Thread: Cintas warned against firing immigrant force

I saw this article last night, and was OUTRAGED! Being outraged, I did what I usually do...I GAVE HIM AN AWARD!

http://washingtonscandal.blogspot.com/

If this man is against firing of people using fake ID's to gain unlawful employment, he has NO BUSINESS being the Chair of Homeland Security.
Give us a break here. This is a perfect example of why all the Freshman need hammered hard with faxes and phone calls letting them know they were sent to Washington to effect change, NOT GRANT AMNESTY.

Dixie, there is no question that Clinton supported it. The issue was whose agenda it was. It was a fait accompli already designed, negotiated, and signed by the leaders of the three countries and the US Congress was already set to ratify it before Clinton was inaugurated but the actual vote occurred in 1993 and then Clinton signed it and during the period of time it took Congress to ratify it, Clinton made it clear that he supported it and would sign it into law.

It was not his brainchild. His Adminsitration did not design it or negotiate the terms or secure the signing of the framework agreement that went to the three legislative bodies of the three countries. That was all done during the George H W Bush by George H W Bush.

The facts concerning this are posted above.

Originally Posted by Judy

Dixie, there is no question that Clinton supported it. The issue was whose agenda it was. It was a fait accompli already designed, negotiated, and signed by the leaders of the three countries and the US Congress was already set to ratify it before Clinton was inaugurated but the actual vote occurred in 1993 and then Clinton signed it and during the period of time it took Congress to ratify it, Clinton made it clear that he supported it and would sign it into law.

It was not his brainchild. His Adminsitration did not design it or negotiate the terms or secure the signing of the framework agreement that went to the three legislative bodies of the three countries. That was all done during the George H W Bush by George H W Bush.

The facts concerning this are posted above.

Another errant statement. NAFTA was an outgrowth of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreemtns, which was an outgrowth of the GATT agreements (which had been expanding since 1950) and a reaction to the EU. Bush no more created GATT and NAFTA (as you suggest when you call it his "brainchild") than Clinton did, and I defy you to provide one iota of proof to the contrary. The question is whether these guys supported these free trade agreements and, like pretty much every President of the latter half of the 20th century, did their part to promote and expand so-called "free trade." Passage of NAFTA was a key element of both the Bush and Clinton campaigns in 1992.

You just keep on posting this stuff and substantiating NOTHING. Why not explain to other posters that you are espousing an opinion, not recounting fact?

I posted the facts about NAFTA.

What is your point?

Originally Posted by Judy

I posted the facts about NAFTA.

What is your point?

My point is that you can't absolve Clinton of responsibility for the treaty that he promoted and actually signed even as you claim that another President was some evil genius who crafted the whole thing and then manipulated the guy who ran against and defeated him into signing it.

Judy, I don't know what your educational background is or what your political experience happens to be, but presidents don't even write their own speeches (not since JFK anyhow), much less craft their own treaties, proposed legislation, or even platforms. They are figureheads who do their damage by acting as spokesmodels for policies crafted by ultrapowerful institutions and the think tanks they own and control. Believing that the Bushes craft their own policies is like believing that Keanu Reeves writes his own dialogue.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1968.html

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

NAFTA

1994

In a recent version of the Good Neighbor Policy, the world's largest free trade area was created when the United States, Canada and Mexico launched the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). That agreement has brought economic growth and higher standards of living for all three countries, and is committed to helping the partners to realize a more integrated and efficient North American economy.


NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994. The agreement immediately lifted tariffs on the majority of goods produced by the signatory nations. It also called for the gradual elimination, over a period of 15 years, of most remaining barriers to cross-border investment and to the movement of goods and services among the three countries. Major industries affected include agriculture, automobile and textile manufacture, telecommunications, financial services, energy, and trucking. NAFTA was followed by the signing of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT/World Trade Organization (WTO), also in 1994.


