What Has NAFTA Done In Its Twenty Years?

Photo by Jill Replogle / KPBS

Above: The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is now two decades old.


Monday, December 16, 2013

By Jill Replogle


Twenty years ago, on Dec. 8, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement into law.

At the time, it was an unprecedented idea: Eliminating nearly all tariffs and trade barriers between two developed countries, Canada and the U.S., and another, Mexico, that was struggling with very high levels of poverty and weak infrastructure.

As we’ve reported, trade between the U.S and Mexico has quintupled since NAFTA took effect, on Jan. 1, 1994. And yet lines to cross the border are longer than ever, thanks to concerns over terrorism, drugs and illegal immigration, and insufficient border infrastructure.

NAFTA’s failure to address the movement of people across borders largely is responsible, some say, for mass illegal immigration to the U.S., one of the most contentious national issues of our time. And despite a major attempt by the U.S. Senate and Obama administration to address the problem this year, compromise seems far away.

On NAFTA’s 20th anniversary, many are lauding its accomplishments in boosting commerce and setting a template for free trade around the world.

Trade among the three countries has reached more than $1 trillion a year. And jobs in manufacturing and auxiliary industries have helped lift millions of Mexicans out of poverty.

Still almost half of Mexico’s population lives in poverty. And entire villages are terrorized into silence and inactivity by drug lords.

While Mexico’s economy shows healthy growth, returning migrants — either deported or moving back on their own, often struggle to find jobs. Many focus all their efforts on getting back to the U.S.

In a recent op-ed, the Wall Street Journal calls for “NAFTA 2.0,” saying North America has lost competitiveness and needs a new boost.

As the U.S. moves through negotiations on new trade pacts, notably the Trans-Pacific Partnership, NAFTA’s legacy surely will play a role.

JILL REPLOGLE, Fronteras Reporter


Related Content
U.S. Commerce Secretary Looks At 20 Years Of NAFTA | October 28, 2013
Arizona Versus Texas For Border Trade? Not Even A Contest | October 8, 2013
In Wake Of NAFTA, States Eye Global Supply Chain With Envy | October 29, 2012



Source
.

The Forced Depopulation of America’s Rural Areas

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Dave Hodges
Activist Post

Agenda 21 policy calls for dramatically increasing urbanization and forcing indigenous populations out of rural areas and into densely populated stack-and pack micro apartments controlled by technocrats with the ability to control every aspect of one’s life. When completed, this lifestyle will be a hell on earth.

In Part One, I detailed how the Chinese government, under the direction of global corporations like Goldman Sachs, is instituting a mass relocation of its population from rural to urban. At the point of a gun, the Chinese military is forcibly removing one million Chinese farmers per month from their rural homes and forcing them into the massive ghost cities from which China has spent nearly $3 trillion to construct.

The Chinese government, Hank Paulson and other globalists falsely claim that the mass relocation of Chinese farmers is necessary to fuel the Chinese economy. Yet, there are no jobs available to these Chinese farmers when they arrive in the ghost cities. Strong industry and the need to fill positions is what drew Americans into the cities during our industrial revolution, not the other way around as the globalists are claiming is the case in China. What we are witnessing in China is the beginning of the implementation of the Agenda 21 creation of massive megacities complete with stack-and-pack micro apartments.

As in China, there is a decided plot to move American farmers off their land and into urban areas; this plot commenced nearly two decades ago and is currently picking up momentum. The American and Chinese methods for depopulating rural areas are different, but the net effect is exactly the same.

Can you imagine if the US military, as is happening in China, were to forcibly relocate American farmers to urban areas under the threat of violence from the military? The US would witness the outbreak of widespread violence. Unlike the Chinese farmers who are being forced by gunpoint off their land. American farmers are being nudged off their land by market forces created by covert government policy.

When both countries achieve virtual depopulation of the rural areas of their respective countries, only the government subsidized corporate farms will remain. Local communities and their individual citizens will lose total control over all food, which is a prescription for disaster.

I will determine what and how much you may drink - Mayor BloombergIf you wonder why New York City Mayor Bloomberg and Michelle Obama have been trying to control the size of sodas, the amount of salt one can use and are dictating what school children will eat for lunch, the answer is that they are conditioning the American public that the government controls all food intake. The reasons for these new controls over diet will become painfully clear after reading the following paragraphs.

Rural Flight In the United States

I know that this will come as a shock to many reading this article because they did not learn of these events from FOX or CNN. However, in actuality, the process of moving the United States towards a complete Agenda 21-style of total urbanization has already commenced, and it began nearly 20 years ago.

In 1994, the US became official participants in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was a ‘liberalized’ trade agreement between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Under NAFTA, farmers’ income in all three countries has plummeted and millions of small farmers have lost their land, while agribusiness corporations (i.e. large government subsidized corporate farms) have reaped huge profits.

NAFTA has had three dramatic effects on farmers in North America and all three effects further cause dense urbanization as outlined in Agenda 21 documents.

The Roots of Illegal Immigration

The first notable effect of NAFTA is that it immediately bankrupted over three million farmers in northern Mexico and this group became the vanguard of millions of Mexicans illegally entering the US in search for subsistence work of any type.

Depopulating Rural Areas By Bankrupting US Farmers

The second dramatic impact of NAFTA lies in the fact that it has had catastrophic consequences for US farmers, as a record number of small farmers have lost their farms and have gone through foreclosure while the government subsidized corporate farms have thrived. Since NAFTA, the average annual growth of the US trade deficit has been 45% higher. Since NAFTA took effect, about 170,000 small family farms have gone bankrupt which represents a decline of 21% of family farms in the US. The 21% of America small farmers who have been bankrupted since the advent of NAFTA, represents a higher percentage of displaced American farmers than what is happening with forced relocation of Chinese farmers to the ghost cities. And what happens to American small farmers who have lost their livelihood? They either work on their former competitors' corporate farms as hired hands, or they relocate to urban areas in search of employment.

American Farmers: Death By a Thousand Cuts

If it is not the EPA enforcing its Agenda 21 wetlands regulations with devastating consequences on farmers, it is the FDA harassing farmers for pursuing time-honored farm-related industries such as the raw milk industry. Congress is plotting new attacks on the US farmer as I write these words. Even Amish farmers have felt the wrath of the federal government. Average, everyday Americans are being arrested for merely growing their own food.

Whether it is China or the US, Agenda 21 urbanization policies are designed for the purpose of herding people into dense urban areas for reasons of control; and the primary method of control has to do with controlling food production.

The US Government Is Gaining Control Over All Food

The Chinese government is working to control all food in order to control the people. On an ever-increasing basis, NAFTA is providing the US government with the exact same ability. Therefore, the third draconian impact of NAFTA is that it has led to even more nefarious free trade agreements which has led to the loss of control for local communities over their own food supply.

Underlying the World Trade Organization, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement, is the philosophy that all food (i.e. from basic grains, meat, fruits and vegetables) should be exclusively produced for international export. This is a drastic departure from the time-honored practice where each country produced the majority of food its citizens needed on local, small farms and only traded in certain products that could not be successfully grown locally. If anyone wonders where this is headed, we only have to look to Africa for the answer.

The very first great wave of a NAFTA style of globalization in agriculture took place in Africa, Asia, and Latin America as global corporations forced local farmers to give up local food production, and shifted production to plantations using enslaved Indigenous and African labor to grow the luxury crops of coffee, sugar, bananas, and cocoa for export to the colonizing countries.

The lesson here is, if the government controls the food, the government controls the people.

Starvation Will Be Used to Enforce the Agenda 21 Depopulation of Rural Areas

The use of food by the U.S. government has been a matter of official U.S. governmental covert policy since 1974-1975.

In December, 1974, National Security Council directed by Henry Kissinger completed a classified study entitled, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The study was based upon the unproven claims that population growth in Lesser Developed Countries (LDC) constituted a serious risk to America’s national security.

In November 1975 President Ford, based upon the tenets of NSSM 200 outlined a classified plan to forcibly reduce population growth in LDC countries through birth control, war and famine. Ford’s new national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, in conjunction with CIA Director, George H. W. Bush, were tasked with implementing the plan and the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture assisted in the implementation of these insane genocidal plans.

