Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 29th, 2006 #41
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default How NAFTA superhighway is built under radar screen

How NAFTA superhighway is built under radar screen

Officials say they see no budget 'earmarks,' because they don't know where to look

Posted: August 29, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Ask some members of Congress about plans to build a "NAFTA superhighway" connecting Mexico and Canada via the U.S. and you might hear snickers.

Some officials will tell you they have seen no "earmarks" for such a plan and question whether it even exists.

But the plan does exist and the NAFTA superhighway is being built – under the radar screen.

One need look no further than the $286 billion highway bill signed into law earlier this month by President Bush for some of the "earmarks."

The measure gave the state of Tennessee more than $111 million to help plan and build Interstate 69, called "one of the most significant transportation projects in the region's history" by the Commercial Appeal.

No one in Tennessee has any doubts about plans for the NAFTA superhighway. It is being built now with federal taxpayer dollars. And the plan calls for I-69 to extend from Michigan to Texas, linking the Canadian and Mexican borders.

Those supporting the plan, like Transportation Secretary Mario Cino, say it will bring an unprecedented windfall not only to the regions it traverses but for all Americans, Mexicans and Canadians.

Tennessee Department of Transportation Commissioner Gerald Nicely said I-69 "could help position the western part of the state as one of the world's new economic centers of power in the global marketplace."

The entire I-69 project is expected to cost $8.8 billion in current dollars, with states picking up 10 percent of the tab. So where is the money hidden? It's not really. But nowhere in any highway bill is the project referred to as the "NAFTA superhighway." Since the money is doled out to states to spend on their portion of the project, the allocations look like any other highway spending.

Ultimately, the Tennessee portion of the I-69 project is expected to cost $1 billion. It will shadow the present route of U.S. 51, connecting towns like Union City, Troy, Dyersburg, Ripley, Covington and Millington before following what is now I-40/240 through Midtown, according to the Commercial Appeal. The new highway bill focuses on the portion of I-69 through Northwest Tennessee about 80-110 miles north of Memphis. A 20-mile section of that segment – a four-lane stretch of U.S. 51 between Dyersburg and Troy – already is completed. Signs label it as part of the "Future I-69 Corridor." That leaves a 19-mile section to be built from Troy to the Kentucky line before one-third of the I-69 route through Tennessee is completed.

"The route's already been laid out, with survey markers planted in fields and cryptic benchmarks painted on the pavement of country roads," reports the Commercial Appeal.

Detailed drawings are expected to be finished next February. Right-of-way acquisition could begin early next year. Crews could start moving earth as early as 2008.

So why are some officials still questioning whether the project is real?

Last week, in Kansas, Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, seemed like he was short on domestic, backyard intelligence when he was asked in Saline about the NAFTA superhighway project – again, prompted by reports in WND.

"There's nothing I'm aware of in any authorization bill," Roberts said with derision. "I don't know where these things get started. This is one of those blogosphere things that makes you wonder what's going on."

When the Duluth News Tribune followed up WND reports about the project by turning to a local congressman for help, Mary Kerr, an aide to Rep.Jim Oberstar, said: "There are no earmarks for a superhighway like that."

But you can't hide for long a superhighway, in some places, according to plans, four football fields wide.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51730
 
Old August 29th, 2006 #42
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default The very real NAFTA superhighway

Quote:
Joseph Farah
Between The Lines

WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary

The very real NAFTA superhighway

Posted: August 29, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

I'm getting a little tired of know-nothing Washington officials acting like they know something.

Or maybe it's a case of know-something politicians hiding something.

Either way, it's not funny any more. But I'll report, you decide.

There seems to be a concerted effort under way – from Washington to Salina, Kan. – to deny the very well-documented plans of the Bush administration and members of Congress to build a "NAFTA superhighway" from Mexico, through the U.S. heartland, into Canada.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51718
 
Old August 29th, 2006 #43
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default The NAFTA superhighway: Coming soon - Pat Buchanan

Quote:
Patrick J. Buchanan

WorldNetDaily Commentary

The NAFTA superhighway: Coming soon

Posted: August 29, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

This is a "mind-boggling concept," exploded Lou Dobbs. It must cause Americans to think our political and academic elites have "gone utterly mad." What had detonated the mild-mannered CNN anchor?

Robert Pastor, vice chair of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on North America, had just appeared before a panel of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to call for erasing all U.S. borders and a merger of the United States, Mexico and Canada in a North American union stretching from Prudhoe Bay to Guatemala.

Under the Pastor-CFR plan, the illegal alien invasion would be solved by eliminating America's borders and legalizing the invasion. We would no longer defend the Rio Grande.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51724
 
Old August 29th, 2006 #44
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default A North American United Nations? - Ron Paul

Quote:
A North American United Nations?

By Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas, 8/28/2006 12:52:50 PM

Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.


http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....1-f29a8b4a059c
 
Old August 30th, 2006 #45
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Superhighway 'security' benefits questioned

Quote:
WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Superhighway 'security' benefits questioned

Texas leader seeks answers about plan that includes NAFTA corridor

Posted: August 30, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

A Texas congressman is asking his colleagues as well as American citizens nationwide to join him in opposing a plan that describes itself as seeking more security and more prosperity for the United States, when in fact it may do neither.

Rep. Ron Paul has written his weekly "Texas Straight Talk" column about the "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SSP)," which, he says, "will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous."

A key to that plan, he noted, is a massive new NAFTA superhighway about which WorldNetDaily has run a series of reports.

"A massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas," Paul wrote. "This is likely to cost the U.S. taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the U.S. more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm."

Paul said the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" is "misnamed" and is running its course under the notice of most because it's neither a treaty nor a formal agreement, just a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico and the United States during a summit in Waco, Texas, in March, 2005.

"According to the SPP website, this 'dialogue' will create new supra-national organizations to 'coordinate' border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States," Paul said.

However, he said it's clear such plans "have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with the government coordination and management of international trade."


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51735
 
Old August 31st, 2006 #46
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default

Quote:
Why the secrecy over superhighway?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51750

Quote:
Critic: Americans in danger of slavery
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51763
 
Old August 31st, 2006 #47
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Harper Not Just Americanizing, But Abolishing Canada

Quote:
Harper Not Just Americanizing, But Abolishing Canada

By Susan Thompson

For all the continuing concern among Canada’s progressives that Harper is Americanizing this country, it’s unfortunate that there has been silence about the fact that if he has his way, this country as we know it will soon no longer exist.

Plans are on track to establish a North American Union (NAU), a new political and economic entity that would take over governance from the existing countries of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. This is the actual end goal of “deep integration”, also known as the “Big Idea” or “Grand Bargain”, as has been made clear in publications from Robert Pastor’s book Toward a North American Community to the Council on Foreign Relations’ trilateral task force report “Building a North American Community”. It doesn’t seem to matter that the Canadian public seems largely unaware of the plan and its consequences. Nor has it been approved by the U.S. Congress; as Republican Congressman Ron Paul has written, “Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a ‘dialogue’ that many see as a plan for a North American union”. But political elites in all three countries, in partnership with representatives of giant corporations such as Lockheed Martin, have been working hard to keep making headway despite what the public may think.

In fact, unfortunately, most of the battles have already been won. The steps that have led us down the road towards complete integration with the U.S. have been sometimes slow but still steady since U.S. President Ronald Reagan first spoke about a common North American market back in the early 80s. A series of trade agreements, starting with the first FTA and progressing through NAFTA into the new NAFTA-plus ( the Security and Prosperity Partnership Initiative) have established the framework for union. (Note that according to the U.S. government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement; it is a "dialogue", a dubious distinction which simply seems meant to prevent official debate and discussion of the SPP among the rest of the elected representatives of the three countries.) The leaders are to meet again in Canada in 2007 to discuss progress in this “dialogue”, at Harper’s invitation.
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.p...60830210915992
 
Old August 31st, 2006 #48
Ironguard1940
Senior Member
 
Ironguard1940's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,906
Ironguard1940
Default Will the minutemen save us from the NAU???

If the NAU becomes a fact, our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, becomes a distant memory. Everyone involved with the NAU has repeatedly stated that none of the three nations that the NAU will be comprised of will lose any of their sovereignty. The reality is, however, that once any kind of international treaty or government is put in place, all debates on immigration, trade, foreign companies operating our ports, international peacekeeping forces, etc. will mean nothing because all of these things and much, much more will be a fact engraved in stone, and no 'national' laws can stop them. When a nation loses its ability to control its borders for any reason, it has lost its right to be called a nation.

If you think the illegal spic invasion is bad now, wait until they can come here without worrying about the Border Patrol or ICE.

Never fear, though, here come the minutemen to save the day:

"The illegals are coming!!! (We aren't racist!!!) The illegals are coming!!! (We aren't racist!!!)"
 
