Thread: Okay, It's Time To Get To The Bottom of Miss Piggy

I think Judy has been pretty clear on her support of Trump.

There are a lot of folks that remember HW's speech on the new world order at his inauguration. W and his entire administration opened the borders like a can of beans to Mexico.

Bush signs North American trade pact Clinton says he won't renegotiate


December 18, 1992|
By Gilbert A. Lewthwaite | Gilbert A. Lewthwaite,Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- President Bush signed the North American Free Trade Agreement yesterday, and his successor-in-waiting Bill Clinton immediately announced that he would not seek the treaty's renegotiation.

Mr. Clinton, in a statement issued in Little Rock, Ark., said the signing represented "an important step" toward the economic integration of North America. He repeated his campaign assertion that there would have to be new job and environmental protections, and safeguards against sudden trade "surges," but these could be settled without renegotiating the treaty with Mexico and Canada before he submitted implementing legislation.

"I will pursue those other things that I think need to be done in the public interest, then I will prepare implementing legislation and try to pass it in Congress," he said.



His new administration would also take domestic action on assisting workers, protecting the U.S. environment, helping farmers, encouraging public participation in consideration of the agreement and closing loopholes for foreign workers, he said.

"I believe these steps do not require renegotiation of NAFTA," said Mr. Clinton, promising to work closely with the two neighboring governments and with congress to "move this process forward."

By putting his name to the pact that will open the borders of the United States, Mexico and Canada to a market of 360 million consumers with a joint annual output worth $8 trillion, Mr. Bush took some of the heat from the agreement's critics off the president-elect.

"I think probably Bill Clinton is relieved that Bush signed it today," said Thea Lee, trade expert at the labor-backed Economic Policy Institute. "Clinton is on record as saying he does not want to renegotiate the basic agreement. Now Bush has tied that up for him but has left him quite a bit of room for maneuver in drafting implementation legislation."

The AFL-CIO, which is bitterly opposed to the treaty as a threat to U.S. jobs, announced it would continue its battle to kill the treaty in its entirety in Congress.

The treaty is also opposed by a broad alliance of environmental and consumer groups, which this month launched a national advertising campaign against it.

Critics of the treaty say U.S. jobs will be exported to Mexico where pay is lower, and worker health and safety standards are less strict. Environmentalists also fear that U.S. companies will be lured to Mexico by its lower air, water and land pollution safeguards, and this would worsen cross-border pollution.

Mr. Bush's action yesterday fulfilled the requirements of the "fast-track" legislative process, under which Congress can now only vote the agreement up or down. It cannot change the signed document.

Mr. Bush had to allow Congress 90 days to consider the agreement before signing. Yesterday was the first possible day for his signature. The clock will start ticking again when Mr. Clinton submits implementing legislation to make the necessary changes in U.S. law and tariffs required by the treaty. There is no deadline for Mr. Clinton to take this action, but once he does Congress will have up to 90 legislative days to vote up or down on the implementing legislation or change it.

The vote on the implementing legislation will ratify the treaty, which is due to go into effect Jan. 1, 1994.

"The focus of the debate now . . . would be what needs to get done before or in connection with implementation of what has already been signed, not what of that needs to be taken apart," said D. Holly Hammonds, trade expert with the pro-Clinton Progressive Policy Institute.

Part of that debate could focus on Baltimore's Domino Sugar plant, which employs 800 people. Under NAFTA, if Mexico turns out to have been a net exporter of sugar to the United States in two of the first seven years of the agreement, the U.S. market will be opened permanently to Mexican sugar. Currently, Mexico is a net importer of sugar because it sweetens all its sodas with sugar. But if it followed the U.S. lead and switched to U.S. corn syrup, it would have vast amounts of sugar to export, which could flood into the United States, threatening Domino's share of the market.


Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, who represents the 3rd District around the Domino plant, has raised the danger with the U.S. trade representative, who has said the fear of a deluge of Mexican sugar is unfounded.

"We are going to fight for the Domino sugar issue," Mr. Cardin said yesterday, indicating that he would seek to ensure "an even playing field" between U.S. and Mexican sugar producers through the implementing legislation.

