It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A conspiracy theory a few months ago, now it's a fact

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   


The lady details how NAFTA is going to take place. Will people finally wake up?



QUESTION EVERYTHING!

Yet, Newsweek ran an article about Ron Paul - Highway To Hell?


Ron Paul wants you to be scared. There's a conspiracy in the land—what he calls a "conspiracy of ideas"—to give up America's sovereignty. It's a shadowy scheme that begins with the NAFTA "superhighway," a road as wide as several football fields that will link Mexico, the United States and Canada. "They don't talk about it and they might not admit it," Paul said at the CNN-YouTube presidential debate last week. He didn't say exactly who "they" are, but perhaps one can guess. "They're planning on [taking] millions of acres … by eminent domain," warned the prickly libertarian. But elected government officials aren't acting alone. There's "an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments" pushing the idea, Paul wrote in October 2006. "The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union—complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union."


Article


[edit on 27-5-2008 by jhill76]




posted on May, 27 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
What was the air date of that CSPAN video?



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by primus2012
 


Around April 05-08, 2008



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Sorry, but the only thing this proves is that she read the same webpages that I did when I saw the same information months ago. The difference is that she bought everything hook, line, and sinker...whereas I laughed it off as paranoia.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
There is much opposition to the part of the highway system in Texas. Here is a link with information.

Corridor Watch



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Thanks for the link. I am just wondering who will have the last stand.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
The video is all basically fearmongering and filler. Generic politician stuff.

Can you explain why you oppose the Trans-Texas Corridor?



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I'm afraid I don't get the problem with a superhighway, aside from the tax payer expense and the the ground used for it. It's quiet routine for people to travel from and to Mexico, Canada, and the US. I've done so on business fairly often.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
The video is all basically fearmongering and filler. Generic politician stuff.

Can you explain why you oppose the Trans-Texas Corridor?




If americans and mexicans are united politically and economically, americans will have to get used to having to compete for jobs with people who accept wages much, much lower than americans get.


The question isn't whether or not the corporations hiring these people can afford to pay so much, or so little, but how much greater their profits will be when they cut their employee's salaries to 1/3rd of their original size.


We have made gains in this country via labor unions and struggles for civil rights, workers rights, etc. It is thanks to our sacrifices and risks and hard-earned progress that americans are paid what they are, but now the greedy and already rich aren't satisfied with their returns, and want to reduce your lifestyle to that of a subsistence wage earner in a 3rd world country, just so they can increase their already disgusting levels of profit.


It's sickening to me when a company makes arguments about not being able to afford health care plans, or higher wages... when their CEOs get paid 25,000 times what the bottom-level employee earns.


This NAU plan is just a way to get everyone under the same umbrella... and that of total corporate dominance over the populations in the name of profit, driving down wages, simplifying the paperwork, and diminishing the power and influence of the middle class.


Same thing with China. When americans are forced to compete for jobs when the company doing the hiring can employ slave labor, there's NO chance that they will choose an american at $15 an hour when they can pay some poor desperate Chinese $2 a day.


This is why our dollar is tanking. There is no productivity to tie it to. Without american products, our money becomes paper. The corporations we have built with blood, sweat, and tears for the last 3 decades are trying to throw us overboard and sail to foreign lands...

And all they can say is "nothing personal... but that's just business!"





[edit on 27-5-2008 by ianr5741]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
If you are not willing to accept that creating a mechanism to bypass the entire supply-chain distribution infrastructure our tax dollars payed to build in this country would be a problem, I don't know what to tell you that might make you understand what is happening here.

Virtually every interest that pushes for this 'plan' are profiteers either from outside this country or heavily vested in foreign finance. If you believe that 'eminent domain' is something you invoke to create wealth for private commercial interest, then you're not going to object when they come kick you off your land to do it.

The problem here is the stereotypical manner of 'conceal and misdirect' with which our 'public' officials have conducted their affairs. There should be NO possibility of a foreign company engaging in this kind or magnitude of an undertaking without a public debate taking place.

The fact that some of our congressional 'place holders' (I won't call them representatives) actually agreed to earmark tax payer money to 'study' this issue at all shows how they have twisted their purpose from serving the public to serving the businessmen in charge. If anything, they should have made the trillion-dollar industry pushing this 'plan' pay us for any such study - and consider it part of their 'cost of business'. Instead 'we' actually pay for it - without any say from us - because the 'decider' decided.

If you feel this is a non-issue, then I suppose the media has served their purpose. Personally, I can't imagine the sorrow that the top 1% of wealth holders will suffer when they see what they will have wrought upon this nation - probably none. Thank goodness this isn't a democracy but a constitutional republic which means that just because you're rich doesn't necessarily mean you can screw everyone else for the sake of your untaxed (foreign) profits.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I attended the April 5th rally at the Capitol in Austin opposing the Trans-Texas Corridor. The turnout was huge. Citizens are livid. This corridor will bypass American longshoremen and American truck drivers. Mexican workers will do the job for much less. This plan may very well eliminate any hope of secure borders and, ultimately, our sovereignty.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Sorry, but the only thing this proves is that she read the same webpages that I did when I saw the same information months ago. The difference is that she bought everything hook, line, and sinker...whereas I laughed it off as paranoia.

You think the NAU is paranoia? lol...have you done any research on the SPP? The idea of creating a North American Union to compete with the Euro union has been discussed openly in congress. Research first...opinion second.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ianr5741
(Big, long post)


That's nice.