Old September 1st, 2006 #49
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default

Quote:
Texas governor leads superhighway rally
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51767

Quote:
The superhighway no one is funding
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51768

Quote:
Mexican truckers to hit U.S. roadways next year
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51779
 
Old September 2nd, 2006 #50
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default SPP: Sovereignty & Prosperity Perversion

Quote:
Henry Lamb

WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary

SPP: Sovereignty & Prosperity Perversion

Posted: September 2, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51792
 
Old September 3rd, 2006 #51
Ironguard1940
Senior Member
 
Ironguard1940's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,906
Ironguard1940
Default Wikipedia deletes North American Union article

Wikipedia has deleted the article on the North American Union. Although I did not create the article, I contributed to it. Here is some of the discussion regarding the article.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

North American Union

ATTENTION!

Original research, at least the article itself does not attempt to establish that it is a serious idea with even a marginal support. Bjarki 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - no actual proposal exists and wikipedia is not a manifesto host. --Ajdz 17:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Tag it with a request for sources. If none are given, then delete it. Arctic Gnome 21:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep it this is only a theory or a philisophical idea. It's not an actual proposed union. This article does not need to be deleted since it is only a philisophical theory, it needs to be deleted just as much as the article on the theory of capitolism. TBH 06:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a non-notable, original research idea with no actual support. Comparison to capitalism is a false analogy. --Ajdz 14:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Ardenn 15:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Great article, better than the other one-paragraph articles that are numerous on wiki.
Keep there is a lot of room for growth in this idea if wikipedia does not censor it. 137.186.145.102 17:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete. Almost entirely original research. The thoughts and speculation of a handful of persons, and not particularly profound thoughts at that (e.g. "Cons: Each country would also lose something in the merging.")--Skeezix1000 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as rather messy original research. Also per Ajdz. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


How about that. Articles abound on the NAU on the 'net, and he research was messy. Hmm. Sounds like the jews at Wikipedia don't like what is being said about it.
 
Old September 5th, 2006 #52
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Wider Panama Canal Would Aid Chinese

Quote:
Wider Panama Canal Would Aid Chinese

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Sep 05, 2006

Panama is planning to build a deeper, wider Panama Canal to allow Communist Chinese super-containerships carrying cheap 21st century slave-labor under-market goods to have direct access to the Gulf of Mexico and key NAFTA/CAFTA ports such as Miami.

In the shipping industry, Panamex container ships are defined as those that are able to fit through the 1,000-foot long and 110-foot wide canal. Typically, Panamex containerships were designed to carry 4,500 TEU (“Twenty Foot Units,” the length measurement of the standard ocean steel container). The first generation of post-Panamex container ships was built to carry up to 9,800 TEU. Today, a new class of super-post-Panamex vessels is under construction, designed to carry up to 12,500 TEU.

The post-Panamex fleet in service at the end of 2000 consisted of some 300 containerships. Experts expect that containerships with 9,000 to 10,000 TEU capacity are starting to dominate main arterial shipping, such as between China and the United States. Containerships with 12,000 TEU plus capacity will be phased into operation between 2009 and 2010. Super-containerships with 12,000 TEU capacity have to be built with twin engines to maintain the 25-knot speed required for a maximum load which will involve at least 21 containers stacked across the weather deck.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16844
 
Old September 6th, 2006 #53
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default The Globe and Mail just doesn’t get it

Quote:
The Globe and Mail just doesn’t get it

Contributed by: robertjb

The lead editorial in the Saturday Sept 2nd edition of The Globe and Mail is titled "The unwelcome landing of another penalty."

For starters, the title is wrong: It should read: "The unwelcome landing of more tribute"--the Washington Tribute Tax (WTT), that is.

The editorial cries foul as the US has just announced user fees for all Canadian commercial flights, passengers, autos, commercial trucks, vessels, and rail cars entering the US, effective November of this year.

The editorial poses the question: Why are the Americans doing this?

It laments that just as the softwood lumber agreement has been settled we are hit with yet another “penalty.” But this agreement might be the very reason these new fees are being levied. After Canada’s complete capitulation on the softwood lumber agreement, word has probably spread around Washington that we are more than willing to pay tribute on demand.

Even though the United States Court of International Trade ruled in Canada’s favor that the collection of $5.3 billion in duties on our softwood lumber was illegal, Canada is determined to go ahead with the agreement and leave behind $1.3 billion to buy the peace. It was subsequently announced that $450 million of that money is going into a slush fund for the Republican Party--and, strangely enough, there is barely a mention of this in Canada’s media when there should be national outrage.

The US government is now running record debt and deficits, largely to finance its foreign intrigues and enormous defense spending. The Iraq conflict alone is costing the US treasury about $1.5 billion dollars a week (yes, a week!). George W. Bush has promised to balance the budget by the time he leaves office (which he has no hope of doing). So we should not be surprised that possibly all US government departments have been ordered to maximize revenues and Canada has become a designated cash cow.