President Bush, signing the treaty, said yesterday: "I believe the time will come when trade will be free from Alaska to Argentina, when every citizen of the Americas will have the opportunity to share in new growth and prosperity."

At similar ceremonies yesterday in Ottawa and Mexico City, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari put their names to the treaty.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/199...otiate-clinton

1993
NAFTA signed into law

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Clinton said he hoped the agreement would encourage other nations to work toward a broader world-trade pact.
NAFTA, a trade pact between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, eliminated virtually all tariffs and trade restrictions between the three nations. The passage of NAFTA was one of Clinton’s first major victories as the first Democratic president in 12 years–though the movement for free trade in North America had begun as a Republican initiative.

During its planning stages, NAFTA was heavily criticized by Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot, who argued that if NAFTA was passed, Americans would hear a “giant sucking sound” of American companies fleeing the United States for Mexico, where employees would work for less pay and without benefits. The pact, which took effect on January 1, 1994, created the world’s largest free-trade zone.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...igned-into-law

MW, from the bottom up, protecting the environment is not a "liberal position". Protecting the environment is and has always been a Republican initiative. Teddy Roosevelt, REPUBLICAN, established the conservation movement to conserve lands through federal ownership and protection and our National Parks. Richard Nixon, REPUBLICAN, established the EPA to protect our environment and it was Richard Nixon who signed the 1970 Clean Air Act into law to control and reduce emissions and the 1972 Clear Water Act to regulate and control effluents into our streams, rivers and ground water. George H W Bush, REPUBLICAN, signed he 1990 Clean Air Act into law to further regulate air emissions. Protecting our environment, an essential element to human survival, has always been a Republican initiative, because it's common sense.

As to the Bushes, Jeb is breaking his pledge to vote for Trump so either he's voting for someone else or staying home. You said Laura Bush is voting for Hillary Clinton. A second party, not a third party, said George H W Bush told her he is voting for Hillary. The media heard it and no one has denied it. It makes perfect sense because the Bushes boycotted the Convention, Barbara Bush said she would never vote for Trump, they're Globalists who support Hillary's free trade treason and open borders, negotiated the framework agreement for NAFTA, pushed CAFTA and the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, and GW Bush signed CAFTA into law.

I could care less who they vote for. They're free to vote for whomever they want. But if they vote for Clinton, someone else besides Trump or stay home, they are helping Hillary Clinton. If you don't understand that, that's fine. You're entitled to your view same as they are. But the American People and the United States have been very good to the Bushes all the while they were selling US out to free trade treason, open borders, and foreign wars that never end.

So Hillary is as much their "New World Order" Legacy as she is Obama's.

So why you want waste your time or mine trying to argue against a purely logical conclusion regarding who the Bushes are voting for is just another mystery of your opinion posting.

Certainly looks like Ross Perot was correct. Lets see how the sugar folks did.

Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, who represents the 3rd District around the Domino plant, has raised the danger with the U.S. trade representative, who has said the fear of a deluge of Mexican sugar is unfounded.

Thu Mar 19, 2015 | 6:44pm EDT
Sugar trade deal strikes big blow to U.S. refiners, candymakers

By Chris Prentice | NEW YORK, MARCH 19

U.S. regulators' decision to approve a controversial trade deal with Mexico has struck a major blow to sugarcane refiners, who will struggle to source supplies, and confectioners, who will pay higher sugar prices.

The U.S. International Trade Commission on Thursday rejected challenges from Louis Dreyfus Commodities' Imperial Sugar and AmCane Sugar LLC, pushing ahead an agreement that sets floor prices and caps on imports from Mexico.

The deal rescinds the free sugar trade access for the two countries through NAFTA and ends a year-long spat over the $6 billion U.S. market.

The ruling is a victory for U.S. sugar beet growers and companies who complained a year ago that cheap Mexican sugar is flooding the market. The United States is a net importer of sugar and Mexico is one of its largest suppliers.

But for refiners, the deal will restrict raw-sugar supplies, and the price floors may crimp their margins.