The WTO administers a variety of agreements, covering, among other things, trade in goods, trade in services, foreign investment, government procurement, and intellectual property. Such regional trade agreements as NAFTA interact with the global regime in ways that can make or break a firm’s business strategy. Moreover, regional trade agreements can offer clues to the directions in which global agreements may be headed.


Like any multinational treaty, NAFTA has its pros and cons, its cheerleaders and detractors. More than 10 years after the treaty was signed, protests continue, especially by citizenry "south of the border." NAFTA seems to favor North America's big business over the needs of Latin America's indigenous peoples. While jobs may have been created in Latin America, the pay is generally low and available jobs are far from home. The benefits appear to go to governments, rich land owners, and large businesses.


The new NAFTA economies apparently have disrupted traditional agrarian lifeways as well. Formerly successful agrarian families, once able to send their children to college, find the markets for their traditional crop, such as corn, have been undercut by multinational agricultural corporations. The small farmers can't sell their corn at a profitable price.

No official NAFTA compensation or reparations structure seems to exist to cope with the widespread disenfranchisement of indigenous families dependant on traditional, but obsolete local economies.

The following information is derived from the official NAFTA website:

Preamble

The Government of Canada, the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America, resolve to:

strengthen the special bonds of friendship and cooperation among their nations;

contribute to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade and provide a catalyst to broader international cooperation;

create an expanded and secure market for the goods and services produced in their territories;

reduce distortions to trade;

establish clear and mutually advantageous rules governing their trade;

ensure a predictable commercial framework for business planning and investment;

build on their respective rights and obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and other multilateral and bilateral instruments of cooperation;

enhance the competitiveness of their firms in global markets;

foster creativity and innovation, and promote trade in goods and services that are the subject of intellectual property rights;

create new employment opportunities and improve working conditions and living standards in their respective territories;

undertake each of the preceding in a manner consistent with environmental protection and conservation;

preserve their flexibility to safeguard the public welfare;

promote sustainable development;
strengthen the development and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations; and

protect, enhance, and enforce basic workers' rights.

The NAFTA agreement among Canada, the United States, and Mexico, was signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. However, it still had to be approved by Congress. A tough battle ensued despite high-level support in both major parties. The following year, President Bill Clinton mustered all of his political clout to push the measure through Congress. The office of Republican representative Gerald Solomon of New York circulated a list of some 37 special side deals and pork barrel projects the Clinton Administration used to buy passage of the trade agreement. The president's November 17th political victory in the House of Representatives arrived by a 234 to 200 vote.

Detractors of NAFTA point out chapter 20, which mandated the creation of a North American "Free Trade Commission" and a vast new bureaucracy under the commission called the "Secretariat." The NAFTA Secretariat, comprising three Sections — Canadian, Mexican and United States — is responsible for the administration of the dispute settlement provisions of the agreement.

Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, a member of the Trilateral Commission's executive committee and a longtime power in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), called the vote on NAFTA the single most important decision that Congress would make during Mr. Clinton's first term. Indeed, Kissinger acknowledged in the Los Angeles Times that passage "will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War. . . ." NAFTA "is not a conventional trade agreement," he asserted, "but the architecture of a new international system."

David Rockefeller, Kissinger's superior among the Trilateralist and CFR coteries, exhorted in the Wall Street Journal, "Everything is in place — after 500 years — to build a true 'new world' in the Western Hemisphere."

Democratic representative Robert Matsui of California, another NAFTA supporter, candidly admitted that the agreement brings with it a surrender of American "independence." NAFTA supporter Democratic Senator Max Baucus of Montana bragged about the "iron fist" of the pact.

U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor, the negotiator of the "side agreement" on the environment, said officially that "No nation can lower labor or environmental standards, only raise them." In the August 17, 1993 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Kantor said that "No country in the agreement can lower its environmental standards — ever."