NSSM 200 formally raised the question, "Would food be considered an instrument of national power? … Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?” Kissinger has answered these questions when he stated that he was predicting a series of contrived famines, created by mandatory programs and this would make exclusive reliance on birth control programs unnecessary in this modern day application of eugenics in a scheme that would allow Henry to have his cake and eat it too in that the world would finally be rid of the “useless eaters!”

Third world population control, using food as one of the primary weapons, has long been a matter of official covert national policy and a portion of President Obama’s Executive Order (EO 13603), National Defense Resources Preparedness is a continuation of that policy. Only now, the intended target are not the LDC’s but, instead, the American people.

With the stroke of his pen, Obama has total and absolute control over all food where his EO states:

e) “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.
(f) “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer…NAFTA was merely the opening artillery bombardment against the American farmer and the ultimate depopulation of rural areas. The death of the American farmer will ultimately come at the hands of EO 13603 and I believe this will be fully implemented when Obama declares martial law.

Put this map into your GPS, it will tell where you soon cannot go.
Do you think that you and your family are actually safe from the ravages of depopulating the rural areas through economic blackmail and ultimate starvation? Think again! Unless you presently live in the core inner city and occupy less than 500 square feet of living space, your government, as I write these words, is actively plotting to get you out of the suburbs and into densely populated urban areas. This will be fully exposed in Part three of this series.

Part One

Source
.

Barack Obama hosts Canada and Mexico leaders for talks

2 April 2012 Last updated at 13:22 ET

The three leaders are to discuss energy issues amid a backdrop of high gas prices and unemployment

US President Barack Obama is hosting three-way talks at the White House with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Talks usually centre on border issues and the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).

This year the summit could also touch on a disputed US-Canada oil pipeline.

President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon are meeting weeks before a broader regional summit to be held in Colombia.

The Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, is to be held in two weeks' time.

No major agreements are expected to be signed at Monday's summit, which will see the three leaders hold a joint news conference.

The meeting was originally planned to take place in Hawaii in November, but had to be rescheduled after a top Mexican official was killed in a helicopter crash.

Thorny issues

The three leaders are expected to address ways in which to boost the economic recovery, as well as energy - with Mexico a major oil exporter and Canada unhappy over the fate of the stalled Keystone XL pipeline.

The pipeline would transport crude oil from the tar sands of western Alberta to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.

The White House refused to approve the project, amid concerns that the route passed through the environmentally sensitive Sandhills region of the US state of Nebraska.

Mr Harper has previously said he was disappointed by the White House decision, and indicated that Canada would consider selling oil to China, as an alternative.

Mr Obama has said exports would be a key component of the US recovery. Canada represents the biggest market for US exports, followed by Mexico. The US, though, is the biggest consumer of both Canadian and Mexican goods.

But trade between the US and Mexico has been overshadowed by violence from drug cartels struggling to control smuggling routes into the US market, and Mexico's complaints of weapons bought in the US moving south.

The leaders also face differing political climates at home. Mexico is holding elections on 1 July, and Mr Calderon is not eligible for re-election; meanwhile, Mr Obama faces re-election in November.

Mr Harper, who has been in office since 2006, won a new term in office in May 2011.

Source

Getting it Done: How Civil Society Can Help Secure the U.S.-Mexico Border

OCT 25 2011, 10:41 AM ET

In a rapidly changing world of complex systems, small shifts can produce very big consequences. Here are some ways that local institutions and social networks are already working along the Rio Grande border

A truck bearing Mexican and U.S. flags approaches the border crossing into the U.S., in Laredo / Reuters

If power really is shifting in part from governments to social actors and if those actors have a growing role to play in helping to solve regional and global problems, as I have been arguing, then the proof comes from through innovative partnerships, networks, and collaborations. State, local, and municipal governments also have a big role to play here, as do traditionally domestic government agencies. All of these actors fit in the broader category of non-traditional foreign policy participants. From time to time I will write a column in an ongoing series on "Getting It Done," documenting examples of the work that is happening and producing results on the foreign policy frontier. I encourage all readers to send me examples they know about, preferably through Twitter at @slaughteram, so that I can spread the news through Twitter as well as reporting on it here. But you can also write me by posting a comment here at The Atlantic.

I'm going to kick off this series with a discussion of the role of new players in performing perhaps the most sacred function of territorial states: protecting their borders. The border between the U.S. and Mexico divides two very different states, differences that give rise to many of the problems along the Rio Grande. It is certainly possible to understand much of what happens along that border in terms of clashing state interests and relative state power. The U.S. has sent troops, spies, and law enforcement agents across the Mexican border many times, in ways that will color U.S.-Mexican relations for decades if not centuries to come. The U.S.-Mexican relationship has also shaped traditional Mexican foreign policy, leading successive Mexican governments to align with the non-aligned movement during Cold War struggles between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, for example, and to rarely side with the United States on international votes.

The state-to-state lens remains useful in thinking about U.S.-Mexican relations. But when it comes to life as it is actually lived along the border, where transnational problems arise and must be solved, sub-state and transnational actors are developing their own solutions.

One of the biggest transborder issues is the horrific civil violence caused by drug cartels operating in both the U.S. and Mexico, which both spills across the border and weakens the Mexican state. Within Mexico, 34, 612 people have been killed from 2006 until January 2012, a toll higher than that in many ongoing civil wars. Governments, corporations, and citizens are responding in part by trying to map the violence using texts, digital mapping technology, and social media.

It's a strategy that recently cost Maria Elizabeth Marcia, the 39-year old editor of Primera Hora in Nuevo Laredo, her life. The killers placed Marcia's head next to a computer, mouse, cables, and headphones. Her crime? Using social media to report on the activities of local drug gangs. This was just the latest of a string of gruesome attacks. Earlier this month, two young people were murdered and hung from an overpass in the same city for daring to blog about gangs. The swiftness and brutality of the gang response suggests they understand the potential power of this strategy to mobilize ordinary citizens against the gangs. We should be doing everything we can to support Mexicans who are taking these kinds of risks. As one example, my former colleagues at the U.S. State Department traveled to Mexico two years ago to explore ways to use technology to reduce violence, as just one example of government-to-society diplomacy.

In other cases, different government agencies have forged their own partnerships across the border. Since 2010, American and Mexican border guards are increasingly working together to coordinate patrols. Our environmental regulators have been doing this with Mexico since at least 1994, building an extensive set of institutional linkages to manage pollution that floats unimpeded across the border. American companies might be able to outsource production to Mexico, but many of the environmental impacts of the maquiladoras that line the border slip right back across.

Some of the most dynamic connections are happening at the regional level, through a dense network of institutions, such as the U.S.-Mexico State Alliance Partnership.State legislatures along the border have regular joint meetings.The governors of the four American and six Mexican border states have met annually since 1980 through the Border Governors' Conference. This group, a kind of G-10 for the Rio Grande, creates joint workplans on everything from security to agriculture to economic development to transportation. Or at least it used to. Last year, the Mexican governor boycotted the meeting in Phoenix to protest Arizona's harsh new immigration law. This year, just one U.S. governor, Susana Martinez (a Republican) of New Mexico, attended the summit, which took place last week in Ensenada. In other words, state-to-state diplomacy can be just as dysfunctional as country-to-country, but needn't be. Governors Rick Perry (Republican of Texas), Jerry Brown (Democrat California), and Jan Brewer (Republican of Arizona) would be wise not to give up on this mechanism.

The most innovative projects are coming from outside of government altogether. Meet some of the entries to the 2011 U.S.-Mexico Cross-border Cooperation Awards. Sponsored by the North American Center for Transborder Studies at Arizona State University, the competition aims to shift public attention from violent crime to practical stories of successful cooperation. Here are four proposals and the states they affect:

• The El Paso Museum of Art:A Cultural Crossroads for the United States and Mexico" (Texas-Chihuahua-New Mexico) has been working with its counterpart in Ciudad Juarez to organize joint exhibitions of local artists on both sides of the border.

