Thread: SCUTTLING BAD TRADE AGREEMENTS

http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven7.htm


SCUTTLING BAD TRADE AGREEMENTS


By Steven Yates
May 6, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

It was back in 1993 that the federal government signed off on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Clinton crowd was all for it. Interestingly, mainstream Republicans were also talking it up (not that there is any difference between the two that makes a difference). Rush Limbaugh touted it on his talk radio show. Among those visible, only Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan had opposed it; the former’s reference to that “giant sucking sound� of jobs going south of America’s border and into Mexico is now legendary.

I didn’t know much about trade agreements back in the early 1990s. My research interests were elsewhere. But as the decade progressed and began to show that Perot and Buchanan had been right while the “establishmentâ€? had been wrongâ€â€

This is EXACTLY what I've been warning........

We can NOT let this go to the wire!!! We must have a plan of action now and cut them off at the knees before this gets up even more speed!

THIS is the EU in North America! THIS is SOCIALISM by way of spoon feeding the people the bad medicine as one would do a child.

[quote]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1363563/posts

Task force urges 'North American community'
Globe and Mail ^ | March 14, 2005 | By TERRY WEBER


Posted on 03/15/2005 4:30:31 PM PST by Conservative Firster


The United States, Canada and Mexico should form a “common security perimeter� as part of a broad security and economic plan aimed at boosting trade and bolstering the continent's borders, a tri-national task for report urged Monday.

“Our vision of North America is one of three sovereign states whose formal collaboration must reflect their mutual interdependence while respecting their differences,� a joint statement issued by the task force's chairman said.

The Independent Task Force on the Future of North America is headed by former Canadian deputy prime minister John Manley, former Mexican finance minister Pedro Aspe and former Massachusetts governor William Weld.

As reported in Monday's Globe and Mail, the chairmen's statement paints a picture of a “North American community� with a unified border plan and a common external tariff.

On security, the report urges a common perimeter for the continent, with the three governments striving “toward a situation in which a terrorist trying to penetrate our borders will have an equally hard time doing so no matter which country he elects to enter first.�

The paper calls a move in that direction an “ambitious but achievable� goal that would require harmonization of visa and asylum regulations, entry screening and tracking procedures and full sharing of data about exit and entry of foreign nationals.

Security measures would also see enhanced law enforcement and defence co-operation. Joint defence initiatives have been a particularly contentious issue between Canada and the United States after Ottawa rejected participation in the anti-missile shield the U.S. is working to build.

All three countries, the report said, should also accelerate and expand implementation of so-called “smart border� plans to ease travel within the continent.

“The three countries should develop a secure North American border pass with biometric identifiers,� the report said. “This document would allow its bearers expedited passage through customers, immigration and airport security throughout the region.�

On the economic side, the report urges the adoption of a common external tariff. That recommendation would see the three governments begin by harmonizing external tariffs on a sector-by-sector basis to the lowest prevailing rate.

“They should begin with goods on which current tariffs are closest, then proceed to close larger gaps, with the goal over time of adopting a common external tariff, thus eliminating the need for complex and costly rules of origin,� Monday's statement said.

As well, the report says the three countries should develop a North American energy and natural resource strategy and “deepen� educational ties, which would see scholarship and exchange programs expanded and cross-border training programs for teachers implemented.

The task force was jointly sponsored by the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations.[/quote]

NOTE: COMMON CURRENCY has been mentioned quietly over the past years.

If one reads carefully you will see that their is NO ROOM FOR OUR CONSTITUTION and that ALL power and decisions will fall into the hands of "working groups" -- better known as "councils & institutes."

http://michellemalkin.com/immigratio...03/28/11:22.pm

Welcome to "North America"

By Chris Kelly · March 28, 2005 11:22 PM

Last week President Bush, PM Martin of Canada, and Vicente Fox of Mexico met at Baylor University in Waco to announce the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America". The transcript of the press conference that followed is here. The press conference doesn't have as much information on the Partnership as the White House press release. The press release mentions some worthwhile goals. However, it also uses the phrase "North America" as if it were a new country. Unfortunately, that might be the ultimate goal of the Partnership and other such plans.