Off-site search results for "NAFTA"...
Historical Documents - The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 1994

In essence, NAFTA has fueled the population growth of the border region, focusing the attention of the both the U.S. and Mexican governments on the environmental, social, and political dilemmas in the region. Preamble Part One: General Part ...
http://www.historicaldocuments.com/Nort ... eement.htm

Foreign Affairs - Book Review - NAFTA Revisited: Achievements and Challenges - Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott
... participation in Federal Reserve Board meetings, common visa standards for non-NAFTA visitors, an independent trilateral monitoring board to promote core labor standards, an annual environmental report card to spotlight glaring deficiencies ...
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060101f ... -hufbauer- ...

North American Free Trade Agreement
Ohio factory workers feared NAFTA, contending that United States business owners would move their factories to Mexico, where labor costs were dramatically less than in the United States, including in Ohio. Substantiating workers’ fears, some ...
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=2061

Find books on NAFTA at Amazon.com. More books on NAFTA can be found at Barnes & Noble. Memorabilia related to NAFTA is at auction on eBay. Looking for a book on NAFTA that you thought you'd never find? Check Alibris for a bookstore near you.
Students of American history take note! You can get new and used United States history textbooks at Textbookx.com.

For teachers of American history, get more material related to NAFTA for K-8 grades at Scholastic Teacher Store.

Sponsors of U-S-History.com:

Sponsor this site
© 2002-2005 Online Highways TM About Us/Credits

_____________________

And so here we are 14 years after the deal was cooked by G. H. W. Bush and signed with Canada and Mexico .. and upon ratification by Congress signed into law the next year by Bill Clinton outraged that we are losing our sovereignty; that our nation is falling apart from the "new international system" that NAFTA started; over-run with illegal imigrants from one of the NAFTA countries with more Free Trade Ageements approved and ratified with more on the burners from more countries just like Mexico or worse ...expecting what to happen?

Something different?

How can something different happen without changing the agreements and the people promoting and implementing them?

Well, I don't guess it's that big of deal. Two more years isn't that long to wait I suppose. I don't think the Republicans will make it in 2008 so it will be a Democrat .. probably Hillary Clinton.

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton

All the time they need to complete the sale of our nation.

Geee ... sorry but that just upsets me and I think we should do something about the people responsible for doing this to our nation and US.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Judy

I posted the facts about NAFTA.

What is your point?

My point is that you can't absolve Clinton of responsibility for the treaty that he promoted and actually signed even as you claim that another President was some evil genius who crafted the whole thing and then manipulated the guy who ran against and defeated him into signing it.

Judy, I don't know what your educational background is or what your political experience happens to be, but presidents don't even write their own speeches (not since JFK anyhow), much less craft their own treaties, proposed legislation, or even platforms. They are figureheads who do their damage by acting as spokesmodels for policies crafted by ultrapowerful institutions and the think tanks they own and control. Believing that the Bushes craft their own policies is like believing that Keanu Reeves writes his own dialogue.

Oh well let me introduce myself to you. I have a degree in International Relations; 5 years in economic and industrial development with a Midwestern State; President of the statewide economic development lobbying organization elected by the membership of 400 statewide professionals; recruited by a major international chemical company located in Delaware and was 1 of 5 professionals responsible for all their manufacturing and resource sites in the United States; appointed by the General Counsel of the Corporation to serve on the company's Corporate Divestiture Team; then left and started my own national industrial brokerage company specializing in manufacturing facilities and worked industrial locations to fill these empty facilities in 20 states; and am now involved with my own re-development project in North Carolina which is why I'm in North Carolina. I've spent the past 14 years of my career dealing with the aftermath of NAFTA and Free Trade Agreements as industries leave and facilities become available and communities and their work force waited for me to find the needle in the haystack that I could convince to stay in the United States and locate in these facilities and hire American Workers laid off by NAFTA, the aftermath of NAFTA and now CAFTA and the other free trade agreements.



So what is your plan? To fire the "powerful think tanks" behind all the Presidents but keep the Presidents?

Aaaah ... well that's a "plan" alright.