• Proyecto Bio-Regional de Educación Ambiental (PROBEA): "Environmental Education without Borders" (California-Baja California). Sponsored by the San Diego Natural History Museum, this alliance of environmental groups from the U.S. and Mexico works to "build environmental knowledge, awareness, skills and active participation and communication in the citizenry of Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa, in Mexico." Kids learn about border-spanning ecosystems and take actions to help them.

• Arizona Model United Nations: "Regional Cooperation through Global Education" (Arizona-Sonora). Most model UNs simulate diplomacy. This one contributes to it directly by bringing together high school students from Mexico and the United States.

• Yuma Crossing: This cross-national alliance shows that environmental protection can lead to border security and human security. That's the aim of project to restore Hunter's Hole, a 435 acre scrubland on the border of Arizona and Sonora, turning it back into a vibrant wetland. The new marsh would not only create habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife, it would place a natural barrier across a dangerous route used by smugglers of drugs and people.

Small potatoes? Perhaps. It's certainly far from the perceived glamor and danger of eyeball-to-eyeball brinkmanship between great powers. But this week, in my Princeton course on Politics and Public Policy, we read political science articles on the critical role of civil society groups in preventing violence and sustaining vibrant democratic politics, particularly those that cross ethnic communities. More broadly, transnational partnerships and initiatives such as those listed above gradually weave social webs that do not erase borders but overlay them, building trust, resilience, and capacity. And anyone with energy and ideas can participate; local, state and national governments can facilitate and help connect different initiatives in ways that make it possible to develop synergies, distill best practices, and creates templates for others to follow.

It's government not as negotiator, funder, or imposer, but as enabler, facilitator, connector. We don't know exactly how or when we will need all these connections and relationships, but in a rapidly changing world of complex systems in which small shifts can produce very big consequences and we need to mobilize every asset we have, they put money in the foreign policy bank. In that sense, the U.S.-Mexican border is a tangible example of the foreign policy frontier.

Source

THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION HAS ARRIVED

THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION HAS ARRIVED

By Betty Freauf

August 12, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

You’ve heard President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel’s statement about never passing up a crisis? The disgruntled grass roots are rising up against any government health care plan. House speaker Pelosi and others are calling the uprising “Astroturfing” suggesting that it really isn’t true grassroots but some organization behind the scenes are doing what Barack Obama did as a “community organizer” and now that the tables are turned on them by individuals and not collective actions by some community organizer, they are perplexed.

My own neophyte Congressman Kurt Schrader in office for the first time since January is in our area but his staff advises me he is having no open town hall meetings and this was confirmed on a recent radio station. He is simply meeting one on one with people. These traitors to our Constitutional Republic are traveling with bodyguards and police protection in some areas. In our representative government the power flows from God to the citizen to representatives. People elect legislators, Congress people, senators, presidents, governors and judges and the officials are accountable to the electorate, not the other way around. Constitutional rights and due process are upheld and limited government is the result. However, in direct government also known as mobocracy, which we are experiencing now is the result of the people ruling by emotions causing lawmakers to legislate on impulse. There are no absolutes and righteousness. The staff at my Congressman’s office didn’t know these entitlements that are breaking our country are unconstitutional. He didn’t seem to have a clue!

Recognizing Obama’s diminishing popularity with those who are suffering voter remorse, I find it to be an act of desperation by the Democrats as they are going on an attack of people who are opposing the Obama socialist agenda calling them among other things, “angry mobs.” The Democrats have complete control so why are they so paranoid? Maybe they fear disgruntled Americans may start throwing shoes toward elected officials showing disgust and disrespect as they do in Muslin countries.

The Obama administration seems completely ignorant and tone deaf if they can’t realize these are people of all different stripes from all parties so I have come to the conclusion that Obama is trying to goad what he sees as “evil-right wingers” into doing something more serious and my great fear is that some idiot is going to take the bait. My first inclination was the Obama administration would arrange to have deliberate agitators sent into these meetings. FOX listeners saw on their television news the appropriately dressed and armed Black Panthers and by their very presence intimidating voters in an incident in Philadelphia last November. Attorney General Eric Holder decided not to pursue a civil criminal indictment against them. Please remember this same A.G. Holder classifies pro-lifers and pro-gun Americans as terrorists. And now I hear Obama has sent e-mails to his ACORN and SEIU union thugs to infiltrate these town hall meetings and Pelosi is referring to the protestors as Nazis. This could get ugly! Is it President Barack Obama’s hidden intent to then sign an Executive Order declaring Martial Law? Martial Law is rule by the military and comes into existence when civil government can no longer maintain law and order. The Posse Comitatus Act doesn’t allow government to use our military against citizens but it didn’t stop President Clinton and Attorney General Reno at Waco, Texas when they attacked the Branch Davidian killing innocent people. If this is the case, the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Writ of Habeas Corpus (right to trial by jury) can be suspended. In any late fascist shift, the final stage is the establishment of government by emergency decree or actual Martial law and the leader is above the law and he becomes the decider – not the uniter as Obama claimed in the presidential campaign.

The Feds already have a plan in place to train clergy to “quell dissent” during Martial Law. In 1962 the Supreme Court redefined the separation of church and state. The court wrote its own commandments and expelled prayer and Bible reading from public schools leaving a vacuum for drugs, sex, occult religions and guns to fill. These double minded sycophants want “separation of church and state” but now they suddenly would want pastors to “quell dissent” when they should be busy winning people to the Lord. They decry Christian involvement in public policy while at the same time they want to use pastors to facilitate tyranny? Unbelievable! Constitutionalist and Congressman Ron Paul says the stock market will eventually collapse but Martial Law provisions are in place to deal with economic discord. So it is apparent they have long been aware that the possibility of continued, unrestrained unconstitutional centralized government with Caesar as arbiter of morals and “truth” was going to cause a problem.


It is common knowledge to those who are informed and not brainwashed that enemies attack when their target is most weakened and divided and an Executive Order by the “uniter”, President Barack Obama for Martial Law, would serve the purpose of further weakening and dividing our nation creating an atmosphere for our enemies to invade. It’s called Politics of Distraction Eternal encirclement, plus internal demoralization plus thermonuclear blackmail leads to progressive surrender. That long as been the goal of the communists and China has devoted much of its newly found economic strength to building one of the most modern armies in the world. Their one-child policy aborts baby girls but favors boys for a strong military. America’s capitalists and government leaders at the highest level and even our consumers are willing to ignore China’s egregious human rights abuses as long as the entrepreneurs make profits, the government officials get campaign contributions and the consumers are able to buy cheap goods. We may have bought the rope that will hang us!

Whether or not the Chicago rioters of ’68 intended, an article in the 9/1/2008 New American said the effect of their actions was to further empower the government they claim to oppose, and to further erode the personal freedoms of all Americans. One of the most important results along those lines was the creation of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, the main federal agency that has been involved in nationalizing our local police departments over the past four decades.

At the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle in 1999, riots occurred and troops had to be called in for mass arrests. Was it a psychological game plan to prepare American for a coming state of emergency? Other miscellaneous military actions in cities across the U.S. have occurred scaring the daylights out of people who were not informed about what was going on and only reported in the areas in which they occurred.

The April 1999 McAlvany newsletter reported that as part of the new Clinton anti-terrorism initiative, the U.S. Army conducted a series of exercises near Corpus Christi, Texas. Without notice to local residents, black helicopters with elite troops from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, descended upon the towns of Kingsville and Port Aransas bombs bursting and guns blazing, with real explosive and live ammunition, simulating a raid against real terrorists. Additional military exercises were held in Anniston, Alabama and Monterey, California.

When the Rajneesh invaded Central Oregon in the early 1980s and followers from the world came to Oregon to worship the Baghwan, our Governor Vic Atiyeh carried a Martial Law order with him at all times fearing violence by the Rajneeshee. When Martin Luther King was shot, rioting in Washington, D.C. caused Martial Law to be declared throughout the city and troops were marching up and down.