For instance, a task force co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations recently released a report calling for a "North American community". This 11/04 article has background on the task force and their plan for a "NAFTA-plus".

And, Vicente Fox has been quite clear about his goals. From a 2000 interview:

"I'm talking about a community of North America, an integrated agreement of Canada, the United States, and Mexico in the long term, 20, 30, 40 years from now. And this means that some of the steps we can take is, for instance, to agree that in five years we will make this convergence on economic variables. That may mean 10 years we can open up that border when we have reduced the gap in salaries and income."And, from 2002:

Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes as important as the future prosperity of North America, and the freedom of movement of capital, goods, services and persons...
Fox would also like to see a common currency. Other Mexican officials have made similar statements, including their "border czar". See 9/27/04's "Mexican official seeks open border" or 7/10/04's "Mexican Official Wants Border Eliminated". Here's what former Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castaneda said in Feb. '02:

"We would like to continentalize as much as possible... We have been pushing for this. And we have been encountering a receptive ear both in Canada and the United States at a certain level of intensity... We would like to move more quickly. We would like to move more deeply."
As for President Bush, see 4/17/01's "Bush envisions Western Hemisphere free trade zone":

President Bush pledged to representatives of nearly every nation in the Western Hemisphere Tuesday that he would press Congress for fast-track trade authority to help create a free trade zone throughout the Americas...
The 2000 article "Spain At Our Border? Fox's Vision For Mexico" by Andrew Reding from the World Policy Institute favoring such continental integration might be interesting. On the other side, see "EU Parallel".

Returning to the White House's SPP press release:

...each nation will establish ministerial-level Security and Prosperity Partnership working groups. The working groups will:
Consult with stakeholders (in the business sector, state and local governments, and non-governmental organizations) in their respective countries...


Is there any group of stakeholders that should be in that list, but isn't? It's a rather large group, and they might be strongly opposed to plans for continental integration.

This is why I think illegal immigration and Trade Deals go hand in hand.

For those of you that want the short version, I feel that these passages are the most telling.


(One may see here just how ambitious Bush’s agenda really is!) It goes without saying that the FTAA includes components regarding immigration. Is there really any wonder why Bush not only has done nothing about flagrant lawbreaking by illegal immigrants but actually undermined the rule of American law with irrational-seeming policies such as amnesty-for-illegals? If the U.S. Congress commits this country to the FTAA, the problem of illegal immigrants will be "solved": by a policy of entirely open borders. And in a cultural context where we are all expected, in true political-correctese, to "celebrate our diversity." Result: there will be no exclusive property rights for anyone!


(the British equivalent of the Council on Foreign Reltions), stated ten years later: "We are at present working ... with all our might to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local states of the world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands."


Fourth and finally, CAFTA and the FTAA are treasonous. It should be clear by now that they involve the gradual dismantling of our Constitutional system of government involving checks and balances by those who swore an oath upon taking office to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution was written by men who did not trust power--including their own.

I have often been asked by readers, "What can we do?" Here is something specific we can all do. We can all fire up our word processors and begin turning out letters to our Senators and Representatives in Congress. The backers of CAFTA, the most immediate concern of the globalists, need 218 votes to get it passed. What we as U.S. citizens can do is urge them to vote against CAFTA, using arguments such as those developed in this article and elsewhere. There are models letters available (although I do not recommend people sending letters and emails which look pretty much alike!). There is no guarantee, of course, that the specifics of such letters will be read. But the next election is a perennial concern up in Rome on the Potomac. Each of our fearless leaders doubtless has a staff person who keeps track of what comes in the mail (regular and electronic), and what positions are taken on which issues. And it is easy for letter-writers to find out how any particular Senator or Representative voted on any issue.


[color=red][b]
This is important, because the adoption of CAFTA and the FTAA will impact seriously on Americans’ pocketbooks in ways going well beyond NAFTA. More importantly, these trade agreements are more than trade agreements. They are direct, long-term threats to the sovereignty of this country. They would effectively end whatever tenuous hold the Constitution still has on our governmentâ€â€