Tighter margins due to higher costs will put refiners at a "substantial disadvantage" to sugarbeet processors and Mexican millers, said Frank Jenkins, president of JSG Commodities in Norwalk, Connecticut.

Refiners' margins will be below "a living wage," he said.

Imperial and AmCane did not respond immediately to requests for comment. They have also asked the U.S. Department of Commerce continue its probe.

An Imperial executive had previously said an earlier version of the deal would threaten refining capacity.
Other U.S. cane refiners that include Domino Sugar owner ASR Group, a Cargill Inc. and Louisiana Sugar Growers and Refiners' Louisiana Sugar Refining, and U.S. Sugar Corp also source raw sugar domestically.

Restrictions on supplies will also help maintain the U.S. sugar price's premium, even as world prices languish at six-year lows amid a global oversupply.

"Prices are up this year, and they're going to be up 20 percent next year," said Kirk Vashaw, Chief Executive Officer of Spangler Candy Co., a sweets manufacturer in Bryan, Ohio, and with operations in Mexico.

One supplier last week hiked prices on a long-term contract, he said. Spangler, which makes Dum Dums lollipops and some 500 million candy canes a year, uses more than 20 million pounds of sugar each year.

U.S. domestic raw-sugar prices on ICE Futures U.S. finished flat on Thursday, recouping all its 4.5-percent losses afer the vote. U.S. prices had been dropping due to soaring imports from Mexico and a global supply glut. (Reporting by Chris Prentice; Editing by David Gregorio)
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-s...0WL2F120150319



Looks like the US taxpayers are on the hook again!!!!!

U.S. government is buying up $300-million sugar glut

By John Upton on Oct 9, 2013

“Take your kid to work” day at the USDA’s Washington headquarters.ShutterstockTrick-or-treaters in waiting take note: The U.S. Department of Agriculture is buying up a stockpile of sugar, spending about $1 per American resident on a sweet bounty that it can barely give away.

That’s because the government has been promoting the planting of more sugar cane and sugar beet crops than the over-sugared country can bear. Meanwhile, the North American Free Trade Agreement has opened an import spigot that has seen Mexican sugar flowing unencumbered into the U.S.

To reduce the financial burden on the agricultural companies that planted all those unsellable, diabetes-inducing crops, the USDA is going on a sugar-buying binge.Bloomberg reports:

Since June, the sugar glut led the U.S. Department of Agriculture to buy sugar to prop up prices, sell it at a loss to biofuels producers and take steps to reduce imports. The efforts have barely dented the surplus.

“The government is still supporting growers to produce more sugar than we actually consume,” Arthur Liming, a Chicago-based futures specialist at Citigroup Inc., said in a telephone interview.

The total cost to the government of subsidizing the sugar industry for this year’s crops may be between $200 million and $300 million, according to Tom Earley, an economist with Agralytica, a food and agriculture consulting firm based in Alexandria, Virginia.

Imagine, just for a second, if it was a kale glut that we had to deal with — instead oflife-shortening sugar. Leafy greens party in D.C., y’all!

http://grist.org/food/u-s-government-is-buying-up-300-million-sugar-glut/

LOL!!! And the Miss Piggy Story gets emboldened for all those voting their "conscience", voting for "whatever" that's not Trump!!

MISS PIGGY ROMPS ON THE FARM Miss Universe Alicia Machado who sparked Donald Trump Miss Piggy row had SEX on a reality show called The Farm

The beauty romped with another contestant on a hit Spanish show modelled on Big Brother
Video
By JON LOCKETT
29th September 2016, 1:01 pm

THE Miss Universe winner at the centre of the Donald Trump Miss Piggy row had sex romps on a reality TV show called The Farm.

Venezuelan beauty Alicia Machado cavorted beneath the sheets with another contestant on the hit Spanish show modelled on ‘Big Brother.’
NINTCHDBPICT000270690463
La Granja
6
Alicia’s antics with Spanish TV host Fernando Acaso shocked viewers
NINTCHDBPICT000270690483
La Granja
6
Clips showed Acaso on top of her, with Machado whispering about his manhood
NINTCHDBPICT000003913482
Matrix
6
Despite her very public sex show she said afterwards she had no regrets
Key moments in the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton

In a now infamous 2005 episode of 'La Granja,' Alicia apparently had sex in front of the cameras with Spanish TV host Fernando Acaso.