Our law enforcement systems have gradually been transformed into Soviet-type management of the American people. Law enforcement that once was a shield of the innocent is now a weapon in the hands of government. With the passage of the USA Patriot Act and all legislation following has effectively militarized law enforcement in the U.S. In 2004 Democrat presidential candidate Senator John Kerry spoke of a comprehensive commitment to national service by Americans of all ages, telling college students “change starts with you” and giving aid for college tuition for national service and now we hear President Barack Obama suggesting the same program. Volunteerism is already a requirement for high school seniors to graduate. Could this easily develop into something reminiscent of Hitler’s Brown Shirts? You say it couldn’t happen here? Read by a retired sheriff far more knowledgeable than I am.

Remember the border patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean who were sent to prison for doing their jobs? Well, recently I read in Jerome Corsi’s 2007 book The Late Great USA that presidential administrations since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have pursued strategies consistent with precipitating a merger of the U.S., Mexico and Canada (North American Union). Mexico demanded the prosecution of these Border patrol agents and President George W. Bush and his Attorney General Alberto Gonzales complied. And then Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, the illegal Mexican smuggling drugs across the border who got shot in the butt turned around and sued the Border Patrol for $5 million for violating his civil rights. Corsi writes the Bush administration’s lack of protection of our Southern border and his close ties with U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton in El Paso who decided to protect “the civil rights” of illegal immigrants, even when they were involved in smuggling large quantities of marijuana into the United States further frustrated many Americans.

Readers will recall it was under President Bill Clinton and the Republican controlled Congress that we were given NAFTA. House Speaker at that time was Newt Gingrich, frequent guest on FOX. Talk show host, Rush Limbaugh also promoted NAFTA. Mexico’s intervention into American border law enforcement is another indication of our gradual ceding of our sovereignty. Corsi writes our government has lost the resolve to secure our borders and to enforce our laws. The message from the White House to the Border Patrol and all other law enforcement officers couldn’t be clearer: When it comes to illegal aliens, “hands off!” After the Ramos-Compean imprisonment, all law enforcement officers encountering illegal aliens now must consider the political ramifications of their actions…they could end up in prison! A 5/5/1969 article by Susan L.M. Huch in the American Opinion wrote that the whole pattern of drug abuse meshes nicely with the Communist campaign to generate hostility toward law-enforcement personnel and to foment conflict between the generations. It is therefore not at all surprising that at the base of the promotion of marijuana are hundreds of “underground” Marxist tabloids, pushing drugs at American youth as instant Nirvana.

In addition to calling the disgruntled “right wingers” an “angry mob” and “Nazis,” to add insult to further injury now the Obama administration has established a “squeal” website for people to report about alleged falsehoods by their friends, relatives and neighbors about the House health plan that even Barack doesn’t know what is in it. They are looking for snitches. This only inflames people, which leads me to believe this is all planned. Barack wants trouble!!!

The Obama administration hates the free enterprise system and now insurance companies in general, who often must abide by silly state regulations such as in vitro, birth control pills and abortions that drives up the cost. I’ve been told insurance companies pay a percentage to states for every premium they collect. Think of the additional revenue the states will lose if all the insurance company employees are put out of work but think of the jobs in Washington, D.C. that will be required to administer yet another bogus governmental agency and all of them will be on the premium health care plan that the elected officials enjoy. Think Job Patronage.

The breakdown of social values has created moral, spiritual and political chaos opening the door for the political tyranny. Forgetting that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, materialistic and hedonistic Americans who weren’t paying attention to national problems and ignoring the few voices crying out in the wilderness as our freedoms were unraveling stitch by stitch are trying to play catch up; however, they are finding great opposition because the enemy is well organized while new comers haven’t even been to boot camp not alone ready to fight the battle. Glenn Beck’s 9/12 project is a step in the right direction so it is Onward Christian Soldiers.




Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Betty/Freauf145.htm

Jekyll & Hyde Obama: Protectionist or Free Trader?

Jekyll & Hyde Obama: Protectionist or Free Trader?

By Dana Gabriel

http://www.borderfirereport.net/dana-gabriel/jekyll-hyde-obama-protectionist-or-free-trader.php


NAFTA partners may be confused, as to the mixed signals being sent by President Barack Obama in regards to trade. The Buy-American provision which was part of the stimulus package, alarmed Canadians, as well as many others. The Obama administration managed to outrage Mexico by ending a cross-border trucking program. Like most politicians, Obama is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He is pandering to some of his core support while at the same time, trying to uphold the U.S. as a global leader in trade initiatives.

When the Buy-American provision was first announced, both Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, warned of the dangers of protectionism. Although the language that passed as part of the stimulus package was softened, Canadian officials remain concerned. Canada has every right to be worried about American protectionism considering that 80% of its exports flow across the border. During his February trip, Obama reassured Canadians that he was committed to NAFTA and that the U.S. would honor all its trade obligations. He also discussed plans to place NAFTA’s labour and environmental side deals into the main body of the agreement, which in actuality would accomplish very little. This is a far cry from a man who at one time, threatened to tear up the trade accord. He has all but abandoned his promise to truly fix NAFTA and make it fairer for American workers.

The House Democrat fiscal 2009 spending bill, effectively ended the controversial Bush administration cross-border trucking program. As a result, Mexico retaliated by slapping tariffs on many U.S. imports. Allowing Mexican long-haul trucks full access into the U.S. is a provision of NAFTA. Many contend that it is because of protectionism, not safety and security concerns, that Mexican trucks have been restricted across the border. Before his scheduled trip to Mexico in mid April, Obama could propose a new trucking program that attempts to satisfy both the Mexican government, as well as critics of the former cross-border project. Considering the growing drug violence in Mexico, this might not be an appropriate time to introduce any type of cross-border initiative.

In early March, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced that the Obama administration would work with Congress to establish benchmarks, so that long-stalled free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea could move forward. Obama opposed both trade deals during the presidential election campaign last year. At that time, he said that he wanted to see a reduction in violence against trade unionists in Colombia. He also wanted to renegotiate some provisions of the South Korean trade agreement which he felt were bad for U.S. automakers and other manufacturers. There might not be an auto industry left to protect. Obama has taken money that could have been used to stimulate the real economy and instead has given it to the bankers. This is a Wall Street takeover. Through all the bailouts and corporate looting, the only path being set forth by which the U.S. economy can recover is through more globalization.

Just ahead of the G-20 Summit, José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, warned against de-globalization, protectionism and economic nationalism. He advocated reshaping globalization as a solution to the worldwide economic crisis. At the G-20 Summit in London, leaders pledged to work together to rebuild confidence and trust in the financial system and kickstart international trade. As a result, a new Financial Stability Board has been established to unite regulators. The IMF has been given more money and power in order to boost the economies of the world. Obama proclaimed that the summit represented a turning point in global economic recovery. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown called it the start of a new global financial architecture and said that out of the economic crisis, a New World Order is emerging. The U.S. has been used as an engine for world government and their markets will now play a lesser role in the global economy, as they surrender more sovereignty to this new system.

Obama is a tool of the global elite and giving him labels only serves to provide him with cover. He is not looking out for the best interests of American workers, the poor or the middle class. He is of the bankers, by the bankers and for the bankers. Many of the same people who are responsible for past failed U.S. economic policies, have been rewarded with a spot in the Obama administration. They will finish what they started—the destruction of the U.S. economy. This amounts to economic terrorism. We stand on the dawn of a new global economic order. Will the American people be suckered and buy into this system?

.

Will The SPP Rise Again?

Will The SPP Rise Again?

By Dana Gabriel http://www.borderfirereport.net/dana-gabriel/will-the-spp-rise-again.php


By all accounts, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) appears to be dead, despite no official announcement by the governments of Canada, the U.S. or Mexico. There have been numerous calls to replace the SPP. Although the means of achieving deeper continental integration may vary, the objectives remain the same. The global elite have not abandoned their vision for a North American Union and are now counting on their new puppet, President Barack Obama, to carry on with this agenda.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, was told in late February of this year that the controversial SPP was likely dead. CEO and president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), Thomas d’Aquino, testified and answered questions before the committee. He admitted that the it was probably only a matter of time before the SPP was replaced. D’Aquino stated, “Why it will be replaced is because the energy, environment, trade, financial regulation, and agriculture, all these things that we do in the form of millions of cross-border transactions everyday are going to have to be co-ordinated." In addition, he emphasized the importance of Canada-U.S. bilateralism, but cautioned against cutting Mexico out of the equation. The Carleton University’s Canada-U.S. Project was released to the public in the new year and called for wholesale changes to the SPP.

