Canada, U.S. agree to use each other’s troops in civil emergencies
By Ottawa Citizen
Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.
Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.
The U.S. military’s Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.
The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.
The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.
“It’s kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites,” said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.
Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.
“Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?” he asked.
Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. “We don’t know the answers because the government doesn’t want to even announce the plan,” he said.
But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used.
He said the agreement is “benign” and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.
“But there’s no agreement to allow troops to come in,” he said. “It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The ‘allow’ piece is entirely up to the two governments.”
If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.
News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.
On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a “North American union” where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.
“Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!” notes one website. “The next time your town has a ‘national emergency,’ don’t be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember — Canadian military aren’t bound by posse comitatus.”
Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.
Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet.
Panetta Warns Israel on Consequences of Iran Military Strike
By Jennifer Griffin
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said ahead of a meeting Friday with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that he would warn his Israeli counterpart about the global economic consequences of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear program, adding that he still favors sanctions and diplomacy over a strike.
“To go beyond (sanctions and diplomacy) raises our concerns about the unintended consequences that could result. … There are going to be economic consequences to that, that could impact not just on our economy but the world economy,” Panetta told those travelling with him to Halifax, Canada.
Some Republican lawmakers are complaining the Obama administration is sending a schizophrenic message to Iran and the region. On one hand, it is projecting that the Pentagon now has 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs capable of striking an underground WMD program and selling smaller bunker busters to Iran’s neighbors such as the United Arab Emirates.
Yet officials are warning about the dire implications of a military strike.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, however, said Friday that the military option is not off the table. “I don’t choose to talk about our discussions with our Israeli partners, but I will tell you we are on a dual- track approach, economic and diplomatic, with never taking the military option off the table. And I think that’s the right place to be,” he said, when asked what the message to Israel would be regarding a potential military strike on Iran’s nuclear program.
Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois is sponsoring legislation, which was introduced Friday, to sanction Iran’s Central Bank, but says he is frustrated that the U.S. Treasury is not pushing harder to tighten sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank.
“I’m worried that the Obama administration policy on Iran is one becoming aggressive weakness,” Kirk said. “They are not taking any real action against the Central Bank of Iran or other parts of the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran and then telling everyone else that they shouldn’t do anything either.”
Adam Szubin, director of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, said at a House hearing Tuesday that the Central Bank sanctions could actually benefit Iran while hurting the U.S. and global economies by causing oil prices to spike.
“If there is a hike in the price of oil, Iran gains. If there is a spike in the price of oil … there could be profound harm to the global economic recovery and a windfall to Iran,” he said.
A Treasury source said Friday that the department is “eager” to work with Congress on new ways to pressure Iran, “but it is critically important that the steps we take do not destabilize the U.S. and global economy while potentially benefiting Iran.”
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he thinks both the U.S. and Israel are torn over how to approach Iran.
“I think the Israeli government is divided in some respects like our own over the right approach to take,” Gates said, in an exclusive interview set to air Saturday on Fox Business Network’s “Tom Sullivan Show.“ “The former heard of Mossad has been out saying what a terrible mistake a military strike would be. Others cite the existential threat … a nuclear-armed Iran poses for Israel. So I think there are both sides of the issue.”
Gates said he thinks “we have a little more time” to “squeeze the regime.”
Meanwhile, the White House welcomed a resolution from the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors Friday chastising Iran for its continued alleged efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said it will increase pressure on Iran to abandon its drive for a nuclear bomb — but did not specify how it would do so.
Kirk said the White House won’t take action against Iran next year because of fears that the oil markets could be disrupted. About 40 percent of the world’s oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz next to Iran.
The administration is “afraid of any instability and oil markets, and therefore wants to take no decisive action,” Kirk said. “They’ll give some pretty good speeches against Iran, but they will not take decisive economic action. That may be because they don’t want disruption in Western economies, worried about prospects for the campaign.”
The Suicide Of America – Diversity Versus Freedom
By Frosty Wooldridge
Suicide of a Superpower
By Pat Buchanan
By watching the “Occupy Wall Street” or any other city in America in the past week, you’re watching the beginning mobs that roam around America’s urban areas attempting to jolt the system that created 15 million unemployed and another 7 million underemployed.
While rich CEOs enjoy $5 million bonuses, countless millions of Americans stand in food stamp lines-as of October 2011-45.2 million of us subsist on food stamps.