This latest scam could be dealt with through the NAFTA dispute settlement provisions, but as Toronto international trade lawyer Larry Herman points out in the Globe editorial, “(That) will not get us very quick relief.”

Herman’s statement points to the hub of the problem, in that the US continually breaches the NAFTA, while it appears that Canada’s political and business elites are not prepared to do anything about it--which only makes a bad situation worse, thus encouraging the US protectionist bully boy. It appears our political elites have given up on NAFTA without the fortitude to insist that it be adhered to, possibly revised, or even cancelled.
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.p...60903095752882
 
Old September 9th, 2006 #54
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Canadians protest 'North American Union'

Quote:
WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Canadians protest 'North American Union'

Party to fly national flag upside down in protest at convention

Posted: September 9, 2006
6:20 p.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

A Canadian political party intends to fly the national flag upside down during its convention this weekend as a signal of distress and resistance against the integration of Canada with the United States and Mexico into a North American Union regional government.

Connie Fogal, the leader of the Canadian Action Party told WND "we are opposed to the plan to develop the Security and Prosperity Partnership into a EU-style North American Union government" which "amounts to treason and is a total violation of the constitutional rights of Canadian citizens."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51904
 
Old September 12th, 2006 #55
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default I-69: Yet Another NAFTA Super-Highway

Quote:
I-69: Yet Another NAFTA Super-Highway

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Sep 12, 2006

Another NAFTA Super-Highway is moving state-by-state from the planning stage to the funding and construction process. As listed on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration’s website, the “I-69 Corridor” is planned to connect Mexico and Canada through Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan.

Still, skeptics -- even congressmen and senators in the nine states where the I-69 corridor will be built -- continue to charge that any idea that NAFTA Super-Highways are being built are nothing more than “internet conspiracy theories.”

Even NASCO (North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc.) continues to be in denial, refusing to acknowledge that any NAFTA Super-Highways are being built. A second NASCO homepage makeover reflecting a new public relations attempt by NASCO to defuse criticism now lists a “NASCO FAQs” section, which opens to a .pdf file letter on NASCO stationary. In response to the question, “Will the NAFTA Superhighway be four football fields wide?” NASCO answers: “There is no new, proposed 'NAFTA Superhighway.'” Next, NASCO attempts to redefine the “SuperCorridor” in its name as a reference not to a “super-highway,” but intermodal integration along the “existing ‘NASCO Corridor.’”

We have previously argued that as a trade association NASCO itself will never build any highway of any type, but we continue to argue that NASCO’s members, such as the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), are very actively involved in creating substantial NAFTA corridor infrastructure, including super-highways. Moreover, NASCO not yet responded to our challenge that NASCO repudiate the plans of TxDOT to build the planned Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC-35), the first leg of the NAFTA Super-Highway planned to stretch into Canada parallel to I-35. Otherwise, NASCO is just dealing in semantics, trying to distinguish “Super-Corridors” from “Super-Highways,” or defeating their own straw argument on the basis that we somehow presumed that a trade organization like NASCO would be required to build a NAFTA Super-Highway in order to support a NAFTA Super-Highway one of their members was building.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16966
 
Old September 16th, 2006 #56
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Nafta's Failures Fuel Mexican Illegal Immigration

Quote:
Nafta's Failures Fuel Mexican Illegal Immigration

New America Media, News Analysis, Louis Nevaer, Sep 15, 2006


Editor's Note: The free trade agreement between the U.S., Mexico and Canada helped millions of working and middle class Mexicans achieve wealth and stability. But simultaneously it impoverished millions, pushing the Mexican poor from the countryside into cities, and then across the border to the U.S. It's time for politicians from both nations to take the hard steps needed to better integrate their economies and help the "have nots," writes Louis Nevaer, a New York-based author and economist. Nevaer's forthcoming book, "HR and the New Hispanic Workforce," will be published by Davis-Black in late 2006.

MEXICO CITY--In the impassioned demonstrations this summer in Mexico City in support of defeated presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador are the faces of Mexicans most likely to risk their lives and emigrate illegally to the United States.

Mexico's presidential election on July 2 was not only the most highly contested in modern Mexican history -- the ruling party candidate Felipe Calderon won by less than 1 percent of the vote -- but also an unintended referendum on Mexico more than a decade after Nafta, the North American Free Trade Agreement, was implemented.