The CCCE is made-up of 150 of Canada’s top executives who comment on public policy. It is a virtual whose who of Canadian corporate sector elites. Since its inception, the CCCE has had intimate ties to both the Liberal and Conservative parties, with many of their proposals being implemented into policy. The CCCE was a driving force behind the Canada-U.S. FTA and later NAFTA. Some of their recommendations also became part of the SPP. Their president, d’Aquino, has participated in and co-chaired many reports and policy paper initiatives pushing for deeper North American integration. So, when he says that the SPP will probably be replaced, he is not just blowing smoke.

The SPP is the brainchild of business and political elites and has essentially carried on where NAFTA left off. This is a corporate driven agenda spearheaded by working groups and unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who are laying the foundation for a North American Union. Many in the business community have been disappointed with the SPP’s progress, feeling that their recommendations are not being implemented fast enough. The SPP might have outlived its usefulness under its current name, but it is doubtful that multinational business elites are about to abandon it entirely, unless there is something to replace it.

Ahead of the North American Leader’s Summit in New Orleans in April of 2008, it was apparent that the SPP was in trouble. Think tanks such as the Fraser Institute, were calling for expanding and speeding up continental integration, but at the same time were recommending changing the SPP’s name, in an effort to save and revitalize the process. The Hudson Institute also acknowledged that it may be necessary to redesign and relaunch the SPP. Robert A. Pastor, who is considered by many to be the architect of a proposed North American Community, later admitted that under Bush, North American integration had stalled. He stated that the new president would probably discard the SPP. This agenda has at least publicly been placed on the back burner, especially given the current economic climate, but the SPP will rise again in one form or another.

Obama has all but waffled on his promise to renegotiate NAFTA and minus a few slight cosmetic changes that might be made, the flawed trade deal will remain intact. It is possible that economic, political, as well as social instability could be used as an opportunity to further advance the creation of a North American Union. The crisis in Mexico could be used to setup a North American security perimeter. Plans for deeper continental integration are still alive and whatever direction they may take, you can be sure that big business will be intimately involved.

Dana Gabriel writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, and other issues.

Contact: newworldordermustbestopped@hotmail.com

.

Missouri State Police Think You And I Are Terrorists

March 17, 2009

Thanks to a concerned Missouri state policeman, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host stated that he was alerted last week to a secret Missouri state police report that categorized supporters of Congressman Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself as "'militia' influenced terrorists." The report, he said, "instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties."

Ignoring the threat of Muslim terrorists, the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report focuses on the so-called "militia movement" and "conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order."

This report is not original, of course. During the Clinton administration, a Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation and Joint Terrorism Task Force explicitly designated "defenders" of the Constitution as "right-wing extremists." However, the MIAC report significantly expands on earlier documents and is the first known document to actually name names.

According to the MIAC, opposition to world government, NAFTA, federalization of the states, and restrictive gun laws are a potential threat to the police. The MIAC report also refers to Aaron Russo's film, "America: Freedom to Fascism."

The story exposing the MIAC report states, "The MIAC report is particularly pernicious because it indoctrinates Missouri law enforcement in the belief that people who oppose confiscatory taxation, believe in the well-documented existence of a New World Order and world government (a Google search of this phrase will pull up numerous references made by scores of establishment political leaders), and are opposed to the obvious expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states as violent extremists who are gunning for the police. It specifically targets supporters of mainstream political candidates and encourages police officers to consider them dangerous terrorists."

See the report here:
http://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/

The Columbia Daily Tribune also carried the story last Saturday. It quoted Missouri resident Tim Neal of Miller County. "When Neal read the report, he couldn't help but think it described him. A military veteran and a delegate to the 2008 Missouri Republican state convention, he didn't appreciate being lumped in with groups like the Neo-Nazis.

"'I was going down the list and thinking, "Check, that's me,"' he said. 'I'm a Ron Paul supporter, check. I talk about the North American union, check. I've got the "America: Freedom to Fascism" video loaned out to somebody right now. So that means I'm a domestic terrorist? Because I've got a video about the Federal Reserve?'"

The Tribune's report also acknowledges, "The [MIAC] report's most controversial passage states that militia 'most commonly associate with third-party political groups' and support presidential candidates such as Ron Paul, former Constitutional [sic] Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate last year."

The Tribune report also said, "Neal, who has a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his car, said the next time he is pulled over by a police officer, he won't know whether it's because he was speeding or because of his political views."

See the Columbia Tribune report here:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/mar/14/fusion-center-data-draws-fire-over-assertions/

I realize that there are people who will dismiss this kind of story as insignificant. They shouldn't. This is very serious and should be treated as such. Anyone who knows anything at all about history knows that before a state or national government can persecute--and commit acts of violence against--a group of people, they must first marginalize the group from society's mainstream and categorize it as dangerous.

Rome did exactly that to Christians, as did Mao's China; Hitler's Germany did the same thing to Jews; Stalin's Russia did the same thing to political dissenters, etc. That a State police agency in America would actually infer that people who supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself in a political campaign are somehow indistinguishable from violence-prone "militias" is beyond insulting: it is a smear campaign, and might should even be regarded as a hate crime!

Beyond that, the MIAC report paints with a very broad brush. In addition to supporting Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself, a review of the report reveals that opposition to any of the following risks someone being classified as a potential "domestic terrorist":

The New World Order
The United Nations
Gun Control
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention (Con Con)
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Abortion on demand
Illegal Immigration


Again, if you oppose any of the above, or if you supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself, you risk being labeled a "domestic terrorist," according to the MIAC.

Do you not see how dangerous this kind of slanderous labeling can become? It could affect your flight status when you try to board an airline. It could affect your application for sensitive jobs. It could affect your adjudication before a court or judge. It could make you a target for aggressive law enforcement strategies. It could affect your being able to obtain a passport. It could affect one's ability to purchase a firearm or receive a State concealed weapon permit.

This is very serious business! We are not talking about private opinions. We are talking about law enforcement agencies. And remember, most law enforcement agencies share these types of reports; therefore, how many other state police agencies have similar reports floating around? Probably several. Plus, how do we know that this report was not influenced by federal police agencies? We don't.

Rest assured, I do not plan to take this lying down. As one who is personally named in the above report, I demand a public retraction and apology from the MIAC and Missouri State Police. I can tell you that my family is extremely distraught that their husband, father, and grandfather would be labeled in such a manner. I am also not ruling out legal action. In addition, I am discussing an appropriate response with Ron Paul and Bob Barr. I will keep readers posted as to what comes of these discussions (as I am at liberty to do so, of course).

In the meantime, I encourage everyone who believes in the freedom of speech and who believes that the MIAC report is an egregious miscarriage of justice to contact the appropriate Missouri police officials. Here is the contact information:

Email address: Brandon.middleton@mshp.dps.mo.gov


Missouri Information Analysis Center
Division of Drugs & Crime Control
P. O. Box 568
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0568
Phone: 573-751-6422
Toll Free: 866-362-6422
Fax: 573-751-9950


And lest one thinks that none of this concerns him or her, I would like to remind you of the lament of Martin Niemoeller back in the days of Hitler's Germany. Niemoeller was a decorated U-Boat Captain and pastor of great distinction. An avid anti-communist, Niemoeller at first supported Hitler's rise to power and was hesitant to oppose the violations of civil rights against various groups he personally found distasteful. It did not take long, however, before Niemoeller realized that when laws protecting the rights of all were removed from some, no one was safe--including him. Unfortunately, he learned his lesson too late, as he, too, was persecuted and imprisoned by Hitler's State Police. Here is what Niemoeller said about his indifference:

"They came first for the communists, and I did not speak up-
because I was not a communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up-
because I was not a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up-
because I was not a Jew;
And then they came for me-
and there was no one left to speak up."


