The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) must be repealed. American jobs and American sovereignty are on the line. Fortunately, as of last month, H.R. 4759 is on the table.
For those of you who may not know what this is all about, the definition of NAFTA is as follows:
North American Free Trade Agreement. A 1994 agreement reached by the United States, Canada, and Mexico that instituted a schedule for the phasing out of tariffs and eliminated a variety of fees and other hindrances to encourage free trade between the three North American countries.
It sounds simple. As a matter of fact, it even sounds noble. But in reality, it is neither. NAFTA is actually a plan to implement a smaller version of the New World Order in North America by eliminating the borders between Mexico and the United States and, hence, creating a contiguous North American super state, with the European Union as its model. For instance, the North American currency called the Amero is already in existence and has been pushed for acceptance. With the Euro having been used for several years now and increasing in popularity, it may be just a matter of time.
The NAFTA super highway has already begun construction and/or has been given a designated use on existing roads. It has met some major obstacles as of late, but the past three presidents (was introduced during the Clinton administration, was zealously pushed by President Bush, and is continuing to be forwarded by President Obama, in spite of his claims to the contrary during the 2008 campaign) have done everything they can think of to keep it moving, even it means to do so in stealth fashion. This is evidenced by the fact that many people have never heard of NAFTA and, of those who have, either have no idea what it’s about or have been duped into thinking it is something necessary. The truth of the matter, however, is that, aside from the regional and global plans for population control and dominance, the more immediate and proximal situation lies in the fact that jobs are gushing out of the US as a result of NAFTA. We can not let this happen.
Hopefully, the passage of the largely unpopular government health care bill will galvanize American citizens to rise up against the socialistic tidal wave that has gained in strength and velocity. Perhaps people will start becoming more keenly aware of the developing police state that now surrounds them in the form of an increased number of bounty hunters, a ramped up, brutal police force (note: these are the “riots” the mainstream media tried to portray as an unruly crowd – you decide), and an expanded civilian militia.
Since the bill is now fresh, this gives us a golden opportunity to make our voices heard. For starters we can do this by contacting our Congressperson and demanding that they repeal NAFTA.
Do it today!
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
Here’s a song that I heard for the 1st time today. My sister says it describes me to a “T”.
_________________________________________________
Love Me If You Can
by: Toby Keith
v.1
Sometimes I think that war is necessary.
Every night I pray for peace on Earth.
I hand out my dollars to the homeless.
But believe that every able soul should work.
My father gave me my shotgun that I’ll hand down to my son,
Try to teach him everything it means.
(chorus)
I’m a man of my convictions.
Call me wrong, call me right.
But I bring my better angels to every fight.
You may not like where I’m going,
But you sure know where I stand.
Hate me if you want to, love me if you can.
v.2
I stand by my right to speak freely.
But I worry ’bout what kids learn from TV.
And before all of debatin’ turns to angry words and hate,
Sometimes we should just agree to disagree.
And I believe that Jesus looks down here and sees us,
And if you ask him he would say
(chorus)
I’m a man of my convictions.
Call me wrong, call me right.
But I bring my better angels to every fight.
You may not like where I’m going,
But you sure know where I stand.
Hate me if you want to, love me if you can.
Ben,
When someone picks a fight with me I finish it, and I’m not nice about the way I do it. When someone calls me a liar I take that personally as an insult to my honor and I give an answer. When someone insults me, nice and couth go out the window. I’m courteous and professional with those I like and respect. Having the guts to speak your mind the way you do puts you a notch above the other two, but one notch above zero still leaves you at one.
This is politics, it’s not a boxing match, it’s a bare knuckles fist fight. Maybe in the little speck on the map town you’re from politics is a king gentle affair but where I come from the toughest fighter with cast iron will wins, and they make no apologies about it. So, you think whatever you like about me. I laugh at it and you, because while you complain about how you think things should be, I’m helping to put checks in the win column.
JFesta,
If my articles truly net another five votes for the condidates you support (which I greatly doubt), then the person who is really doing his job right is me.
JFesta, sorry, I forgot to sign-in when I commented…so, here it is under my name, so you don’t think I’m whatever the heck it is you call Consti and others…
_________________________________________________
“…it nets another five votes for the CONdidates I support” (emphasis added)
Freudian slip? Quite a nugget of truth you implanted in that little phrase, isn’t it?
