Showing posts with label NAFTA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NAFTA. Show all posts

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Ohioans Skunked By The Clintons

Does Ohio have the Internet, or even Cabal Teevee?

March 5, 2008 10:33 AM

The Clinton-Lieberman Connection

Confusion and misinformation are two of the most powerful weapons in a desperate politician's arsenal. They were used by Joe Lieberman in the 2006 general election against Ned Lamont, and exit polls suggest that they helped Hillary Clinton blast her way through yesterday's primary in Ohio.

Just ask Karl Rove. He is the master of misinformation, confusion and chaos.

Over the last few weeks, Clinton has been telling Ohio voters she never supported the North American Free Trade Agreement - an agreement that has become a symbol of corrupt economic policies to many working-class voters. Clinton has made these claims expecting everyone to forget her speeches over the last decade trumpeting NAFTA as a great success.

Her direct quotes praising NAFTA repeatedly are not up for interpretation - and neither are her absurd claims to "have been against NAFTA from the beginning." We're talking about pure, unadulterated lying here - and lying with a purpose: To confuse enough voters into thinking she actually did oppose NAFTA and that her strong support for NAFTA is somehow the same as Barack Obama's longtime opposition to the pact. Last night's results prove the scheme worked.

CBS News reports that "among Ohio voters who expressed that trade takes jobs away, 55 percent supported Clinton." The Associated Press has some more details:

"Clinton's past support of the North American Free Trade Agreement didn't hurt her in Ohio where most voters think trade with other countries has cost the state jobs. Blue-collar workers and voters who live in union households backed Clinton as did voters in northern Ohio where manufacturing job losses have been staggering the past decade, according to exit polls for The Associated Press and television networks. Clinton won nearly six in 10 votes from union households in Ohio's Democratic primary Tuesday and the same number among people who earn less than $50,000 a year."

If this all sounds familiar, that's because it is. Here's an excerpt of a 2006 article I wrote for In These Times about the Lieberman-Lamont race:

"As the Associated Press confirmed, Lieberman's margin was provided by a segment of voters who are strongly against the war, but who (wrongly) believed Lieberman is strongly against the war. Their misperception was no accident. Immediately after the primary, Lieberman unleashed an ad campaign to portray himself as anti-war, airing an ad where he says to the camera "I want to help end the war in Iraq."...Lieberman won the election not by defending the Iraq War, but by successfully convincing a key segment of voters that he was anti-war...[Lamont's] internal polling showed that somewhere between 12 and 15 percent of the population said they simultaneously opposed the war and supported Lieberman's position on the war--a signal that Lieberman's confusion campaign was working."

Clinton was actually even more brazen than Lieberman. Not only did she lie about her record, she actually went on the offensive attacking Obama over the very trade deal she has long championed, "rais[ing] doubts about whether he was committed to reworking NAFTA," as the AP noted. To use the Lieberman-Lamont analogy, that's would be like Lieberman not only pretending to be against the war, but actually attacking Lamont for not opposing the war more strongly. Even Lieberman wasn't cravenly dishonest enough to do that - but Clinton was.

The tragedy, of course, is that when such tactics are validated - whether on the war in Connecticut or on trade in Ohio - it encourages candidates and politicians to continue lying about the most important issues. And those lies end up polluting the debate and ultimately preventing any real change. If politicians can be rewarded for lying about their record on the war and on globalization, then they will feel emboldened to keep lying when those rhetorical debates turn into legislative negotiations.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Monday, February 12, 2007

We Reached Our Limit For Tolerance Awhile Back


We are sick and tired of politics as usual!

In addition to seperation of Chruch and State, there needs to be seperation of corporate board rooms and State.

I wonder if Congress believes that the American people are such idiots that they will stand for much more of this hogwash.

We Shall See.


The Limits of Tolerance
Patricia Goldsmith

With the words, "I'm in it to win," Hillary Clinton tossed her hat into the ring-and gave us the motto of the Democratic Leadership Council, the group that launched her husband's presidency and continues to dominate Democratic Party strategy. In the mid- to late-eighties, at the height of the Reagan Revolution, this group of Democratic politicians and strategists realized that unless they could figure out a way to start winning elections again, they would not have political careers.

So instead of bucking Reaganomics, they hitched the Democratic Party to the Republicans' bumper, like a string of tin cans bouncing along in the dust. They declared that business and government would henceforth be friends and partners. They had found a third way, a new center. No more unseemly scuffles.In practice, however, it turned out to be a very lopsided partnership.