So, those of you who think you have nothing to fear because you did not vote for Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or me, or because you do not live in the State of Missouri need to think again. As I have repeatedly said, we either have freedom for all, or we have freedom for none. Truly, secret police reports such as the one above threaten the liberties of us all.

So, will you speak up now or wait until they come for you and no one is left to speak up?

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090317.html
.

P.S. Highlight added for emphasis........... Arsenio

Ending NAFTA Inspired Trucking Program Could Spark Retaliation

Ending NAFTA Inspired Trucking Program Could Spark Retaliation

By Dana Gabriel
http://www.borderfirereport.net/dana-gabriel/ending-nafta-inspired-trucking-program-could-spark-retaliation.php

Allowing Mexican long-haul trucks full access inside the U.S. is a component of NAFTA. Safety and security issues have proven to be a huge stumbling block in achieving this objective of the agreement. Under the Bush administration, a cross-border trucking program was established, giving a limited number of Mexican trucks full access beyond the commercial zone restrictions. Several past attempts to shut down the program have failed, but it appears as if the House Democrat fiscal 2009 spending bill, could finally put a stop to it. Ending the program could strain relations with Mexico and spark some sort of trade retaliation. There are reports that the Obama administration may try to implement their own program in order to better respect NAFTA obligations..


The pilot trucking program began in September 2007, as a result of a successful challenge which found the U.S. in violation of NAFTA. Under the program, a limited number of Mexican carriers are permitted full access to U.S roads. It also allows for an equal number of U.S. trucks to operate in the same capacity in Mexico. Despite previous efforts to cut funding, the Bush administration was able to continue the program by using funds from other parts of the transportation budget. As part of the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, all funding would be terminated, using very clear and strong language which could not be misinterpreted. The U.S. Department of Transportation has stated that they would not make any attempts to save the program.


There is speculation that canceling the cross-border trucking program could set the tables for a showdown between the Obama administration and the Mexican government. Allowing Mexican long-haul trucks full access inside the U.S. is a NAFTA commitment and the pilot program is seen as a step in fulfilling this provision of the agreement. If the U.S. fails to comply, it is possible that Mexico could retaliate by placing or raising tariffs on some U.S. goods. Mexico’s ambassador to the U.S., Arturo Sarukhan, has stated that if the program is defeated by congress, that all options would be open, including possible retaliation. He stressed that ending the program has nothing to do with safety and security, but is rather a protectionist move. He also warned that keeping Mexican trucks off U.S. roads would raise the cost of goods for consumers and producers. Ending the pilot trucking program could hurt U.S.-Mexico relations and affect NAFTA.


Since its inception, there have been concerns whether the pilot trucking program would meet all U.S. safety regulations and just how they would be enforced. Mexico lacks any effective safety standards for its drivers or trucks. There is also no accurate drug or alcohol policy in place and it is without a reliable national criminal or driving database. Unions, as well as some safety and consumer groups, oppose the cross-border trucking program, citing safety, security and environmental concerns. The Teamsters Union, along with Public Citizen and the Sierra Club, have filed a suit to stop the program, in an attempt to close the border to Mexican trucks.


Some are calling on the Obama administration to block any move to end the cross-border trucking program and instead take action to make it permanent. Proponents argue that Mexican long-haul trucks have been unfairly denied full access inside the U.S., not because of safety and security concerns, but as a result of union pressures to prevent competition. They contend that protectionist measures have hindered American trucking companies from reaping the benefits of gaining full access into Mexico. They are also warning that ending the pilot program would raise the price of consumer goods. There are accusations that the Democrat-controlled congress is further shilling to unions and that the move to end the trucking program is a means of rewarding them.


The cross-border trucking program is part of NAFTA and the corporate North American Union agenda of further erasing continental borders. If it becomes permanent and is expanded, it could lower wages and lead to more American job losses. There is also the potential that it could destroy small and medium sized independent trucking companies. Allowing Mexican trucks full access inside the U.S. is a safety issue, as well as a security threat which could increase drug and human smuggling. Republican Congressman, Ron Paul, had this to say about the pilot trucking program when it was first announced. “Rather than securing our borders, we seem to be providing more pores for illegal aliens, drug dealers, and terrorists to permeate.” In light of the growing drug cartel violence in Mexico, further securing the border should be a national security priority.

Expanding Canadian Trade Horizons

Expanding Canadian Trade Horizons

By Dana Gabriel http://www.borderfirereport.net/dana-gabriel/expanding-canadian-trade-horizons.php

Many in the business community have criticized Canada for being too fixated on U.S. trade initiatives and not aggressively pursuing more trade and investment opportunities with other countries. As a result, its overall global competitiveness has suffered. Canada recently recorded its first trade deficit in over 30 years which was blamed on falling oil prices and also directly linked to the struggling U.S. economy. In a recent visit to Canada, President Barack Obama gave assurances that he is committed to free trade and open borders. He reaffirmed his pledge to rework NAFTA, but stressed that the current economic crisis may delay such matters. If anything, the trade deficit that Canada posted, illustrates the need to lessen its dependency on the U.S. and further expand its trade portfolio.

On January 26, 2008, Canada signed a free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) which consists of the countries of Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Iceland. The Canada-EFTA trade agreement is basic in nature and is not as comprehensive as NAFTA. It does not include any new substantial commitments in areas of investment, services or intellectual property. There are concerns about the negative impact the trade agreement could have on Canada’s shipbuilding and agricultural sectors. The NDP is calling on the government to exclude the shipbuilding industry from the trade agreement. These concerns could delay ratification of the trade accord. The Conservative government is emphasizing the importance of expanding and not restricting trade, especially considering the current economic climate. A Canada-EFTA free trade agreement would give Canadian businesses a foothold in the heart of Europe, thus setting the stage for a proposed Canada-European Union (EU) economic trade deal.

Canada and the EU have engaged in preliminary discussions that could lead to deeper economic integration. There are reports that negotiations on a Canada-EU trade agreement, which would exceed NAFTA, could begin in May of this year. Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams recently withdrew his support for upcoming negotiations, believing that the federal government would not act in his province’s best interests. According to Williams, assurances that a Canada-EU trade agreement would include protection for measures such as the Atlantic Accords and the Fish Inspection Act, have not been adequately met. He is also concerned about high fish tariffs, foreign overfishing and the EU’s plan to ban seal products. These issues would have to be resolved before full-scale negotiations could begin, as the EU has stressed that any such trade agreement with Canada would require full provincial governmental participation.

Canada is in the midst of playing catch-up and is attempting to secure a greater share of growing economic markets in India and China. The Canadian government has been working towards closer trade and investment cooperation with India. They have signed an agreement that will create the framework to further expand agricultural trade between the two countries. Canada is also waiting on India to finalize the text on a bilateral Foreign Investment Promotion Agreement, with hopes of a more comprehensive trade deal in the future. Many feel that Canada needs to further engage trade and investment opportunities with China as well; otherwise it risks further falling behind other nations who are also competing for a share of the Chinese market. In 2007, 2% of Canadian exports were sent to China and its direct foreign investment in the country accounted for only 0.3%. China and India represent vast potential trade and investment opportunities for Canada which can no longer be overlooked.

Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, bilateral trade initiatives have accelerated. He has promised to place more focus on the Americas and further strengthen bilateral cooperation in the hemisphere. Trade deals with Peru and Colombia have been signed and need to be ratified. Canada is attempting to establish a greater presence in Brazil as the two countries have signed an Agreement for Cooperation on Science, Technology and Innovation. Canada is due to begin a third round of negotiations with Dominican Republic on a bilateral free trade agreement. There are also discussions underway with Panama, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. With all the bilateral and regional trade agreements that have been signed or are being pursued in the hemisphere, all these deals combined could eventually be used to facilitate a larger multilateral agreement such as the FTAA.

