912 Patriots Of 
 South Jersey  P.O. Box 2662, Vincentown, New Jersey 08088
New Member Sign up

NAFTA

  • 18 Jul 2010 12:48 AM
    Message # 385631
    William (Administrator)
    North America Free Trade Agreement Truth or Fiction?
  • 18 Jul 2010 1:43 PM
    Reply # 385816 on 385631
    Anonymous
    You guys are really far out there... what do you mean? NAFTA has existed since '94.. before that it was called the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, which started in '88. Why wouldn't we have open trade with our Northern and Southern borders? What do you guys want, to be like North Korea and not let anyone in or out, not let anything be imported or exported? That's royally retarded. When you combine our GDP with Canada and Mexico, the trade block becomes the largest in the world and gives us purchasing power parity. Not everything is a conspiracy. Borders are just imaginary lines... we are connected to Canada and Mexico whether you like it or not. Our largest state is in Canada (Alaska) and our second largest state (Texas) was originally property of Mexico. Half of Texas is technically in Mexico. Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated.
  • 24 Jul 2010 1:14 PM
    Reply # 389386 on 385631
    What a GREAT meeting last night. Especially hearing the words directly from the architects themselves.
  • 29 Aug 2010 1:24 PM
    Reply # 410324 on 385631
    Anonymous

    Dear Anonymous,

    I am the presenter of this presentation, educated is exactly what what this presentation was about.

    I have been spent a lifetime studying this subject BEFORE NAFTA was passed in 1994.  The United States has been trading freely since its birth as a nation, under its own terms.  These Free Trade agreements have nothing to do with freed trade.  They have to do with controlled trade by an anti-American, unelected board of individuals.

    "After the highest court in Massachusetts rules against a Candadian real estate company and after the United States Supreme Court declined to hear its appeal, the company's day in court was over.

    Or so thought Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall of the Massachusetts court, until she learned of yet another layer of judicial review, by an international tribunal.

    'I was at a dinner party,' Chief Justice Marshall said in a recent telephone interview, 'To say I was surprised to hear that a judgement of this court was being subjected to further review would an understatemnet.'

    Tribunals like the one that ruled on the Massachusetts case were created by the North American Free Trade Agreement, and they have heard two challenges to American court judgement.  In the other, the tribunal declared a Mississippi court's judgement as odds with international law, leaving the United States government potentially liable for hundreds of millions of dollars." - The New York Times Sunday April 18, 2004

  • 29 Aug 2010 1:25 PM
    Reply # 410325 on 410324
    Anonymous
    Anonymous wrote:

    Dear Anonymous,

    I am the presenter of this presentation, educated is exactly what what this presentation was about.

    I have been spent a lifetime studying this subject BEFORE NAFTA was passed in 1994.  The United States has been trading freely since its birth as a nation, under its own terms.  These Free Trade agreements have nothing to do with freed trade.  They have to do with controlled trade by an anti-American, unelected board of individuals.

    "After the highest court in Massachusetts rules against a Candadian real estate company and after the United States Supreme Court declined to hear its appeal, the company's day in court was over.

    Or so thought Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall of the Massachusetts court, until she learned of yet another layer of judicial review, by an international tribunal.

    'I was at a dinner party,' Chief Justice Marshall said in a recent telephone interview, 'To say I was surprised to hear that a judgement of this court was being subjected to further review would an understatemnet.'

    Tribunals like the one that ruled on the Massachusetts case were created by the North American Free Trade Agreement, and they have heard two challenges to American court judgement.  In the other, the tribunal declared a Mississippi court's judgement as odds with international law, leaving the United States government potentially liable for hundreds of millions of dollars." - The New York Times Sunday April 18, 2004


  • 29 Aug 2010 1:26 PM
    Reply # 410326 on 410325
    Anonymous
    Anonymous wrote:
    Anonymous wrote:

    Dear Anonymous,

    I am the presenter of this presentation, educated is exactly what what this presentation was about.

    I have been spent a lifetime studying this subject BEFORE NAFTA was passed in 1994.  The United States has been trading freely since its birth as a nation, under its own terms.  These Free Trade agreements have nothing to do with freed trade.  They have to do with controlled trade by an anti-American, unelected board of individuals.

    "After the highest court in Massachusetts rules against a Candadian real estate company and after the United States Supreme Court declined to hear its appeal, the company's day in court was over.

    Or so thought Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall of the Massachusetts court, until she learned of yet another layer of judicial review, by an international tribunal.

    'I was at a dinner party,' Chief Justice Marshall said in a recent telephone interview, 'To say I was surprised to hear that a judgement of this court was being subjected to further review would an understatemnet.'

    Tribunals like the one that ruled on the Massachusetts case were created by the North American Free Trade Agreement, and they have heard two challenges to American court judgement.  In the other, the tribunal declared a Mississippi court's judgement as odds with international law, leaving the United States government potentially liable for hundreds of millions of dollars." - The New York Times Sunday April 18, 2004



  • 29 Aug 2010 1:50 PM
    Reply # 410333 on 385631
    Anonymous

    Trade Body Rules Against U.S. Ban on Web Gambling" - The New York Times Thursday, March 25, 2004

    The article goes on to say "The ruling call into question proposals in Congress.."  International socialists question U.S. Congress?  Our country can not outlaw e-gambling?  We have no say in what goes on in our country by our own government?

    The United States has no say (no sovereignty) over its own laws.  In this case, the WTO.  GATT (The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) was originally passed during a lame-duck session during the Clinton administration.

    Of course GATT was discussed in "A World Effective Controlled by The United Nations" by Richard Gardner in Foreign Affairs 1974

    "Governor Schwarzenegger's advisors warned that proposed tax incentives meant to encourage road builders to grind up California's harvest of 32 million used tires and blend them with asphalt [to build roads] would violate NAFTA by putting Canadian and Mexican recyclers at a disadvantage.  Schwarzenegger vetoes the bill." - March 7, 2005

    All one needs to do is study the documents and quotes of those who promoted NAFTA and the so-called trade agreements that followed.

    "NAFTA will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere...[NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system."  former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (CFR) in a Los Angeles Times column, July 18, 1993

    Had been educated, you would know the history, quotes and such important documents such as "Building a North American Community."

    You are not only uneducated but because the facts are being laid out right before your very eyes by those who created NAFTA, you are also ignorant.

     

     

     
 There can only be one truth.   Copyright 2010, 2011  912 Patriots of South Jersey  What is Truth?
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software