraeus-boasts
Friday, 27 June 2014 12:30  
“After America Comes North America,” Gen. Petraeus [Bilderberger] Boasts

Former general and CIA chief David Petraeus (shown), a key figure in the globalist Council on Foreign Relations and the shadowy Bilderberg network, boasted at a recent conference that the United States of America is set to be merged into the continental regime being erected under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Speaking at the Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty last week in London, the ex-commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq essentially celebrated the end of U.S. independence — and by extension, the demise of the Constitution.  

After America comes North America,” Petraeus said confidently in answering the question about what comes after the United States, the theme of the panel discussion. “Are we on the threshold of the North American decade, question mark? I threw that away — threw away the question mark — and boldly proclaimed the coming North American decade, says the title now.”

He also boasted about how the three economies have been put “together” over the last 20 years as part of the “implementation” of the North American Free Trade Act.

...

http://www.aboutroma.com/romans.html
The Roman Empire and its citizens
 ...
Rights given:

* The right to vote in the Republic.
 * The right to make legal contracts.
 * The right to have a lawful marriage.
 * Citizens couldn´t be submited to torture.
 * The right to have a trial (to appear before a proper court and to defend oneself).
 * A Roman citizen couldn't be sentenced to death unless he was found guilty of treason. If acused of treason, a Roman citizen had the right to be tried in Rome.
 * Even if sentenced to death, no Roman citizen could be sentenced to die at the cross. (Despite being found guilty of the same crime St. Paul, was beheaded. St. Peter on the other hand, not being a Roman citizen, was crucified.).
 * Roman citizenship was required in order to join the Roman legions, but this was sometimes ignored.


The granting of citizenship to the conquered and the allies was the final step of Romanization which was one of the most effective political tools and (at that point in history) original political ideas (perhaps one of the most important reasons for the success of Rome).
...

* The idea was to assimilate, to turn a defeated and potentially rebelious enemy (or his sons) into a Roman citizen. Instead having to wait for the unavoidable revolt of a conquered people (a tribe or a city-state) like Sparta and the conquered Helots, Rome made the "known" (conquered) world roman.

* The Social War (in which the Italian allies revolted against Rome) only ended gradually, as Rome granted citizenship to all Italian freemen (with the exception of Gallia Cisalpina)

* After 212 AD, all freemen in the Empire were granted citizenship by a imperial edict (the Constitutio Antoniniana) of Emperor Caracalla.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors
The Year of the Four Emperors was a year in the history of the Roman Empire, AD 69, in which four emperors ruled in succession; Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian.
...
The suicide of emperor Nero, in 68, was followed by a brief period of civil war,

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/tablescharts/a/120610-Fall-Of-Rome-Timeline.htm
Fall of Rome Short Timeline

A.D. 235-284 Crisis of the Third Century
(Age of Chaos) Military leaders usurped power, rulers died of unnatural causes, revolts, plagues, fires, Christian persecutions
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5