It is clear that Canada must lessen its dependency on the U.S., but if future free trade deals are based on the failed NAFTA model, they could prove costly. A steady diet of globalization is being offered as a solution to Canada’s economic woes. While there is a need to expand Canadian trade horizons, at the same time there is a push for further North American economic integration. Former Minister of International Trade, David Emerson, is calling for closer Canada-U.S. ties in the form of a customs union, further integration on regulatory matters, along with updating NAFTA to include labour mobility. He is also recommending that Canada advocate a North American security perimeter. Although under its current structure the Security and Prosperity Partnership might be dead, it appears as if plans for a North American Community or rather a North American Union, are still very much alive.

Dana Gabriel writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, and other issues.
Contact: newworldordermustbestopped@hotmail.com

Farmers Call For NAFTA Reforms

Farmers Call For NAFTA Reforms

By Dana Gabriel http://www.opednews.com/articles/Farmers-Call-For-NAFTA-Ref-by-Dana-Gabriel-090226-622.html


NAFTA has produced winners, mostly multinational corporations and a long list of losers, which includes farmers. The trade agreement has been the source of much discontent and has become an easy target. NAFTA is so badly flawed, but it is only one part of our failed trade and economic strategy. It has hurt many farmers in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Just as there are calls to reform energy, investment, labour and environmental provisions of NAFTA, many are also demanding changes to agricultural clauses found in the agreement.

At a recent trilateral conference held in Billings, Montana, there was a general consensus among livestock producers that NAFTA is not working for North American farmers, ranchers and consumers alike. The two day conference was hosted by the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC). The meetings addressed many challenges facing family farmers and ranchers, including the negative impact of NAFTA. Many of the promises made by proponents of the trade agreement, have not been kept and so called benefits have failed to materialize. Representatives at the conference are calling for new trade policies and market reforms, and are urging the leaders of the U.S., Canada and Mexico to renegotiate NAFTA.

Along with calling for changes to NAFTA, the conference made up of consumer groups and livestock producers from around North America, laid out other specific recommendations. In a press release, they called for the “Establishment of domestic food and agricultural policies that provide farmers with the cost of production without dumping commodities into other countries at below the cost of production.” They also called for “Setting up publicly-owned grain reserves to stabilize prices and to provide fair prices to both farmers and consumers.” Further economic integration and expanded trade under NAFTA has failed to benefit many farmers. Some have been forced to give up their livelihoods, as a result of low market prices. Conferences such as this one, illustrate the importance of working together. Now more then ever, it is essential that farmers in North America present a common front and pursue shared objectives, in order to better protect their future interests.

NAFTA has essentially pitted farmers from all three countries against each other. Some have sought to establish more control over the marketing of farm produce only to be harassed. In Canada, there are calls for governmental protections of farm marketing boards from NAFTA challenges. Under the agreement, many domestic policies to protect farmers are prohibited. NAFTA has enabled large agribusinesses to set up monopolies and in many cases, has prevented farmers from uniting and defending their own best interests. As a result of NAFTA and the WTO, a small number of multinational corporations control much of our food production in North America. NAFTA has been devastating for many farmers and nowhere is this more evident than in Mexico where over a million agricultural jobs have been lost as a result of the trade agreement.

In late January of this year, there were huge protests in Mexico City and other parts of the country, demanding that the government take steps to deal with the mounting economic crisis. Just like in the past, many farmers took to the streets protesting against NAFTA. They were demanding renegotiation of agricultural clauses found in the trade deal. Protesters were also calling on the government to rescue small farmers who have been decimated by the dumping of large amounts of U.S. and Canadian grains and other crops inside the Mexican market. If current agricultural and food policies are not changed, many more farmers will lose their livelihoods. Globalization and urbanization have further fueled social unrest and coupled with the rise in drug violence, it appears as if Mexico could be on the verge of total collapse.

NAFTA, along with the WTO, have been used to drive down labour costs and environmental standards, in an effort to further increase corporate profits. Many farmers in North America and around the world have been greatly affected. While income for farmers is on the decline, food prices continue to rise. NAFTA undermines our sovereignty and has weakened local governments ability to make decisions concerning food and agriculture. There desperately needs to be more measures put in place to better protect farmers. Our globalized food system is a complete failure and has served to benefit multinational corporations, at the expense of small independent farmers. There are little things we can all do in our everyday lives to challenge this corporate system. This includes supporting and buying from local producers as well as becoming more self-sufficient.

Majority Oppose Chapter 11 of NAFTA

Majority Oppose Chapter 11 of NAFTA

By Dana Gabriel http://www.borderfirereport.net/dana-gabriel/majority-oppose-chapter-11-of-nafta.html

A recent binational poll commissioned by the Council of Canadians, found that the majority of Americans and Canadians oppose provisions found in Chapter 11 of NAFTA. The poll found that 70% believe that energy corporations should not be allowed to sue governments for changes to policy that protect the environment and promote the public interest. Over half of the complaints filed under Chapter 11 of the agreement, have challenged environmental policies. Past polls have indicated that the majority also reject the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and deeper integration into a North American Union. Continental integration is being achieved on many different levels and this includes through environmental commitments.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA grants foreign investors the right to sue member nations, if they feel that their profits have been restricted. Corporations have used this new power to challenge and even overturn labour, health and environmental laws. This new poll demonstrates that there is a desire for significant changes to be made to NAFTA. President Barack Obama has promised to renegotiate labour and environmental provisions under the agreement. Chapter 11 severely undermines our sovereignty. In many cases it is not being used to defend trade, but rather to challenge and override domestic laws.

When an investor files a suit under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, it does not mean that they will win. Increasingly, it is being used to intimidate and threaten governments who in many instances wish to avoid arbitration. In August of 2008, Dow Agrosciences served a notice of intent under Chapter 11. This was due to the province of Quebec’s decision to ban the sale, as well as certain uses of lawn pesticides containing the company’s active ingredient 2,4-D. Many support the ban and this includes medical and environmental officials. The province of Ontario is also working on a similar measure. Perhaps feeling that their case might be weak, Dow has not proceeded any further. They also might be waiting for several long standing cases to be settled that could set new precedents. Many feel that more stringent standards should be imposed by provincial health regulators. Chapter 11 undermines the decision making process of democratically elected governments. Through the SPP, pesticide regulations are being harmonized and as a result, Canada has lowered its standards.

North American integration is being accomplished through trinational environmental commitments. In June of 2008, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was established to assist in coordinating environmental policies and it is closely tied to NAFTA. It is also being used to implement elements of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. The CEC is working in conjunction with the governments of Mexico, the U.S., and Canada, setting up a continental strategy to identify environmental concerns. This could be used to further bind the three countries together, using the environment as the pretext. It is also another example of putting more power in the hands of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats and organizations. Unfortunately, many solutions being offered to combat environmental issues are in the form of more taxes and more governmental control over our lives.

Canada does not have a national carbon cap-and-trade system in place, but some provinces have begun working on a shared market. There is a push to create a North American integrated carbon market. Recently, the European Union proposed a global system for trading carbon credits. They are urging developed nations to sign on, in an effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Such a global tax would definitely generate billions of dollars, but it would also be a financial burden for many. My fear is that any global solution could very well be at the expense of our freedoms and sovereignty.

NAFTA best serves corporate interests and does not represent true free trade. You know something is drastically wrong when Chapter 11 of the agreement essentially grants corporations more rights than national citizens. It might be popular to blame trade deals for all our economic woes, but they are only one part of our failed economic system. Congressman Ron Paul, who also ran as a Republican presidential candidate, explained it like this. “Free trade is not complicated, yet NAFTA and CAFTA are comprised of thousands of pages of complicated legal jargon. All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. Free Trade does not require coordination with another government to benefit citizens here.” Could it really be that simple? Forget about renegotiating NAFTA. The time has come to scrap the trade accord in its entirety!

Trade Wars: The Rise of Protectionism?

Trade Wars: The Rise of Protectionism?