The sharp divisions of the Mexican electorate reflect, by class and race, how Mexico's "haves" have benefited handsomely from Nafta, while the "have nots" have been systematically excluded from the economic benefits of increased trade with the United States and Canada.
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_...2aaf18969f6d1a
 
Old September 16th, 2006 #57
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Angry Free Trade Vital to Latin American Economies, Says JEW Official

Quote:
15 September 2006

Free Trade Vital to Latin American Economies, Says JEW Official

USTR's Eissenstat cites need for free-trade pacts, renewed Doha trade talks

By Lauren Monsen
Washington File Staff Writer


Washington -- Free-trade agreements and a strong commitment to regional economic integration will help Latin America compete successfully in the global market, says Everett Eissenstat, assistant U.S. trade representative for the Americas.

In his September 15 remarks to the 10th annual Miami Herald Conference, which examined "How Will Latin America Compete in a Global Economy," Eissenstat cited trends that point to the benefits of a free-market approach. Although "there isn't a simple, straightforward answer" that will guarantee success, the removal of trade barriers is a prerequisite for sustained economic growth, he said.

"[O]ne thing that is clear from recent years is that countries [that] have been willing to undertake free-market reforms and pursue regional integration, particularly through ambitious trade agreements with the United States, have emerged as strong competitors both at the regional level and in the global marketplace," he said. "Trade agreements such as NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement] and the U.S.-Chile [free-trade pact] are compelling examples of trade's power to build ties, revitalize economies, diversify exports, and attract higher-paying jobs."
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/di...esnoM0.1356928
 
Old September 16th, 2006 #58
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default North American Union: Myths, Facts - Truth

Quote:
North American Union: Myths, Facts - Truth
By Tom DeWeese
MichNews.com
Sep 15, 2006

"Conspiracy theories." "Fringe nuts." "Lies." "Myths." These are the words being used by officials of the Bush Administration and others to brand those who have reported on the activities of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), currently operating out of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Opponents have charged the SPP will result in the establishment of a North American Union, much on the same lines as the European Union.

In response to its critics, the SPP has added a "SPP Myths Vs Facts" section to its website at www.SPP.gov. According to the "Myths Vs Facts" document the SPP is simply a "dialog" among the three countries to "enhance prosperity." It goes on to say the SPP is not an agreement, nor is it a treaty. It says "no agreement was ever signed."
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publi...le_14093.shtml
 
Old September 16th, 2006 #59
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default NAFTA Highway, The Regina Route

Quote:
Saturday, September 16 2006 @ 12:27 PM MDT

Canadian News

NAFTA Highway, The Regina Route

Contributed by: FootPrints

Hundreds have visited my earlier post on the NAFTA Highway, a free trade corridor running from Mexico, through the USA, and north into Canada quietly promoted by Dubya. It’s time for an update, particularly now that there’s a local tidbit tying into Regina’s municipal election this fall.

The recently revised map of the NAFTA Corridor shows the NAFTA Highway passing through Saskatchewan. Just what we need, eh? More trucks on our already overburdened highways, more emissions, more carcinogens, more garbage, etc. It seems that City Hall, the Regina Economic Development Authority (RREDA) and Sask Industry and Resources have bonded to ensure that Regina is a stop on the road. And they’re insisting it will mean increased prosperity for Saskatchewan, particularly if we establish a Multimodal Terminal Site.
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.p...60915214601695
 
Old September 17th, 2006 #60
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Dump the WTO, NAFTA and CAFTA and Bring Back Tariffs

Quote:
September 17, 2006 at 08:19:44

Dump the WTO, NAFTA and CAFTA and Bring Back Tariffs

by Rob Kall

http://www.opednews.com

In his book, Screwed; The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class -- And What We Can Do About It , Thom Hartmann talks about how tariffs were the primary source of income for the US. Primary!!!. But Reagan, Bush sr. and Clinton totally screwed us by joining the WTO and NAFTA and Dubya signed on the CAFTA-- all good for a few hundred transnational mega corporation, but lousy for US industry and throwing out a major source of income for the US. I say Dump these trade gifts to megacorporations and bring back tariffs. Charge the highest tariffs to the countries that we owe the most to and charge us the most interest on our debt-- and let them help us pay off our debt to them with tariffs.

Sure, we live in different times and there is a need to face the realities of a gobal economy. But that doesn't mean we should just bend over and allow our butts to be kicked and our native industries destroyed, or that we should allow rampant outsourcing of labor. Now, if a company outsources labor, they can report it as contract cost. They should have to report it as exported labor and pay duty on it. Then, they'll have no reason to outsource and we'll keep jobs here.

The temptation to outsource is great. I know. I've been guilty of it. Back in 1993, I travelled to Russia seeking programmers to hire for software development. The idea was to find people over there to do contract work for a tiny fraction of the cost of paying a programmer in the US, where programmers were making $60-$100,000 a year, or $60- $100 an hour.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope..._2c_nafta_.htm
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:17 PM.
Page generated in 0.17749 seconds.