North American Union
This is long, but you’re not going to hear a single word about any of it in the corporate propaganda media . . . and it tells a sick story about a President just as hell-bent to sell our sovereignty as he was to invade Iraq.
President Bush is apparently not satisfied with hurting this country only through his wars of aggression.
He is secretly pushing a merger of the United States, with Mexico and Canada, into a new North American Union. Part of that will be to replace the U.S. dollar with a new currency, the Amero. The super-highway linking Mexico, the United States and Canada is part of the grand plan too.
Just Google “North American Union” and you can read for days . . .
While many play word-games to imply this is nothing more than a tin-foil hat conspiracy. I know it’s not.
A Congressman from Virginia knows it’s not either.
Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) introduced H.C.R. 40 which is titled, “Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada”
Listen, you need to find out what this group of rogues is trying to do to our great country. They have sold out to the bankers and corporations and are trying to deliver our great nation up on a platter for profit.
Congressman Goode was recently asked if the president was risking electoral success for the Republican Party in 2008 with his insistence on pushing for North American integration via the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP.
“Yes,” Goode answered. “You won’t hear the leadership in the Republic Party admit it, but there are many in the House and Senate who know that illegal immigration has to be stopped and legal immigration has to be reduced. We are giving away the country so a few very rich people can get richer.”
How did he react when President Bush referred to those who suggest the SPP could turn into the North American Union as “conspiracy theorists”?
“The president is really engaging in a play on words,” Goode responded. “The secretary of transportation came before our subcommittee,” he explained, “and I had the opportunity to ask her some questions about the NAFTA Superhighway. Of course, she answered, ‘There’s no NAFTA Superhighway.’ But then Mary Peters proceeded to discuss the road system that would come up from Mexico and go through the United States up into Canada.”
“So, I think that saying we’re ‘conspiracy theorists’ or something like that is really just a play on words with the intent to demonize the opposition,” Goode concluded.
Goode stressed that the Bush administration supports both a NAU regional government and a NAFTA Superhighway system: “The Bush administration as well as Mexico and Canada have persons in the government in all three countries who want to a see a North American Union as well as a highway system that would bring goods into the west coast of Mexico and transport them up through Mexico into the United States and then in onto Canada,” Goode confirmed.
The Virginia congressman said he believes the motivation behind the movement toward North American integration is the anticipated profits the large multinational corporations in each of the three countries expect to make from global trade, especially moving production to China.
“Some really large businesses that get a lot from China would like a NAFTA Superhighway system because it would reduce costs for them to transport containers from China and, as a result, increase their margins,” he argued.
“I am vigorously opposed to the Mexican trucks coming into the country,” Goode continued. “The way we have done it and, I think, the way we should do it in the future, is to have the goods come into the United States from Mexico within a 20-mile commercial space and unloaded from Mexican trucks into U.S. trucks. This procedure enhances the safety of the country, the security of the country, and provides much less chance for illegal immigration.”
The United States Department of Transportation has begun a Mexican truck “demonstration project” under which 100 Mexican trucking companies are being allowed to run their long-haul rigs throughout the U.S. as you read this. I have truck driver friends who tell me it’s already causing serious problems because the Mexicans cannot read English road signs and they intentionally fail to follow speed and safety regulations — since there’s no way to enforce those laws when they are back in Mexico 2-3 days later.
Previously, Mexican trucks have been limited to a 20-mile commercial zone in the United States, with the requirement that goods bound for locations in the U.S. beyond the 20-mile commercial zone be off-loaded to U.S. trucks.
This is all a major sell-out of our country in favor of greedy corporations and, thankfully, the Washington politicians are more afraid of getting booted right out of their cushy “jobs” and are not supporting the plan.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., successfully offered an amendment to the Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations bill to block DOT from spending any federal funds to implement the truck project.
Dorgan’s amendment passed 75-23, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., changed her vote to support Dorgan.
By a voice vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., to the DOT appropriations bill comparable to Dorgan’s, designed to block the agency from using federal funds to implement the truck project.
DeFazio chairs the House transportation subcommittee that oversees motor carriers.
“With the Trans-Texas Corridor, which I would say is part of the NAFTA Superhighway system, and with this NAFTA plot with the Mexican trucks just coming in and not loading off to U.S. trucks, they will just drive right over the Rio Grande and come on over into Texas,” Goode argued. “A lot of these Mexican trucks will be bring containerized cargo from the west coast of Mexico where they will be unloaded in Mexican ports to avoid the fees and costs of unloading at U.S. ports.”