In response to your earlier response to me…I don’t like you either. I think you are uncouth, incapable of professionalism and one of ghe most discourteous individuals I have ever had the opportunity to run across.
That being said, have a great day!
“…it nets another five votes for the CONdidates I support” (emphasis added)
Freudian slip? Quite a nugget of truth you implanted in that little phrase, isn’t it?
In response to your earlier response to me…I don’t like you either. I think you are uncouth, incapable of professionalism and one of ghe most discourteous individuals I have ever had the opportunity to run across.
That being said, have a great day!
Ah, and then there is that voice from the shadows. I thank you for your opinion, it has been noted and taken for the complete garbage from a snivling weakling that it is. Please continue to share your opinion. It makes my job that much easier.
Erik,
I think it goes without saying where I think you incert your opinion of me.
If I inspire this much contempt in conservatives I must truely be doing my job right. Keep the insults coming. Every one I share with undecided moderates and it nets another five votes for the condidates I support, oh yes, and inspires untold laughter. On behalf of every liberal running I thank you.
J Blevins,
Thank you!
JFesta,
I never used the words “lopsided lunatic”, but now that you mention it….
Eric you couldn’t be more accurate in your article. FYI…I never argue with idiots….especially the ones that put this commie in office. Keep up the good work~
Dough Boy,
Lets be honest here it’s not according to some that you are those things it’s according to YOUR OWN CLAIMS. To date you are the only person on this site to have threatened anyone with physical harm. So yeah you are a leftist union thug who feels picked on because he’s a leftist democrat. Live with it pal.
Let’s see. According to some I’m: a thug, a leftist, I went to a third rate college, my professor was a bleeding heart liberal (man are you off on that one) don’t know what he ever did to you, I’m a slanderer, and a lopsided lunatic.
This from one of the most rabid conservatives on this site.
It’s good to be a liberal.
JFesta,
I didn’t claim I was clean. I apologized to the others for resorting to your lowly tactics.
You have received only 2 other emails from me:
One was a deeper response to the ‘We the People Act’ since I felt that I owed it to you to reciprocate the effort. The second was another angry response to your thuggery by telling you to not contact me again. So please, post them if you want to bore everyone.
Regarding your other drivel, let the readers decide, if they even care.
Erik,
Once you’re down in the mud don’t try to claim you’re clean. Not the first e-mail like that have gotten from you, and if you care to deny it I can post those too.
I read the pages in question in the bill, and the 10 pages surrounding the pages in question and found nothing, NOTHING, not one comma that came close to the outlandish claims you made. they were so absurd that I was not about to attempt to counter them and make them appear legitimate.
Everything I have said is here too and I stand behind every word. I’m not some outsider complaining about how things should be, I’m a hard nosed campaign veteran. I’ve been on the inside of a half dozen campaigns. I know how the game is plaid and trust me, this is it. you alway move forward, put the other guy on the ropes and you dont stop throwing punches until you hear the bell.
As a matter of fact, if anyone even cares, here is a copy of my last 2 responses to JFesta on Tegan’s health care article when I was asked if the pages I was referring to (pages 50 and 59 in particular) were referring to H.R. 3590 (the bill which passed in March) or H.R. 4872.
Please, if you are interested, verify it yourself so that you can let me know if what I am saying holds water, or if JFesta is really the biased thug that I know him to be and who only performs his “expert research” when it is politically and/or conversationally expedient for him to do so.
—————————————————————–
1 Erik the Red March 24, 2010 at 10:26 pm [edit]
P.S. Here is a link to the bill for you to read for yourself:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf
2 Erik the Red March 24, 2010 at 10:26 pm [edit]
JFesta,
It appears that the pages I posted in my first comment are from H.R. 3590 since H.R. 4872 was made public less than a week ago (3/18/10). Though poring through the entire thing is time-consuming, I will just post the gist of the bill here:
An estimate of the budgetary effects of the reconciliation proposal, in combination
with the effects of H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(PPACA), as passed by the Senate;1
An estimate of the incremental effects of the reconciliation proposal, over and
above the effects of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself;
An estimate of the budgetary impact of the reconciliation proposal under the
assumption that H.R. 3590 is not enacted (that is, an estimate of the bill’s impact
relative to current law as of today).