Machado was engaged to Philadelphia Phillies baseball star Bobby Abreu at the time.

He quickly called off the wedding after clips of the show appeared online.

The broadcast showed Acaso on top of her, with Machado whispering in Spanish about his manhood.

"Oh your d***, my love, what a tasty d***! Your d*** is divine,'" she moans while they romp.

Later during the broadcast replay, the show's host read aloud what Machado had written about the man.

"Really, that guy is cute, he loves me, he understands me, he accepts me, he protects me, he supports me, he respects me,' read her testimonial.

"He treats me like a goddess, he f***s me like a b****!"

Machado told TV channel Univision when she returned to Miami that despite the scandal she "felt fine as a person, as a human being.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/187598...-sex-the-farm/

(Click on the link for .... video)

PS: Leave it to White Trash to bring this TRASH into the dialogue of a US election. The Clintons have been injecting this into our politics since Bill Clinton's first run for Governor in Arkansas. There's just some stuff you can't get away from, Hillary, because it's who you are. You and Bill draw this into our government, our elections, our process ... because you're NASTY BY NATURE and it's part of your lives. You've no class, you've no decency, you've nothing "Presidential". Had you won this election, Machado and her Drug Lord Sperm-Donor from Mexico and her Assassin Boyfriend from Venezuela would be visiting our White House, being served State Dinners at taxpayer expense while you thieving, corrupt POS scheme and scam your next plot against the citizens of this nation during the intermissions of your sexapades.

MACHADO is Hillary's Poster Girl, the best most accurate symbol of the Clintons we've had yet.

And ICE Agents, you need to be checking Machado's immigration papers and citizenship process because best I can tell, her legal time in this country does NOT add up for eligibility to become a US citizen. I realize the drug cartels are powerful and have tremendous influence in DHS. But for our honest ICE Agents, you need to get busy and figure out "what in the hell is going on".

By Will Rahn CBS News September 29, 2016, 12:54 PM
Commentary: The curious case of Alicia Machado

As a rule, reporters like to keep their stories interesting, which is why the coverage we’ve seen of Alicia Machado is so curious.

This has been the week of Machado, who became famous literally overnight when Hillary Clinton brought her up at Monday’s debate. The next day saw numerous outlets writing pieces on Machado, boosted along by a conference call held by the Clinton campaign for journalists.

The former Miss Universe, who says that Donald Trump fat-shamed her and alleges that he called her “Ms. Piggy” and “Ms. Housekeeping,” and generally humiliated her after she put on weight, is now the star of a Clinton ad. An obscure figure in America less than a week ago, Machado is perhaps the biggest story in politics at the moment.

So it’s almost inexplicable that, despite all this coverage, the publications discussing the extraordinary stories of her life are mostly right-wing ones.

The most interesting thing about the mainstream articles is what they leave out. There is no discussion at CNN or The New York Times, for instance, about her post-pageant fame as the fiancée of Phillies outfielder Bobby Abreu, or how he reportedly called it off after a reality show she was on revealed video of her apparently having sex with a housemate.

Likewise, there is little mention of how a Venezuelan judge once alleged on live TV that Machado had threatened to kill him. Or how the Mexican attorney general’s office later said she was the girlfriend of a major narco trafficker, and that she he had a child with him, according to Univision and other outlets. Or how a government witness who reportedly testified about their affair was later shot to death.

A certain reticence is fair and appropriate when discussing the private lives of people alleging abuse at the hands of powerful men. The Clintons, of course, are no strangers to this, as they have been accused repeatedly of trying to smear women who’ve said President Clinton was sexually inappropriate with them.

But there’s something odd about news coverage that avoids easily available and fascinating stories about that person’s life. And it’s especially peculiar when that person is a campaign surrogate for a major party nominee, which is what Machado is now.