“So, when you look at the total package,” he continued, “we do have a NAFTA Superhighway system already in place. There are those in all three countries that believe we should have a North American Union and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, in my opinion takes us down that road. And I am vigorously opposed to the loss of our sovereignty.”
Why, WND asked, do so many congressmen and senators insist on writing and telling their constituents that they don’t know anything about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or that SPP working groups are really just to increase our competitiveness?
“In the House, a strong majority voted to provide no money in the transportation funding bill,” Goode responded. “I commend Congressman Duncan Hunter for submitting an amendment to the Department of Transportation funding bill [which] got over 360 votes that said no funds in the transportation appropriation measure, prohibiting Department of Transportation funds from being used to participate on working groups that promote the Security and Prosperity Partnership.”
“So, I think a majority the House, if you had an up or down vote on the SPP, would vote down on the SPP,” Goode concluded. “But some still say, and it’s a play on words, that we don’t have a Security and Prosperity Partnership that will lead to a North American Union. I don’t think they can say anymore that we don’t have a Security and Prosperity Partnership arrangement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, because that was done in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005, and the recent meeting at Montebello was to talk about it further.”
All meetings to discuss this are always held in private with no media allowed anywhere near.
For example, on August 21, 2007, in one of a dozen or so meetings the corporate media has refused to tell you about, George W. Bush, Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon, and Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper all met privately at The Fairmont Le Chateau, literally in the middle of the Quebec woods, to discuss the Security and Prosperity Partnership while various public advocacy groups, environmental groups, labor unions – and the press – were physically excluded by the military.
Should SPP working group meetings be open to the public?
“I wish they were,” Goode responded. “If it is as the Bush administration says, ‘We’re not planning any North American Union,’ then why wouldn’t those meetings be open, why wouldn’t you let the media in?” Goode asked.
“But some of the very big corporations want the goods from China to come in here unchecked,” he continued. “It costs money for U.S. trucks to transport Chinese goods from West Coast ports like Los Angeles or Long Beach. But if you can have a Mexican truck and Mexican truck driver, that’s going to be cheaper. And it’s all about the margins. The margins relate directly to how much money the multi-national corporations are going to make.”
Has the Senate debate on the Dorgan amendment brought the issues of the NAU and NAFTA Superhighways more to the attention of the Senate?
“I think so,” Goode said. “That debate had a very positive effect. You had grassroots support calling the Senate on the Dorgan amendment.
“The Bush administration engages in the same play of words with all these issues,” Goode added. “Take a look at the Kennedy-McCain comprehensive immigration reform, which the Bush administration has now tried to jam through the Senate not once, but twice.
“The Bush administration claims it’s not [amnesty] when you let someone stay in the country and give them a path to citizenship,” Goode pointed out. “Well, that’s their definition, not my definition, and not the definition of the majority of the public. The majority of the public called in and buried the amnesty bill because of public pressure. Public pressure also got de-funded the pilot program on Mexican trucks in this country.”
So should the U.S. pull out of the SPP?
“Yes,” Goode answered, “but the best way to end SPP would be to have a chief executive that wouldn’t do anything with it.”
What does Goode think of the state legislatures that are passing anti-NAU, anti-NAFTA Superhighway and anti-SPP resolutions?
“If enough state legislatures pass resolutions like that, it surely should have an impact on the House and the Senate,” Goode said.
“President Bush’s position is that we need to carry out NAFTA and we need to have this free flow of goods with Mexico and Canada,” Goode explained. “Well, Bush’s approach involves a derogation of our sovereignty and it also undermines the security and the safety of the country.
“It will be much easier for a truck to get a container on the west coast of Mexico and haul in a biological or radiological or nuclear weapon than it would be if you are going to have to unload the trucks on the Texas-Mexico border and put the goods and material in a U.S. truck,” he continued.
“The problem is that the NAU, NAFTA Superhighways and SPP all go back to money,” Goode stressed. “The multinational companies want their goods from Mexico and China because they want the cheap labor.”
Credit to Jerome Corsi and World Net Daily
ISPs Selling Your Information Again
Wonder which one, the CIA or NSA, provided the “seed money” for this venture?