Who created this mess?
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802, “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
In 1913, a few wealthy bankers pushed through the Federal Reserve System currently run by the banker elite Ben Bernanke. They commandeered America’s money and fulfilled Jefferson’s prediction. Today, the moneyed elite control Congress. Thus, they control our jobs and lives.
In his new book, Suicide of a Superpower, Patrick Buchanan predicts the loss of our nation via mass immigration and population overload. He clearly points to the markers taking down America.
Chapter 3. The Crisis of Catholicism. Buchanan said, “Half a century on, the disaster is manifest. The robust and confident Church of 1958 no longer exists. Catholic colleges and universities remain Catholic in name only. Parochial schools and high schools are closing as rapidly as they opened in the 1950s. The numbers of nuns, priests and seminarians have fallen dramatically. Mass attendance is a third of what it was. From the former Speaker of the House to the Vice President, Catholic politicians openly support abortion on demand. How can Notre Dame credibly teach that all innocent life is sacred, and then honor a president committed to ensuring that a woman’s right to end the life of her innocent child remains sacrosanct?”
Chapter 4. The End of White America. Buchanan said, “White America is an endangered species. By 2020, whites over 65 will out-number those 17 and under. Deaths will exceed births. The white population will begin to shrink and, should present birth rates persist, slowly disappear.”
The European tribe continues its inexorable decline in Europe, Canada, Australia the United States. While European’s see their societies decline, others cheer such as Mexico.
“Mexico is moving north,” said Buchanan. “Ethnically, linguistically and culturally, the verdict of 1848 is being over-turned. Will this Mexican nation within a nation advance the goals of the Constitution — to “insure domestic tranquility” and “make us a more perfect union”? Or have we imperiled our union?”
As Mexico expects to add another 35 to 40 million by mid century, it will continue to unload its excess, poverty stricken and unsustainable population load onto U.S. soil. At the current rate of mass immigration into the United States from the third world, white America will become a minority within 30 years. Mexicans will take over the Southwest by sheer birthrates. We may expect massively entrenched poverty.
In a recent meeting in Conifer, Colorado, former U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo said, “We are importing mass poverty into America. We will not be able to solve it.”
Chapter 6. Equality Vs. Freedom. Buchanan said, “Those who would change society begin by changing the meaning of words. At Howard University, LBJ changed the meaning of equality from the attainable — an end to segregation and a legislated equality of rights for African-Americans — to the impossible: a socialist utopia. Where equality is enthroned, freedom is extinguished. The rise of the egalitarian society means the death of the free society.”
“A time for truth. As most kids do not have the athletic ability to play high school sports, or the musical ability to play in the band, or the verbal ability to excel in debate, not every child has the academic ability to do high school work. No two children are created equal, not even identical twins. The family is the incubator of inequality and God its author.”
Buchanan hits on America’s most pressing problem: illiteracy. That single word defines the dilemma of the third world. The more the illiteracy, the more poverty, the more poverty, the more babies-80 million added annually, net gain. The more babies, the more hopeless every country’s exceeding its carrying capacity. Somalia grows as a stark reminder that just feeding starving children only begets millions more starving and illiterate young adults-who reproduce more of themselves and their predicament.
A startling 76 percent flunkout/dropout rate in the overwhelmingly minority city of Detroit, Michigan bears out the reality of illiteracy. A mind numbing 68 percent of African-American children are born to single mothers in the United States. Most of those mothers subsist on welfare.
Less than 50 percent of Blacks and Hispanics graduate from high school. About 30 percent of Whites fail to graduate. Thus, today in America, 42 million Americans cannot read, write or perform simple math. Another 50 million cannot read past the 4th grade level.
· 42 million American adults can’t read at all; 50 million are unable to read at a higher level that is expected of a fourth or fifth grader.
· The number of adults that are classified as functionally illiterate increases by about 2.25 million each year.
· 20 percent of high school seniors can be classified as being functionally illiterate at the time they graduate.
Source: National Right to Read Foundation
Where Illiteracy Leads
· 70 percent of prisoners in state and federal systems can be classified as illiterate. [2.3 million Americans languish in jails]
85 percent of all juvenile offenders rate as functionally or marginally illiterate.