It appears mostly to do with cost adjustments (the CBO have changed their tune over the past 8 months of what effect on our deficit this bill is really going to have, and will quite possibly need to change their estimates over the course of time as they see fit). However, unless I overlooked it (which, at this time of night is quite possible), I don’t see anywhere how H.R. 4872 makes contextual changes to H.R. 3590. In other words, things like free access to our bank accounts and free medical services for aliens – legal and illegal – appear to be unaffected.
JFesta,
I was actually trying to use class by keeping it between you and me. I would have had no problem saying it out in the open except that you have now made it personal with your slanderous comments.
For those other readers, that email of mine was an angry response to a very slanderous comment that JFesta tried to post. As a matter of fact, it was so slanderous that the Site Administrator had to edit it. I apologize that I slipped off my game and lowered myself to the level from which I was taunted.
JFesta, the articles of the bill – including pages 50 and 59 that I paid special attention to – came straight from the health care bill that was passed in March. The other bill you questioned was from later in March which I not only indicated, but gave you the official link. If you think it’s not worth your time getting into it, then it shouldn’t be worth your time and energy trying to slander me with false accusations and twisted words. Especially when everything I have said is here in print on this blog from August 2009 to the present day.
Ben,
First, thank you. I don’t agree with you, and to be perfectly honest I don’t like you very much, but you speak your mind and you do it openly, THAT I respect.
Second, No I wasn’t refering to THE J. Edger Hoover, I was refering to the other one, with the movie star good looks that worked as a clerk in the Cleveland office. (sorry, couldn’t resist)
Third. No Ben, none of it is true. Every bit of information, even the annotated excerpts from letters and books that can still be read today are all made up. Those on the right are good noble true and filled with virtue. When they wrote and endorced books that called the civil rights movement a communist plot it was true, and they did it for the good of the nation. After all who else but a radical leftist communist would think that everyone being equal under the law is a good idea. Everyone having an equal voice regardless of their station in life? MADNESS! Madness I tell you. A throughly radical and completely unamerican idea. No wonder that patriotic members of the right Erik loves so much trued to stop it. You can see what a travesty it was. And the bill was probably unconstitutional too.
John Festa,
Dude, you are really embarking on slander. Everything you are accusing me of is a twisted version of what I have actually said. And this can all be verified since everything I have said is in print.
I find it interesting that you – the self-proclaimed King of the Constitution – failed to chime in when I continued to ask Roger about the constitutionality of NAFTA and/or the North American Union. Nor did you comment on H.R. 4759 – your “expertise”, per se. Come to think of it, when you challenged me a week or so ago on which version of the healthcare bill I was referring to and I gave you a detailed answer, you failed to respond to that also. It seems that whenever I pose a legitimate question, you dig down deep into your bag of tricks and pull out your playthings for the purpose of a distraction. Remember, you are on record for making physical threats against several people. That holds a lot more weight than does your pseudo, phony patriotism and subsequent lame attempts at trying to belittle me, my views, my associations, and my comments. You could have easily thumbed through the infallible book that you apparently used at your 3rd rate college to please your bleeding heart liberal professor for the purpose of getting a grade for graduation in order to verify that what I was saying about NAFTA and the Constitution is true. You also could have chosen to view any of the video links that I supplied on the comments section of my article which has govt officials (Bush I, Clinton, et al) talking about the New World Order with their own mouths. Yet, you apparently have chosen to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to verifiable facts if they come from me in exchange for petty insults.
Knock yourself out. But my guess is that if anyone’s reputation is going be questioned in the end, it ain’t going to be mine. You act as if just your telling people you are smart is going to seal the deal and make them respect you. What you seem to forget, however, is that a person needs to prove their intellect and legitimacy by the content of their speech, not just the words they utter.
Go ahead, continue your gullible FBI lackey path by worshiping your “moral” god J Edgar Hoover and continue to try to fool people with your phoniness. It may dupe people on your silly Leftist blog – the choir that you preach to, so to speak – but it doesn’t fool me nor does it likely fool anyone else who has the guts to think for themselves and call you on your thuggery.
Erik the Red
Thanks for keeping things so high class. Next time, if you have a problem with me, say it in public.