According to the company’s CEO, “We only look at consumer sites - not ones that are sensitive. So if you go to a sex site, we don’t track that. If you look up something for HIV positive, we don’t look at that. But if you are planning travel to the South of France or are researching a Lexus SUV, we do track that.” Uh, yeah . . . right.
In the past, when ISPs have attempted to make money off their users’ clickstream data, they have met with fierce objections. Now, a new company, NebuAd, is asking ISPs to provide not only clickstream data, but also your personal information such as physical location — and they then want to use this data to target ads to you.
This technology, known as deep packet inspection, allows NebuAd to not only see what web sites people visit but also what queries those users enter into search engines, and which web sites they go to from those searches.
Corporate Greed Assisted By Federal Courts
In 2006, United Airlines was in bankruptcy, whining how it was so broke the pensions had to be written off . . .
Then, magically, they later find they have $16 BILLION in extra assets they can cash-in on now that those pesky pensions have been “legally looted.”
May 10, 2005 — Bankruptcy Judge Eugene Wedoff approves United’s plan to terminate employee pensions, clearing the way for the largest corporate-pension default in American history.
September 25, 2007 — Spinning off units could raise $16 Billion for United.
Related Stories:
USA Today Timeline of UAL Bankruptcy . . .
UAL Board Looking AT Asset Sales . . .
Blackwater May Be Worse Than Abu-Ghraib
To describe the ongoing Blackwater scandal as a fiasco would be a dramatic understatement. Not only do we have a situation in which private security contractors stand accused of killing Iraqi civilians without provocation, we also have deep divisions brewing between the Pentagon and the State Department, coupled by State stonewalling a congressional investigation.
A confrontation between the U.S. military and the State Department is unfolding over the involvement of Blackwater USA in the shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians in a Baghdad square Sept. 16, bringing to the surface long-simmering tensions between the military and private security companies in Iraq, according to U.S. military and government officials.
In high-level meetings over the past several days, U.S. military officials have pressed State Department officials to assert more control over Blackwater, which operates under the department’s authority, said a U.S. government official with knowledge of the discussions. “The military is very sensitive to its relationship that they’ve built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded by actions such as this event,” the official said.
“This is a nightmare,” said a senior U.S. military official. “We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we’re trying to have an impact for the long term.”
At this point, the State Department seems to be treating Blackwater contractors as the agency’s own private army, accountable to no one outside the department. The Maliki government believes Blackwater is a criminal enterprise, the Iraqi people resent Blackwater’s presence, the Pentagon believes Blackwater is lying about the Sept. 16 incident in Nisoor Square, and congressional Democrats have questions about what has transpired — which the State Department refuses to answer.
This is a debacle so severe and humiliating, only the Bush administration could pull it off.
David Kurtz offers this helpful timeline of events that sets the stage for where we are now.
Sun, Sept. 16: Blackwater incident in which 11 Iraqi civilians are killed after State Department convoy reportedly comes under fire, an account disputed by the Iraqis.
Mon, Sept. 17: Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee announces his committee will investigate the Blackwater incident.
Tue, Sept. 18: The American Embassy in Baghdad suspends diplomatic convoys outside the Green Zone.
Wed, Sept. 19: In a phone call, Acting Assistant Secretary of State William Moser warns Blackwater that no information regarding the Blackwater contract can be released without State’s prior written approval.
Thu, Sept. 20: Moser repeats the warning in a second call to Blackwater, and State sends Blackwater a follow-up letter again asserting again that the information possessed by Blackwater belongs to State and cannot be disclosed.
Fri, Sept. 21: The four-day suspension of State Department convoys ends and Blackwater resumes business. Secretary of State Condi Rice announces that her department will undertake a “full and complete review” of diplomatic security in Iraq.
And while it’s certainly nice of Rice to suddenly take an interest in accountability, Congress, which has oversight responsibility and is paying the bills for all of this, believes a bipartisan review on Capitol Hill will produce a more accurate picture of what’s transpired.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice not only refuses to cooperate, her office has also ordered Blackwater not to answer any questions from lawmakers.
The State Department has interceded in a congressional investigation of Blackwater USA, the private security firm accused of killing Iraqi civilians last week, ordering the company not to disclose information about its Iraq operations without approval from the Bush administration, according to documents revealed Tuesday.