Seven paragraphs and change, and still you didn't answer my question.
I'll try again.


Can you explain why you oppose the Trans-Texas Corridor?

[edit on 28-5-2008 by Johnmike]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


I oppose the trans-america corridor for these reasons.

1 Land will be taken from private citizens by eminent domain.

2 Existing state highways paid for by the taxpayers will be turned over to forgien corporations,and operated with a toll charge.

3 With a large corridor on which to travel,customs would not be able to search for contraband with the overflow of traffic.

4 The loss of longshoreman jobs and truck driver jobs here in the US would be devastating.

5 The corridor would allow a larger flow of undocumented aliens into the country.

Or do you consider these few points to be insignificant and political prattle



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Truckers are already cutting back witht eh price of gasm, it's making them have to make shorter trips and raising the cost for long distance ones.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CyberSEAL
 


Even if the NAU were true, is there anything wrong with competing against the European Union? I'm sorry but the biggest threat we have is not terrorism, it's the prospect of other nations opposed to U.S. policy that could be willing to use force against us. I for one, wont be opposing the NAU, it's about time we realize that if we're going to make it past this century we have to admit we're nothing more than an old bloated super power and need other's help to survive.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus24
reply to post by CyberSEAL
 


Even if the NAU were true, is there anything wrong with competing against the European Union? I'm sorry but the biggest threat we have is not terrorism, it's the prospect of other nations opposed to U.S. policy that could be willing to use force against us. I for one, wont be opposing the NAU, it's about time we realize that if we're going to make it past this century we have to admit we're nothing more than an old bloated super power and need other's help to survive.



I apologize if this is an unwelcome response - I know your comment was directed elsewhere.

Where is it written that we are COMPETING with anyone. The paradigm that this country is a business came from businessmen. This is NOT a business, this is a nation. We are not in a 'race' or a 'struggle' with anyone but ourselves. The United States government is a tool of the corporations and industries controlled by bankers and investment interests - THAT is why it seems we must COMPETE!

This is no game. We have the resources and means within our own national landscape (both physical and intellectual) to care for ALL of our citizens without having to yield to commercial interests abroad. The only reason we even entertain the notion is because the country is run by MBA's who think a country is one big corporation (or wish it were). Guess what, it's NOT!

I am a citizen NOT AN EMPLOYEE, I don't want to make a killing I want TO MAKE A LIVING and that's SHOULD be my right. Apparently those in the NAU camp think that it isn't, that it is their right to use their financial influence and position to marginalize any minor (non-corporate) citizens in the name of PROFIT.

Well many of my friends and I might say NOT IN MY BACKYARD!



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I beg everyone here to take a look further into the future.

Everything that's happening is pushing us to revolutionize humanity.

Higher gas prices are making us conscious of energy and technology development.

First EU, then AU, and then NAU. That's the majority of Earth's population in 3 "nations".

The next logical step would be a unified Earth.

Despite the problems with large bureaucracy, it will be a SINGLE bureaucracy.

That means ALL of the earth's wealth will be at the disposal of those in control.

That means more money for science, and unilateral decisions to end stupid wars that continue to plague the east and africa.

I see the future happening, are you ready?



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
I oppose the trans-america corridor for these reasons.

1 Land will be taken from private citizens by eminent domain.

2 Existing state highways paid for by the taxpayers will be turned over to forgien corporations,and operated with a toll charge.

3 With a large corridor on which to travel,customs would not be able to search for contraband with the overflow of traffic.

4 The loss of longshoreman jobs and truck driver jobs here in the US would be devastating.

5 The corridor would allow a larger flow of undocumented aliens into the country.

Or do you consider these few points to be insignificant and political prattle

I think they're significant. They're the first actual reasons to oppose it in this thread.


1. What's the magnitude of the land lost due to eminent domain?

2. What do you mean by state highways being turned over to corporations?

3. Why is this corridor making it harder for customs to search? If it's concentrating the flow of traffic, won't it be easier?

4. I'm not convinced that the increased ease of trade and lowered costs would outweigh the fact that foreign truck drivers may be cheaper (due to the absence of socialistic unions, perhaps?)

5. If this corridor is a mainstream, concentrated flow, why is this going to impact the number of illegal aliens entering the country? How does this compare to the way illegal aliens normally enter the country (ex. jumping over a fence, hiding in a car, etc.)?



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
A few months ago?? Try over a decade ago


Some of you must not remember this ...but Ross Perot, beginning back in 1992 when he first ran as an Independent Presidential candidate, told EVERYONE this about NAFTA in 30 minute no commercial tv spots he paid for with his own money.


Republican President George Bush completed NAFTA negotiations with Mexico in September 1992 and enthusiastically promoted the treaty during the campaign. Democratic challenger Bill Clinton took only a lukewarm position toward NAFTA, but two days after he was elected president, Clinton came out in favor of NAFTA and went on to promote its approval and ratification.

However, Perot, the third presidential candidate in 1992, made defeating NAFTA a crusade in 1993. Perot used the populist sentiment he had stirred up during the campaign to fight the treaty's approval in Congress, bringing significant domestic pressure to bear on the president's relationship with U.S. trading partners. In fact, Clinton was forced to reopen negotiations to work out side agreements on environment and labor...


www.questia.com...


We can thank Clinton for starting this train wreck rolling back in 1992.


[edit on 31-5-2008 by LateApexer313]

[edit on 31-5-2008 by LateApexer313]

[edit on 31-5-2008 by LateApexer313]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join