It should go without saying that, even if all the allegations against Machado are true, they do not justify Trump derogating her with sexist and racist language. Moreover, it speaks volumes about Trump that Machado’s accusations are plausible. More than plausible, in fact, as some of the harassment happened in front of the camera, which underscores Trump’s habit not only of bullying people, but of turning that bullying into a spectacle.

Additionally, if all the allegations against Machado are true, they would not necessarily undermine her accusations against Trump. People should not sit off in priggish judgment of her life, or assume she’s a liar because she made mistakes when she was younger.

But that doesn’t mean that her life, which has been reported on extensively in the Spanish language press, should be sanitized and whitewashed by the press. The political media is not in the beatification business; if it’s out there, readers deserve to know it.

And it is all out there. In 1998, the Associated Press reported that Venezuelan judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor said on national television that Machado “threatened to ruin my career and…kill me.” At the time, Fuenmayor had indicted Machado’s boyfriend for allegedly murdering his brother-in-law, outside a Caracas church.

“The victim’s family accused Machado of driving the getaway car, but Fuenmayor has not indicted her, citing insufficient evidence. The judge said there were no witnesses to place Machado at the scene -- or to back up her claim she was home sick at the time,” the AP report continues.

To his credit, CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Machado about these allegations Tuesday night after they surfaced in the Trump-friendly Daily Mail. She responded: “He can say whatever he wants to say. I don’t care. You know, I have my past. Of course, everybody has. Everybody has a past. And I’m not a saint girl. But that is not the point now. That moment in Venezuela was wrong, was another speculation about my life, because I’m a really famous person in my country, because I’m an actress there, and Mexico too.”

Other facets of her life have likewise been explored, though not as recently. In 2005, Deadspin, then part of Nick Denton’s Gawker media, theorized that Bobby Abreu’s home-run streak at the time may have been due to his anger over Machado’s sex tape, which reportedly caused him to cancel their forthcoming wedding.

Then there’s the case of Jose Geraldo Alvarez Vasquez, a Mexican drug trafficker who was known as El Indio. The Mexican Attorney General’s office said that he had a romantic relationship with Machado, and that they had had a daughter together.

Machado denied the accusation, which was covered extensively in the Spanish-language press at the time. Earlier this year, in fact, CNN Español referenced the story in a piece about drug dealers crossing paths with celebrities. No charges were ever brought against Machado, and the government witness who was first to testify about her supposed romance with Vasquez was later assassinated, as people who break ranks with the cartels sometimes are.

From an objective standpoint, this is all interesting stuff! Is it relevant to Machado’s current role in the Clinton campaign? Let’s take a look at what CNN and The New York Times reported about her life.

The CNN story, which includes a total of four bylines, limits its main Machado story to a discussion of how Trump treated her. After Clinton name-checked her in the debate, the story reports Machado saying that she began “crying because I never imagined that such an important person like her would care about my story, know about my story.”

As the CNN story notes, Machado made that statement on a conference call with reporters organized by the Clinton campaign. There is no mention in the story of the judge, the kingpin, or the baseball player.

The New York Times, however, went for more of a dive into who Machado is in a double-bylined story that ran Tuesday, “Shocked and Angry: Alicia Machado, a Miss Universe Mocked by Donald Trump.”

The Times reports that Machado was born in Venezuela and has endured 20 years of “agony” due to Trump’s behavior. “I was sick – anorexia and bulimia for five years,” Machado says.

It goes on to note that Machado has “done a series of interviews” with the Times this year. Towards the end, it notes that she is “a well-known actress” in Latin America.

And now she is a well-known political figure in America, a star surrogate for the leading contender for our presidency, which brings with it its own level of scrutiny and expectations.

Machado has lived a full life, and a uniquely fascinating one. So why would any journalist avoid talking about it?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-curi...licia-machado/

See related thread:

http://www.alipac.us/f9/commentary-c...achado-337944/

Related Thread:

http://www.alipac.us/f9/%91she-has-n...ywhere-337945/

Related Thread:

http://www.alipac.us/f9/faulty-messe...6/#post1518643

It seems the cartoonists are having a very good time with this also.

Related Thread:

http://www.alipac.us/f9/court-docs-p...r-lied-337953/