In a letter sent to a senior Blackwater executive Thursday, a State Department contracting official ordered the company “to make no disclosure of the documents or information” about its work in Iraq without permission.
I appreciate the fact that outrage fatigue is inevitable when dealing with the Bush gang, but this is truly ridiculous. We have American taxpayers financing a private security army, whose members stand accused of slaughtering civilians. The Secretary of State believes no one should ask any questions about this, and those who do must be ignored. It’s pure lunacy.
The State Department’s cooperation with a congressional inquiry is not optional. Rice can’t simply refuse to divulge information, and ordering others to remain silent is getting fairly close to the obstruction-of-justice line.
When these guys act like they have something to hide, it’s almost always because they have something to hide.
Stay tuned. Congressman Waxman will hold his hearing with or without Condeleeza Rice’s help on Ocotber 2 — and he has requested that Blackwater founder Erik Prince testify.
Related Stories:
Private Security Puts Military, Diplomats At Odds
from The Washington Post . . .
State Department Intercedes In Blackwater Probe
from The Los Angeles Times . . .
Corruption In Iraq Is Classified!?
David Corn asks it best, “How can information about criminal waste and fraud in another government be considered a state secret in the United States?”
More on the developing story about how Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice has run interference for Blackwater and other Iraq corruption.
Now, to further block the investigation of Congress, information about a foreign government’s corruption is classified?
Cough While Being Arrested = “Assault” Charges
MORRISVILLE, N.C. — Authorities said Thursday they have charged a man with assault on a government official after an officer said the man coughed into his face during a traffic stop.
Morrisville Officer Chris Gill said in his report that Kent Kauffman looked into his eyes before “hacking” in his face three times.
Kauffman said he did cough from the window of his minivan but did so toward Gill’s waist.
“He says I coughed in his face,” Kauffman told The News & Observer of Raleigh. “But that would only work if he had a 4-foot-long face.”
Kauffman told the paper that Gill cuffed him and threw him into the side of the patrol car.
“It knocked the wind out of me,” he said.
Kauffman said he developed a cough after his dog died last week. Gill pulled Kauffman over Tuesday for not wearing a seat belt.
Kauffman now faces a misdemeanor charge and could spend up to 60 days in jail if he’s convicted in a Wake County courtroom.
Pregnant? Tough! Police Taser Away . . .
When deputies pulled her over, Valinda Otis told them she was pregnant and needed to use the bathroom.
When they wouldn’t let her go to a nearby restroom, she walked toward it, anyway, she said, and was quickly handcuffed and placed in a patrol car. She screamed and kicked the car door.
That’s when a deputy with the King County Sheriff’s Office pulled out a Taser, pressed it against her thigh and jolted her with 50,000 volts of electricity.
King County sheriff’s deputies have fired Tasers at a teenager who ran after not paying a $1.25 bus fare, a 71-year-old man who was arrested for drunken driving and refused to get into a patrol car, and a partially deaf man who couldn’t hear deputies ordering him to stop, reports show.
Some civil rights advocates argue Tasers are being drawn too quickly and in cases in which such extreme force isn’t necessary. They worry about potential abuses as more officers rely on the tool to subdue people who they say pose no serious threat to themselves or others.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer . . .
Why The Hell Are We In Iraq?
Saddam Offered To Surrender . . .
A MONTH Before Bush Invaded
This is worse than the Downing Street Memo . . .
On February 22, 2003, there was a meeting at the Bush Compound in Crawford, Texas between George W. Bush, Condeleeza Rice and Jose Maria Aznar, then Prime Minister of Spain.
A top-secret tape recording was made by Spanish security and has been “leaked” to and printed by El Pais, the highest-circulation daily in Spain.
The White House did not challenge the accuracy of the transcript, with national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe declining to comment.
It shows the whole Iraq War has been orchestrated by a treasonous, power-grabbing United States President that should be immediately removed from office and put on trial for war crimes.
Oh yeah . . . now that it’s out there, the neo-con talking heads will go beserk trying to muddy the water.
First, please remember that Bush’s own Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neil, said:
“From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying, ‘Fine. Go find me a way to do this.’ “ The Price Of Loyalty, page 86.
Now, about that secret tape . . .
In it, Bush is typically impatient, bullying, arrogant, poorly-informed and pathologically over-optimistic. The transcript shows, without question, the true evil nature of this man.