I checked every version of the health care bill that was voted on. None of the page references matched up with what you were claiming so I wrote it off to once more a true lack of reading comprehension. I’ve also given up arguing the finer points of the Constitution with you since according to you everything except what you agree with is unconstitutional. I just put the facts out there and let people see the far right wing extremists you align yourself with.
THE J. Edgar Hoover?
You mean this J. Edgar Hoover?
“Hoover persuaded Franklin D. Roosevelt to give the FBI the task of investigating both foreign espionage in the United States. This included the collection of information on those with radical political beliefs. After Elizabeth Bentley, a former member of the American Communist Party, provided the FBI with information about a Soviet spy ring in 1945, Hoover became convinced that that their was a communist conspiracy to overthrow the United States government.When checked, much of the information provided by Elizabeth Bentley was found to be untrue. However, by intimidating the people that Bentley had named, the FBI were able to obtain the information needed to convict Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Ethel Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg of spying.
Hoover believed that several senior officials in the government were secret members of the Communist Party. Unhappy with the way Harry S. Truman, responded to this news, Hoover began leaking information about officials such as Alger Hiss to those politicians that shared his anti-communist views. This included Joseph McCarthy, John S. Wood, John Parnell Thomas, John Rankin and Richard Nixon. Hoover was a great supporter of the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), an organisation that relieved heavily on information provided by the FBI. ”
(Source – http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhooverE.htm)
Or this J. Edgar Hoover?
“He used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders, and to collect evidence using illegal methods. It is because of Hoover’s long and controversial reign that FBI directors are now limited to 10-year terms.”
(Source – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover)
Maybe this J. Edgar Hoover?
“Hoover was noted as sometimes being capricious in his leadership; he frequently fired FBI agents, singling out those whom he thought “looked stupid like truck drivers” or he considered to be “pinheads”. He also relocated agents who had displeased him to career-ending assignments and locations. Melvin Purvis was a prime example; he was one of the most effective agents in capturing and breaking up 1930s gangs and received substantial public recognition, but a jealous Hoover maneuvered him out of the FBI.”
(Source – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover)
How about this one?
“Hoover amassed significant power by collecting files containing large amounts of compromising and potentially embarrassing information on many powerful people, especially politicians. According to Laurence Silberman, appointed Deputy Attorney General in early 1974, FBI Director Clarence M. Kelley thought such files either did not exist or had been destroyed. After The Washington Post broke a story in January 1975, Kelley searched and found them in his outer office. The House Judiciary Committee then demanded that Silberman testify about them. An extensive investigation of Hoover’s files by David Garrow showed that Hoover and next-in-command William Sullivan, as well as the FBI itself as an agency, were responsible.”
(Source – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover)
Perhaps this is the J. Edgar Hoover you want us to know about?
“The FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC is named after Hoover. Because of the controversial nature of Hoover’s legacy, there have been periodic proposals to rename it. In 2001, Senator Harry Reid sponsored an amendment to strip Hoover’s name from the building. “J. Edgar Hoover’s name on the FBI building is a stain on the building”, Reid said.”
(Source – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover)
See, there is very little about J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI that can be truly trusted.
In 1993, PBS produced a program called “The Secret File On J. Edgar Hoover”. Here is a short synopsis from the PBS website –
“For nearly 50 years, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover amassed secret files on America’s most prominent figures, files he used to smear and control presidents and politicians. Frontline reveals how Hoover’s own secret life left him open to blackmail by the Mafia and offers a startling new explanation why the FBI allowed the mob to operate unchallenged for over two decades.”
(Source – http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/info/1111.html)
As a matter of fact, it is a well-known fact that J. Edgar Hoover did very little to control the Mafia, fighting Robert Kennedy every step of the way in Kennedy’s fight to bring down this powerhouse of crime.
“In the 1950s, evidence of Hoover’s unwillingness to focus FBI resources on the Mafia became grist for the media and his many detractors, after famed reporter Jack Anderson exposed the immense scope of the Mafia’s organized crime network, a threat Hoover had long downplayed. Hoover’s retaliation and continual harassment of Anderson lasted into the 1970s.”
(Source – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover)
Evidently, the FBI had a lot to say in it’s reports about a lot of people and organizations…but how much is actually true???