If the average citizen won by inches during Bill Clinton's tenure-with his popular family leave bill, for example-big business won by light years, especially with the passage of NAFTA. (This is the same Bill Clinton, by the way, who chose to leave the Kyoto global warming protocols unsigned at the end of his term.) Hillary's current war chest shows just how handsomely the move to a business-friendly party has paid off in cold hard cash-at least for people named Clinton. Rupert Murdoch actually held a fundraiser for Hillary over the summer-which just goes to show that corporate moguls know the value of having two parties to choose from. But not everyone has the billions it takes to put a down payment on a president. And the price is going up.

.Senator Clinton has opted out of public financing, the first candidate to do so for both the nomination and the general election campaigns-which, according to experts, will probably be the end of the current voluntary system for regulating big money in presidential campaigns.

Since the passage of NAFTA, we've seen the same effects in the US that we've seen with globalization all around the world: increasing economic inequality. Monetary agreements are harshly enforced, but there is no corresponding enforcement of labor, human rights, or environmental standards. Free trade has, in fact, turned out to be a very efficient vehicle for concentrating wealth in a few private hands at the expense of whole societies. It's a privatizing, planet-eating machine.

As the war in Iraq should make clear to the least attentive among us, where resources cannot be obtained through unequal trade and debt agreements, they are being taken at gunpoint. Iran is next.FDR and LBJ talked openly about class war. Like his cousin Teddy before him, FDR warned about monopolies that corner markets, fix prices, lie, cheat, and chisel in a relentless and single-minded quest for profits. Johnson, for all his sins, pointed out the shameful relationship between race and poverty. Not the DLC.

In an attempt to woo back Reagan Democrats, Clinton constantly intoned the mantra of the little guy who "works hard and plays by the rules"-a culture war pitch. Let's forget for a minute that effort and obedience are more properly attributes of a robot than a citizen in a modern republic, and consider the fact that the same centrists who tell us that big business is our friend are also telling us that we have to be tolerant and respectful of "deeply held beliefs"-for the sake of winning.

I might actually go for that, if I thought the culture war was about gay marriage or immigration or abortion. But it's not. The culture war is not about any particular conflict. It's about the ground rules for deciding differences.One way is based on equality, the primary assumption of secular government. The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence declares all men equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. Over a hundred years later that promise of equality was extended to black people with the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law for everyone, a promise many state constitutions also make. Constitutional guarantees are bedrock, not to be voted away-in the same way that we can't simply vote slavery back into existence.

The other way to settle differences is to give more weight to "good" people. We decide issues not on the basis of evidence and expertise, but on the basis of values and moral authority. For example, when it comes to gay marriage, a lot of citizens are very happy to see family values prevail over scientific expertise and equal rights. They're quite willing to amend their state constitutions, or even the Constitution of the United States, to make an exception to the requirement of equal rights for all.

The problem is, gay marriage isn't the only decision we're making that way. We're making decisions about when and how to go to war in the exact same way.

During the run-up to the war on Iraq, we heard a lot about George W. Bush's character, his faith and steely resolve, his instincts and ability to recognize and confront evil, his refreshing black-and-white moral clarity. Evidence and expertise were very much in the background. Not only that, but this "good" Republican president, a faithful evangelical Christian, wasn't pressed for corroboration in the same way that a "bad" Democratic secularist like Clinton was when, for example, he sent American troops into Somalia.

The culture war is about manufacturing the attitudes required for people to accept endless resources wars and extremes of economic inequality. The culture-warring right isn't asking for tolerance. It demands submission.

It certainly wasn't tolerance when President Bill Clinton sat on his hands as Republican operatives wielding baseball bats stopped votes from being counted in Florida in 2000.It's the class war that has the potential to unite us. Hatred of George Bush has brought together a very broad coalition of unconscious class warriors. Now it's time for us to realize that hatred of Bush is really hatred of the ruthless corporate oligarchy he represents.

The good news is that the increasing economic insecurity of the middle class in this country is reaching a critical mass. As Princeton economist and Hamilton Project participant Alan Blinder puts it, "There's a whole class of people who are smart, well educated and articulate, and politically involved who will not just sit there and take it." I'd like to think I'm one of those people, and I know a lot of others who fit that description. We have an opening. It will be an uphill battle.

Centrist Democrats are working as hard as Republicans to protect free trade, while the deregulated corporate media continues to block most discussion of class inequality-and almost no one is pointing out the connections between culture war and class war inequality.It's also likely that there are those Republicans who, having shot government in the head, would be quite content to see it flatline on a Democrat's watch.