It’s all just a game to him, and he’ll play “good cop” or “bad cop” — as long as he gets what he wants.
The transcript shows that Bush absolutely insisted on going to war without any United Nations Security Council Resolution, if he couldn’t get it, and by threatening all other countries of the world – like a spoiled brat – anything necessary to get his way.
Iraq was going to be invaded — no other option would be considered by The Decider.
Bush rejected outright a deal brokered by Egypt that would have avoided a war altogether by allowing Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq with a billion dollars (less than what this war costs us each and every 12-hours). It wasn’t even the United States’ money but clearly NOTHING was going to derail Bush’s blood-thirst.
The War President said, “Hell no!”
And don’t forget that fighter jets were scrambled, just in case, to shoot-down any plane that Saddam tried to “flee” on.
All that time we, the American people, were constantly being told by Bush and his co-conspirators that Saddam Hussein refused to talk, he refused to allow weapons inspectors to look for the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and he openly defied the United Nations.
BUT YOU’VE BEEN LIED TO ALL ALONG BY “THE DECIDER.”
In other words, the entire Iraq War cold have been completely avoided by sending Saddam off to exile in some other Muslim country but Bush refused to do so – and worse, lied his ass off to the American public – all to further some his private agenda in Iraq and the middle east. If things were resolved peacefully, Bush’s hell-bent-for-invasion plans would all be worthless.
Remember the Time magazine story in from March 2003, where Bush is quoted as saying, “Fuck Saddam! We’re taking him out!”
All the pieces are there for anyone to see.
Now the last smoking gun — proof that Bush callously denied Saddam’s offer to surrender and walk away well before any invasion.
What could have been saved by avoiding this invasion? Over a million lives? Tens of thousands of American casualties and deaths? Over $1-Trillion Dollars re-distributed to Bush/Cheney’s private corporations from the American taxpayers/suckers? Regional instability for years, maybe forever, and a civil war everyone could see coming from a mile away that our brave young troops are stuck in the middle of now?
But, no, the President who covets being a dictator himself, planned to attack Iraq from before he was ever in the White House. He even moved-in there with special maps and photos and a written war plan.
He just needed time to con the American people and strong-arm other countries of the world.
Now he should be removed from the office he stole and put on trial for his premeditated war crimes.
Let’s watch how the corporate propaganda media spins this one . . .
Here’s part of the translation from the Reuters story:
‘The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he’s indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he’s allowed to take $1 billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction,” Bush was quoted as saying at the meeting one month before the U.S.-led invasion.’
The transcript in Spanish then says (according to my translation):
‘Aznar: Is it certain that any possibility exists that Saddam Hussein will go into exile?
Bush: The possibility exists, including that he will be assassinated.
Aznar: Exile with a guarantee?
Bush: No guarantee! He is a thug, a terrorist, a war criminal.
And here’s a partial translation of the rest, courtesy of Harper’s Magazine:
Bush to American Allies: support the war or starve
[Condoleezza Rice has just described the diplomatic situation to Bush and Aznar, explaining that Iraq is continuing to insist that it has no weapons of mass destruction.]
Bush: This is like Chinese water torture. We have to put an end to it.
Aznar: I agree, but it would be best to have as much support as possible. Have a little patience.
Bush: My patience has ended. I’m not thinking of waiting beyond mid-March.
Aznar: I’m not asking that you have endless patience. Simply that everything is done to [have maximum international support].
Bush: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola, and Cameroon should know that what’s at stake is the security of the United States . . . [Chilean President Ricardo] Lagos should know that the Free Trade Accord with Chile is awaiting Senate confirmation and a negative attitude about this could put ratification in danger. Angola is receiving Millennium Account funds [to help alleviate poverty] and that could be jeopardized also if he’s not supportive…
Aznar: Tony [Blair] wants to wait until March 14.
Bush: I prefer the 10th. This is like a good cop, bad cop routine. I don’t care if I’m the bad cop and he’s the good cop.
Bush on Iraq: the future is bright
“We’re developing a very strong package of humanitarian aid. We can win [the war] without much destruction. We’re planning for a post-Saddam Iraq and believe there is a strong base to build a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and relatively strong civil society.”
Very Rough English Transcript (using Google translator) . . .
The Economic Times Story . . .
How Can Any Sane Person Be “At Peace” Preparing For War?