Here is more:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/618
Roger,
I refer all to the links below, to some of the finest most scholarly research I have ever been privileged to read. The primary source material is drawn mainly from the FBI archives with many of the documents and viewpoints approved by J. Edgar Hoover.
http://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/jbs-1
http://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/jbs-2
http://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/jbs-3
http://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/jbs-4
J Byron,
A voice of reason amidst a storm of chaos.
Yes, everything else is basically moot due to the fact that NAFTA (along with the Patriot Act, TARP, and significant others) is un.con.sti.tu.tion.al. I posted the evidence in response to your last comment. And there is much more where that came from.
I finally got a few extra moments to make a response on another issue, and did a cursory read of the link you provided.
All common sense and other arguments aside, as influential as the are, the whole matter is mute in the face of what I was able to gleen. It does appear from what I was able to understand, clearly to be unconstutional.
God help Mexico, but we can’t stand if we ignore our foundation.
Again, in what way is NAFTA unconstitutional? Do you mean specifically NAFTA, or also the other 10 free trade agreements with other countries, or all treaties in general?
Your link to H.R. 4759 shows that they want to pull out of the treaty – but it has no mention of anyone questioning whether the treaty is constitutional.
I notice with some amusement that Ron Paul is one of the co-signers. Mr. Paul opposes NAFTA because it limits trade too much! He wants full, wide-open, true free trade, without even NAFTA’s protections. And not just with Canada and Mexico, but with the rest of the world.
Think that NAFTA hurts jobs? Think that free trade with the much smaller Canada and Mexico hurts sovereignty? Imagine full, unrestricted free trade with China, with none of those pesky liberal laws to slow it down.
Roger,
NAFTA is unconstitutional and should, therefore, be repealed. Apparently some in Congress agree. That is the foundation of this post. Why ask why it is unconstitutional? I provided the link in response to J Byron’s comment. Perhaps you should look into it more. The fact that you would spend so much energy trying to discredit me while sticking with a treaty that would make our Forefathers roll in their graves is bizarre, but again is your prerogative.
The “race” I am referring to is the use of NAFTA to construct a North American Union. That may have been created during the Reagan administration which, again, wouldn’t surprise me. But it was implemented in 1994. Verify. That was during the Clinton administration.
Another word for Rockefeller’s “globalization” is “new world order”. You can imply lunacy on my behalf until rapture. But that doesn’t change the fact that if you actually took the time to research the Rockefellers’ impact on our society for the past 150 years and their working with the Rothschilds and the international central bankers, that you would discover that I’m correct. However, I’ve learned over time that people who criticize generally don’t explore the issues of their ridicule but take someone else’s word for it. That is fine. But until you do some actual research on the matter, we really don’t have anything else to discuss. For what it’s worth, I appreciate your input.
America has 11 free trade agreements with 17 countries. Three more are waiting approval and several more being negotiated. In what way is NAFTA – or any other free trade agreement – unconstitutional? America has signed and been bound by treaties right from day one.
You claim that “government officials admitting the existence of the Amero.” Consider:
A common currency is BY DEFINITION a foreign treaty. That means that in the U.S. alone, it must be voted on in the house and senate, with a two-thirds majority of the senate required to pass. Likewise, it must be passed by the Canadian Parliament, the Canadian Senate, and the Mexican Parliament and Senate. In Canada it would almost certainly trigger a public referendum.
That’s well over a THOUSAND politicians in opposing parties from all over the political spectrum in three different countries. More than half of them would have to not only want it, but be willing to commit political suicide by voting for it.
For it to be done in secret, ALL of them – even those who OPPOSE it – and their staffers – would have to agree to keep it a secret. Again, committing political suicide in doing so.
And that’s without anyone being able to come up with a decent reason for the idea.
Without being ratified by all three countries, any such agreement won’t be honored by ANY of them. The Presidents and Prime Ministers of each country could sign an agreement, but without being ratified in each country’s Parliament, the agreement has no legal standing. You could mint or print them, but they’d be completely worthless. No-one will accept payment in a currency that isn’t legally government backed.
As for your “evidence of a living and breathing Amero”, that’s yet another fantasy currency misrepresented by Hal Turner as being real. (The same guy who misrepresented DC Coin’s “Amero” as real.) The page you link to is a cut & paste from Hal turner’s blog.