They're already getting the Dems in the new Congress to do their dirty work. While the GOP continue their insatiable shrieking for more and more corporate welfare, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are returning to PAYGO standards-a move which would, without a return to fair taxation for the rich and big business, require that Democrats slash the remaining tatters of our social safety net.

No way.

That's not winning. We need a complete turnaround, not a slight course correction. Roll back obscene corporate welfare. Pass universal health care. Drop out of NAFTA, sign Kyoto, withdraw from Iraq. Return to FCC fairness and equal-time rules, and begin enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act again, beginning with the big media monopolies. Real public financing of elections and paper ballots.

If grass- and netroots Democrats can re-ignite the class war, the culture war will lose its wallop, and we might just stand a chance of, at least, beginning to think about the problems that are threatening our very survival.

Patricia Goldsmith is a member of Long Island Media Watch, a grassroots free media and democracy watchdog group. She can be reached at http://plgoldsmith@optonline.net.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

The North American Union?

The "plan to create" a North American Union in 2010 as a regional government—comprising a collective government for the United States, Canada, and Mexico—is "directly stated only" in the May 2005 task force report Building a North American Community published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Jerome Corsi wrote June 26, 2006.

The "blueprint" which President George W. Bush is following to create a North American Union was "laid out" in the May 2005 report, Corsi wrote May 19, 2006. "The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union."

Bush is "pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada," which, Corsi wrote, is "the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy."

The plan, Corsi wrote, is "contained" in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, "little noticed" by the mainstream media when President Bush, Mexico's President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "created it" March 23, 2005, in a summit held at Waco, Texas.

A North American Union is being created "through a process of governmental regulations" and without ever "having to bring the issue before the American people for a clear referendum or vote," Corsi wrote May 24, 2006.


Partnership for Prosperity

In September of 2001, during President Bush's first state visit, President Bush and President Fox launched the Partnership for Prosperity, a private-public alliance to harness the power of the private sector to foster an environment in which no Mexican feels compelled to leave his home for lack of jobs or opportunity."—Office of NAFTA and Inter-American Affairs [1]
[edit]

SPP Working Groups

Canada has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department," Corsi reported May 30, 2006. "Mexico has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created an extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de Améica del Norte (ASPAN). On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as 'a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America.'"

NAFTA Super-Highways

What is objectionable is the plan to form a European Union-style North American Super-Highway system whose primary goal is to establish trilateral links for the open passage of freight transportation and the virtually unrestrained 'migration' of people among the three countries. Building NAFTA Super-Highways that effectively erase the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada is a concern, especially if the NAFTA Super-Highways contribute to accomplishing in a de facto manner the integration of the United States into a North American Union, thereby threatening the currently established sovereignty of the United States," Corsi wrote June 30, 2006.

Permanent Tribunal

"The CFR plan clearly calls for the establishment of a 'permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution' as part of the new regional North American Union (NAU) governmental structure that is proposed to go into place in 2010," Corsi wrote June 19, 2006. This tribunal would "trump" the U.S. Supreme Court.

Biometric Border Pass

Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed through toll booths," Robert A. Pastor told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, June 9, 2005.

North American Emergency Management

North American Emergency Management (NAEM) is one of the priority initiatives set forth in the March 31, 2006, White House news release and the fact sheet posted on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America website.
The function of NAEM would be similar to that of FEMA's operations during Hurricane Katrina. In his September 20, 2005, article "Glimpse Into The Future Of Global Collectivism - FEMA: Katrina," Chris Gupta wrote:

The primary job of the military, FEMA, and Homeland Security is not to protect the American people in times of emergency but to protect the government in times of emergency and keep it functioning. Their primary assignment is, not to rescue people, but to control them. Their directive is to relocate families and businesses, confiscate property, commandeer goods, direct labor and services, and establish martial law. The reason FEMA and Homeland security failed to carry out an effective rescue operation [for Hurricane Katrina] is that this was not their primary mission, and the reason they blocked others from doing so is that any operations not controlled by the central authority are contrary to their directives. Their objective was to bring the entire area under the control of the federal government - and this they succeeded in doing very well. They did not fail in New Orleans. They were a huge success. Once this simple fact is understood, everything that happened in the wake of Katrina becomes understandable and logical.
"If there are new terrorist attacks against the United States or Great Britain (or any other country), what we witnessed in New Orleans may have been a glimpse into the future of global collectivism."

Bilateral and Trilateral Partnerships and Agreements
[edit]

U.S. Legislation & Executive Orders


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.