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Judy

I posted the facts about NAFTA.

What is your point?

My point is that you can't absolve Clinton of responsibility for the treaty that he promoted and actually signed even as you claim that another President was some evil genius who crafted the whole thing and then manipulated the guy who ran against and defeated him into signing it.

Judy, I don't know what your educational background is or what your political experience happens to be, but presidents don't even write their own speeches (not since JFK anyhow), much less craft their own treaties, proposed legislation, or even platforms. They are figureheads who do their damage by acting as spokesmodels for policies crafted by ultrapowerful institutions and the think tanks they own and control. Believing that the Bushes craft their own policies is like believing that Keanu Reeves writes his own dialogue.

Oh well let me introduce myself to you. I have a degree in International Relations; 5 years in economic and industrial development with a Midwestern State; President of the statewide economic development lobbying organization elected by the membership of 400 statewide professionals; recruited by a major international chemical company located in Delaware and was 1 of 5 professionals responsible for all their manufacturing and resource sites in the United States; appointed by the General Counsel of the Corporation to serve on the company's Corporate Divestiture Team; then left and started my own national industrial brokerage company specializing in manufacturing facilities and worked industrial locations to fill these empty facilities in 20 states; and am now involved with my own re-development project in North Carolina which is why I'm in North Carolina. I've spent the past 14 years of my career dealing with the aftermath of NAFTA and Free Trade Agreements as industries leave and facilities become available and communities and their work force waited for me to find the needle in the haystack that I could convince to stay in the United States and locate in these facilities and hire American Workers laid off by NAFTA, the aftermath of NAFTA and now CAFTA and the other free trade agreements.

Then what on Earth is your excuse for not having an understanding of how international agreements are crafted? Or maybe that's just you get for attending Midwestern State...

JUDY & CROCKET

You are both good people. You're certainly both important to Alipac and this deadly serious battle we've all found ourselves in.

Now, cut it out, please!
You're making me dizzy besides driving me to drink
{I don't drink so this is a biggy}

Truly, it would be more beneficial to put this energy into that which you agree on than continuing this particular discussion right at this moment in time.

Thanx!

Crock, I fully understand how these agreements are crafted. And when Globalists get their "boy", their "boy" makes it happen. You take their "boys" away you shut them down.

You want to keep Bush. Fine. I don't. I want him off our payroll; out of the oval office; out on the street looking for a new retirement fund and his own security force. I'm sick and tired of underwriting traitors. You fire them until you get one that has a loyalty to the American People instead of Globalists. Then, they don't draft and craft and cajole and sponsor and promote and cheerlead falsely by the way benefits to a deal they know to be a lie. I'm tired of Traitors in our Oval Office. If we can keep our White House clean, we can save our country. If we don't because of people like you, then we are going to lose it.

There is almost nothing about this situation and predicament that we are in that I do not fully understand so well in fact, I wish I did not. But I do. In two more years, we will no longer be a nation. We are hanging on by a thread today. This is on Fast Track. Something has to be done immediately to slow it down in order to stop it. The Republicans just lost control of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate which means our team no longer controls the US Supreme Court; the US Congress or the American White House. Which means ... we control NOTHING at the federal level and all the damage is being done at that level.

Political experience ... you ask me about political experience? I was hired by a major space and defense contractor to see if I could save funding for SDI (Space Defense Initiative) ... which had already been cut from the budget by the House ... and it was losing by 15 votes in the US Senate. In 4 weeks I developed a strategy, took it to the US Senate, and not only secured that funding but got another $200 million added to it and it made it all the way through Conference Committee and the program was saved. That was during the Bush One Presidency. My strategy was very simple. I explained to the Senators that most Americans already think we have this protection. How upset are they going to be when they find out ... we have no protection ... at all? Would you like to be the one that tells them or would you prefer I do?

We are in the Chess Game of our Lives. And there are some mistakes as there are in any Chess Game that you can never undo, and we're making one right now.