Here’s the Flickr page of the artist who created this “Amero”:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8152235@N02/sets/72157600193909741/
Here’s the back of that “Amero” – it’s a rant about the American national debt.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8152235@N02/490409556/in/set-72157600193909741/
The notes spell out that the currency is for the U.S., Mexico and Canada, but the small North American maps on the notes include several other countries in Central America. On a real currency, a mistake like this would be corrected. Also the notes are labeled “SERIES 2008″. No such notes were circulated in 2008.
Not that an EU-style common currency is even possible in North America. The EU has several major powers and plenty of smaller powers that can team up. No one country can dominate the rest. North America on the other hand would be totally dominated by the US’s population and economy. To avoid “the tyranny of the majority”, if Canada adopted a common currency, it would REQUIRE equal say in monetary policy. So would Mexico. This in turn would be unfair to Americans, and would have no chance of happening.
The “race” I referred to was the one you seemed to refer to – the initial creation of NAFTA.
And yes, a TTC-style mega-highway from Mexico to Canada, only ever existed in the minds of the more gullible conspiracy theorists. WorldNetDaily used it to milk the conspiracy theory crowd for a while, before moving to “martial law will prevent the 2008 election!!!” and birther conspiracies.
As for your Rockefeller quotes, they tell us that Rockefeller favors globalization. No more, no less.
So what? It’s his right. He may be rich, but he’s ONE guy in ONE country. Likewise, equally powerful people and organizations oppose globalization. And in recent years, they’re winning: From wheat to lumber to manufactured goods to livestock, the U.S. doesn’t even honor NAFTA. We have passport requirements and other obstacles on the border for the first time EVER.
Roger,
I’ll give you one more chance to demonstrate the same courtesy I showed you by directly answering my question. Is NAFTA constitutional or is it unconstitutional and, if it is unconstitutional, why would you spend so much time defending it?
NAFTA is not a Republican or Democrat issue. You say it started with Reagan. Fine. That wouldn’t surprise me. However, it was implemented during the Clinton administration in 1994, was kept very much alive by Bush and is still being forwarded by Obama. NAFTA obviously transcends partisanship. I still don’t see a conspiracy theory anywhere.
Of course there aren’t any government officials admitting the existence of the Amero. Since when should we believe what the government says or doesn’t say? They are trying to do everything as stealthily as possible and, since it is virtually impossible to keep everything secret, they will simply downplay the things that leak out so that gullible people like you will have something to hang your hat on. Regardless of whether or not you want to cherry pick your sources, there is evidence of a “living and breathing” Amero. It’s not a figment of the imagination:
http://thetruthtracker.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/new-amero-paper-currency-exposed/
It is true that Oklahoma is waiting in the wings to kill the super highway if need be. That is the link that I supplied that is from a reputable source that always backs up their claims.
“As for Clinton, and “her husband was in office when the pistol fired at the beginning of the race”, well, the race was already over by then.”
The fact that H.R. 4759 is proof that the race is still very much NOT over. Do you think that just because you blurt out something that I am supposed to believe it? You have been sitting on your high horse arrogantly taking pot shots at my sources yet have provided none of your own.
“But the combination of the two – a TTC-style mega-highway from Mexico to Canada – only ever existed in the minds of the more gullible conspiracy theorists…”
Wrong again. You accuse me of being fearful of the New World Order. First of all, I can show you many government officials (presidents, etc) and media moguls who openly speak about it on video. Next, David Rockefeller responds to his critics in his autobiography by openly admitting that the scheme is not only true, but that he’s proud to be accused of being responsible for it. Your fear obviously lies in the possibility of a deeper evil existing than you are ready to confront so you will simply bury your head in the sand and hope it blows over. It’ll blow over all right, and dump a monsoon of grief on your head in the meantime.
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure one world, if you will. If thats the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
– David Rockefeller, page 405 of the paperback edition of his book ‘Memoirs’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvEqg_UlGaA&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLlQxVpeHHs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe7Gf1H0hmg
This isn’t imaginary. You and I may have a different idea of what it consists of. But if you insist to dub someone a “conspiracy theorist” because they “parrot” something they’ve heard and, if you choose, can listen to also, but is still not “proof ” to you, that is certainly your prerogative. However, your smugness is still unfounded and I suggest that you start verifying your own sources instead of entertaining yourself while taking shots at mine.