By Dana Gabriel

U.S. trading partners have expressed concern that any move towards protectionism could spread and spark trade wars that could further worsen the economic crisis. Around the world, many are looking to President Barack Obama for leadership and feel that he is the one who can save the current global trading system. Does this system really work? Is it worth saving? International bodies such as the WTO and free trade deals like NAFTA, have fostered a climate of corporate dominance trapping nations in a web of treaties that in some cases, trump their own laws. The U.S. is being used as an engine for world government. The global elite seek to capitalize on the economic chaos which in many ways they engineered, in order to further restructure the world.

The Buy-American provision was added to Obamaʼs stimulus package, before it passed the House of Representatives. It blocks foreign iron and steel from being used on any projects that are part of the package. A Senate version of the bill could further expand to include other goods and materials. Although it does sound good, some feel the measure could backfire and cost more American jobs than it saves. Obama insists that he does not wish to set off a trade war and that the U.S. will honor its WTO obligations. He also warned of the dangers of protectionism, in a climate where global trade is already slumping. If he doesnʼt approve the Buy-American plan, he risks angering some of his core support, but if he doesnʼt make changes, he could alienate U.S. trading partners. It is obvious that Obama is going to have to strike a balance. He is calling for the stimulus package to be passed and signed by mid-February. Canada, the U.S.ʼs largest trading partner could be greatly affected by any Buy-American move.

For the most part, Canadaʼs response has been measured and it has refrained from further escalating the situation, believing that they will probably be exempt from the provision. Under NAFTA, Canada sends 40% of its steel across the border and the Buy-American provision could cost Canadian jobs as well as deal a significant blow to its steel industry. From 2002-2003, the Bush Administration imposed trade sanctions on foreign steel in order to protect its own industries, but Canada and Mexico were exempt because of fears that such a move would violate NAFTA. Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that the Buy-American provision not only threatens Canada, but all industrialized countries. There is a definite possibility that the situation could further escalate. The EU, Canada and other U.S. trading partners could in turn retaliate with similar measures. If some sort of resolution is not reached, there could be a rise in protectionism around the world, with the potential for international trade wars.

During the presidential campaign, Obama pledged to protect U.S. workers and industries and supported Buy-American initiatives, but at the same time cautioned against protectionist policies. He was also very critical of NAFTA during the Democratic presidential nomination race, calling the agreement a mistake and its effects devastating. He even threatened to use the opt-out clause, in order to put pressure on Canada and Mexico to agree to changes. This concerned Canadian officials, but they were reassured that NAFTA was quite safe. Later when Obama had all but wrapped up the nomination, he took a more moderate approach towards NAFTA and free trade in general. He even admitted that in regards to all the NAFTA bashing, he got caught up in all the rhetoric. Since then, he has been strangely silent on the issue, but it was recently reported by a White House spokesman that Obama is still committed to upgrading the agreement.

NAFTA essentially laid the foundation for a North American energy market. Canada is the largest U.S. supplier of crude oil and natural gas. Under NAFTA, Canada is prohibited from cutting off oil exports to the U.S., unless domestic supplies are rationed by the same amount. Canadian officials have previously hinted that oil, and a list of other conditions could be on the table, if NAFTA is reopened. Harper recently said that he doesnʼt expect Obama to push for any major reworking of the agreement. There is little doubt that Canada is in a better position of strength than when NAFTA was first negotiated. Obama is set to visit Canada on February 19 and it is expected that trade issues will be at the top of the agenda.

Even Obama supporters have to be disappointed with his cabinet appointments, which do not constitute change. His administration is full of Clinton retreads, political hacks, hawks, and those who have upheld failed economic policies. Many of his appointees are also past or present members of the Council On Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. The new boss is beginning to look a lot like the old boss, except that I doubt if Obama will openly show the arrogance and disregard that Bush did. The best thing that Obama has going for him is that he isnʼt Bush, and although his words might have signaled a change in direction, his actions indicate that itʼs business as usual in the White House.

Source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Trade-Wars-The-Rise-of-Pr-by-Dana-Gabriel-090204-269.html

Towards a Canada-EU Economic/Trade Agreement and Beyond

Towards a Canada-EU Economic/Trade Agreement and Beyond

By Dana Gabriel http://www.opednews.com/articles/Towards-a-Canada-EU-Econom-by-Dana-Gabriel-090128-19.html


After dodging a bullet and almost being defeated late last year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government recently tabled their much anticipated budget. It included a massive $85 billion deficit over the next five years. The Liberals have proposed an amendment that would hold the government more accountable, in order to ensure that budgetary funds are being used accordingly. If expectations are not met, the Liberals have said that they are prepared to bring down the Harper minority government. It came out during the election in October of 2008, that the Conservatives were set to begin negotiations with the European Union (EU) on deeper economic integration. In spite of the current global economic uncertainty, Canadian and EU officials are busy laying the groundwork for an economic and trade agreement, and negotiations could begin in the next several months.

It is expected that an economic and trade agreement with the EU could be massive and far-reaching, dwarfing NAFTA in size and scope. It would not be limited to the exchange of goods and services and could include labour mobility, as well as harmonization of standards and regulations. On a North American front, harmonization of regulations is being achieved through the Security and Prosperity Partnership. A principal demand by the EU is that Canadian provinces open up their procurement programs to European bidders. This would allow EU companies to bid as equals on government contracts. There has been some resistance from the provinces on this issue, which could put any such agreement in jeopardy. Stockwell Day, Canadian Minister of International Trade, stated that he is confident that the provinces will commit to such demands. The EU is also looking for a bilateral securities agreement. Canada currently does not have a national securities regulator, but one is expected to be in place before any negotiations would be completed. Many believe that Canada has been too fixated with U.S. and even Mexico initiatives, and as a result, not enough attention has been spent trying to partner up with the EU.

The annual Canada-EU Summit is set for May and will be held in Prague, Czech Republic and at that time formal negotiations for an economic and trade agreement could begin. It is also expected that the recently concluded Canada-EU Air Transport Agreement will be signed at the summit. It is set to be implemented in different phases and does not immediately include further raising foreign ownership limits in the airline sector. At a later time this agreement could even allow Canadian and European carriers to fly domestic routes in each other’s markets. It is believed that this deal is meant to put further pressure on the U.S. to agree on upgrading its own open skies agreement with the EU. A Canada-EU economic and trade agreement that goes beyond NAFTA, could later include the U.S. and Mexico. This is a scenario whereby the NAFTA model could be expanded and extended across the Atlantic. The current economic turmoil has seen a rise in European protectionism, but there still appears to be a desire by some, to further push trade liberalization initiatives.

In April of 2007, the U.S.-EU reached a deal on a new Transatlantic Economic Partnership. They agreed to work towards eliminating non-tariff barriers and increasing trade and investment, thus further laying the foundation for a U.S.-EU single market. In an effort to help streamline harmonization on regulations, the Transatlantic Economic Council was also created at the same time. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a known globalist and one-worlder, has been calling for more trade liberalization in the form of a transatlantic free trade zone. It is important to understand that economic integration was the first step in the creation of the EU. With a new American president, there is a move to further strengthen transatlantic ties.

Many believe that Barack Obama’s presidency is a turning point in not only American, but world history, one that could signal a new era of international cooperation. Jose Barroso, the President of the European Commission, envisions a more ambitious globalization agenda and a ‘New Deal’ between the U.S.-EU. This would further foster multilateralism in areas of trade, security and climate change. EU officials have also proposed a global system for trading carbon credits. They are calling on developed countries and most notably the U.S. to sign on in an effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Others like British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are calling for a new global financial order. Recently, former U.S. Secretary of State and perpetual government insider, Henry Kissinger said that under Obama, there is an opportunity for a New World Order.

The global elite are making their move and they will pose as our loving saviours and offer their solution. World leaders, pundits, hacks and minions, are busy calling for a new global financial order and a New World Order. They recognize that the people are waking up to their lies, so they are accelerating plans for world government. Globalization and free trade, as well as IMF and World Bank loans, have been used to enslave the population and destroy national sovereignty. The notion of real choice is now more of an illusion. Minus the rhetoric and petty squabbles, it’s the same policies, same agenda, and the same team. Obama could be used to pitch a New World Order to the masses. This might not be the change that many had envisioned.