Eric,
The Amero is a real idea from a real person – but YOU TOO have the same power and authority to come up with and promote such ideas. There’s no evidence – none whatsoever – that any government is planning it or wants it. There’s merely a bunch of people repeating the same claim, with people like Hal Turner adding new lies and fake “Amero” designs every once in a while to generate hits on their blogs.
Links to people parroting the same conspiracy theory is not in any way “proof”.
The “Amero” illustration in the forextrading link is the same one that Hal Turner claimed was real – the same one we’d all be using by 2007. As the article mentions near the bottom, it’s a novelty coin produced by DC Coin. You can go to their site and buy them.
Again, the conspiracy theorists have yet to find a single elected official in the U.S. or Canada who wants it. They’ve yet to find any sign of legislation for it coming down the pipeline. They’ve yet to find credible reasoning why Canada would adopt it. (Canada has an export-based economy. A dollar at par – is it soon will be again – is a DISASTER for Canada. It wants its dollar around 90 cents U.S. to help exports.)
Then there’s the “NAFTA Superhighway”….
The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) mega-highway was a real idea, and it was as bad as they say. While labeled a “NAFTA Superhighway”, it had little if anything to do with NAFTA. It was about bringing in cheap goods from Asia, bypassing unionized American ports. Since the goods weren’t coming from NAFTA countries, you could get rid of NAFTA and it wouldn’t affect the plan at all. The plan seems to have been killed. It was in TEXAS *ONLY*.
NASCO on the other hand is about harmonized trucking regulations on EXISTING highways from Mexico to Canada. It involves no road building. No mega-highways. It’s been around since NAFTA was negotiated, before Clinton was President, and was labeled a “NAFTA Superhighway” in the newspapers even back then. It’s still very much alive.
But the combination of the two – a TTC-style mega-highway from Mexico to Canada – only ever existed in the minds of the more gullible conspiracy theorists, with sites like WorldNetDaily promoting the lie to milk the tinfoil-hatters for money.
As for Clinton, and “her husband was in office when the pistol fired at the beginning of the race”, well, the race was already over by then.
NAFTA was a Republican show from the beginning. The Canada-U.S. free trade agreement was signed by Reagan. NAFTA was an expansion of this agreement that added Mexico, and was signed by Bush I in 1992. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush I under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement. The U.S. House passed it with considerably more Republican than Democrat support.
All Clinton was really responsible for was a couple add-on agreements that attempted to raise Mexican worker and environmental standards, to try to level the playing field for American workers.
How can anyone who trumpets an absolute free market system and denounce government intervention in markets -the libertarian standard- then turn around and talk about the dangers of free trade, about sovereignty and want tariff and government fee-eliminating legislation repealed?
Sorry, but in this world of multi-national corporations and dependence on international trade for the health of the economies of all industrialized nations, there really are no such thing as national borders anymore when it comes to free market economics…
Make up your mind, would you? It all sounds like saying whatever is convenient for the enrichment of your own personal pocket to me, wrapped up in either the flag or an “ism” to make it seem more noble or to be more palatable to everyone else…Your fear of the “New World Order” is clouding your judgment…
Anything that bargains away sovereignty, even for apparent commercial gains, should at least be examined for Constitutionality by the Judiciary. I think that is one of the flaws in our ‘checks and balances system.’ The ideal of keeping laws consistent with the Constitution would have been better served by a requirement that ALL new laws be reviewed and argued before the judiciary branch after the president’s signature and before actually carrying the force of law.
A lot of malignant legislation could have been prevented long ago, had that been in the National DNA called the Constitution.
J Byron,
The inner conflict may lie in the fact that there is an actual paradox.
In theory, NAFTA sounds wonderful. In reality, it is unconstitutional and has nothing to do with what it claims.
NAFTA/Unconstitutional:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_8_23/ai_n25005791/
Roger,
Regarding the Amero, it is not a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory. Let me clarify what I mean by when I say it “exists”. The plans and ideas have been introduced and kicked around for a long time. Part of the reason it hasn’t come to full fruition is because of the roadblocks the NAFTA super highway has encountered (no pun intended) in states like Texas and Oklahoma.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3047-oklahoma-offensive
Why is it that when people want to discredit something, they decide to pull the conspiracy theory thingy out of their pocket? I didn’t make up the Amero as can be verified below:
http://forextrading.about.com/od/forexhistory/a/amero_conspiracy.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Major_issues_if_Canada_the_US_and_Mexico_were_to_consider_forming_an_economic_union_with_a_single_currency&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=When_will_there_be_Amero_currency
Also, President Obama apparently recognizes something that you refuse to acknowledge. And that is that NAFTA is an unpopular concept, and should be. His opinion was made evident during the 2008 campaign when, while still running against Hillary, he denounced it. She was in a precarious position and couldn’t denounce it since her husband was in office when the pistol fired at the beginning of the race. When Obama took office, however, his tune changed (surprised?). Now he assures Canada that there is nothing to worry about. The fact of the matter is that NAFTA has nothing to do with “free trade”. Regarding job creation, NAFTA would be similar to Obama’s jobs plan. Sure, there would be some people who would get new jobs. But at the expense of losing many more jobs and, in this case, national sovereignty.
It has been pretty much established that NAFTA is unconstitutional. Surely THAT you can’t deny. And for you to push for it while brushing me off as some kind of loon shows me that you either don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t care about what the Constitution says about NAFTA, or both.
NAFTA creates more jobs than it ever took away. The bill is political grandstanding for people who don’t know better.
Under NAFTA, the US *EXPORTS* far more manufactured goods to Canada than it imports. That trade surplus accounts for nearly 600,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs in America. http://petemurphy.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/us-trad …
As for Mexico, remember Michael Moore’s move “Roger & Me”, about all the auto industry jobs that disappeared to Mexico? That was **BEFORE** NAFTA. NAFTA helped level the playing field, and send some exports in the other direction.
A lot of jobs have been lost to China and the rest of Asia, but that has nothing to do with NAFTA.
As for the “Amero” / “North American Union” tinfoil-hattery, that’s all it is. For all the handwaving about an “NAU by 2007!!!” and an “Amero by 2007!!!”, the conspiracy theorists have yet to find a single elected official in the U.S. or Canada who wants either. They’ve yet to find any sign of legislation for them coming down the pipeline. They’ve yet to find credible reasoning why Canada would take part in either idea.
In recent years we’ve deaded AWAY from an EU-style union: Canada and the U.S. REJECTED a “common security perimeter”. Far from “eliminating the borders”, there are now passport controls and other obstacles for the first time EVER. Far from a common tarrif, each country has been signing it’s own free trade agreements. There’s LESS worker mobility than ever. Trade issues and America’s massive deficit spending for the last 9 years has put a common currency out of the question for Canada. Each country seems content with mere free trade.
Erik,
I am conflicted on this issue. The heated debate has failed to burn the fog from my thinking.
Historically, constitutionally, tariffs were to be our central governments primary income, rather than taxing our citizens into the black hole our society finds itself. That would have encouraged interstate commerce and by today’s standards kept American jobs in America. We actually could have been pretty self sustaining. I do not mean that in a “protectionist or isolationist” vein, rather we would have wants from other countries, but not so much needs, and vice-versa. Our energy resources are a great example. We would have developed our own oil and coal resources if proper tariffs were placed on imports making it smart to create our domestic capabilities, and so on.
But with the creation of the income tax, and the thousands of citizen born micro-taxes, multi-nationals have convinced the government to abandon the ways of our founders, along with the high tariffs that would create balance.
As things are now, low tariff/no tariff trade within North America seems to make sense, and here’s why. A free trade zone allows us to better profit from trade with our natural allies at boarders, lowering costs for all, thus encouraging higher volume trade and putting us on a more level playing field with Europe.
Perhaps more importantly, it helps prop up the Mexican government and keeps the pesky communist party from taking the country on our southern boarder, a constant risk nobody talks about.
You may have noticed the arms and high tech missile agreements between Chavez and newly flexing Putin last week. A bold expansion of communist power in our back yard, imagine it were Mexico next.
As for Canada, they are already like our most liberal 51st state.
However, it does also work as a socialist tool “spreading” the US wealth in greater proportion to benefit our neighbors and the multi’s who are looking for cheaper labor costs by moving operations to Mexico without tax or any kind of government penalty. It does go against our founders blueprint.
Like I said, I’m conflicted.