· 43 percent of those whose literacy skills are lowest live in poverty.
NBC anchor Brian Williams reported that 1.2 million teens hit America’s streets every June unable to read or write. Detroit, Michigan epitomizes this country’s educational dilemma.
CNN reported on August 30, 2010, “7,000 American high school students drop out every day; one every 26 seconds.”
Our civilization, as Buchanan so amply states, cannot survive the massive immigration numbers currently entering annually at 3.1 million. This includes legal, illegal and their children. (www.cis.org, Dr. Steven Camarata)
As Buchanan said, “We are trying to create a nation that has never before existed, of all the races, tribes, cultures and creeds of Earth, where all are equal. In this utopian drive for the perfect society of our dreams we are killing the real country we inherited — the best and greatest country on earth.”
1. Immediate moratorium of all immigration into America to save what’s left of our culture, language and success.
2. Immediate mandate of English as the primary language in all media in America.
3. Immediate stopping of all birth right citizenship.
4. Immediate passing and enforcement of E-Verify to guarantee 8 to 10 million new jobs for American citizens.
5. Immediate welfare to workfare programs.
6. Immediate teaching of personal accountability and responsibility in our school systems.
7. Immediate end to our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The following videos show where we’re headed if we fail to stop mass immigration: “Immigration, Poverty, and Gum Balls”, Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.ORG, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE&feature=player_embedded
“Immigration by the numbers-off the chart” by Roy Beck
This 10 minute demonstration shows Americans the results of unending mass immigration on the quality of life and sustainability for future generations: www.NumbersUSA.org
War on the ‘Red Empire’: How America planned for an attack on BRITAIN in 1930 with bombing raids and chemical weapons
By David Gerrie
Details of an amazing American military plan for an attack to wipe out a major part of the British Army are today revealed for the first time.
In 1930, a mere nine years before the outbreak of World War Two, America drew up proposals specifically aimed at eliminating all British land forces in Canada and the North Atlantic, thus destroying Britain’s trading ability and bringing the country to its knees.
Previously unparalleled troop movements were launched as an overture to an invasion of Canada, which was to include massive bombing raids on key industrial targets and the use of chemical weapons, the latter signed off at the highest level by none other than the legendary General Douglas MacArthur.
The plans, revealed in a Channel 5 documentary, were one of a number of military contingency plans drawn up against a number of potential enemies, including the Caribbean islands and China. There was even one to combat an internal uprising within the United States.
In the end there was no question of President Franklin D. Roosevelt subscribing to what was known as War Plan Red. Instead the two countries became the firmest of allies during WW2, an occasionally strained alliance that continues to this day.
Still, it is fascinating that there were enough people inside the American political and military establishment who thought that such a war was feasible.
While outside of America, both Churchill and Hitler also thought it a possibility during the 30s – a time of deep economic and political uncertainty.
In 1930, a mere nine years before the outbreak of World War Two, America drew up a terrifying plan specifically aimed at eliminating all British land forces in Canada and the North Atlantic, thus destroying Britain’s trading ability and bringing our country to its knees
The documents, were unearthed buried deep within the American National Archives in Washington, D.C. – a top-secret document once regarded as the most sensitive on earth
The top-secret papers seen here – once regarded as the most sensitive on Earth – were found buried deep within the American National Archives in Washington, D.C.
The highly classified files reveal that huge pushes were to be made into the Caribbean and West Coast to block any British retaliation from either Europe, India or Australia.
In 1931, the U.S. government even authorised record-breaking transatlantic flying hero and known Nazi sympathiser Charles A. Lindbergh to be sent covertly as a spy to the west shore of Hudson Bay to investigate the possibility of using sea-planes for warfare and seek out points of low resistance as potential bridgeheads.
In 1931, the U.S. government authorised transatlantic flying hero and known Nazi sympathiser Charles Lindbergh to be sent covertly as a spy to the west shore of Hudson Bay
In 1931, the U.S. authorised flying hero and known Nazi sympathiser Charles Lindbergh to be sent as a spy to Hudson Bay to look into using sea-planes for warfare and seek out points of low resistance as potential bridgeheads
Four years later, the U.S. Congress authorised $57million to be allocated for the building of three secret airfields on the U.S. side of the Canadian border, with grassed-over landing strips to hide their real purpose.
All governments make ‘worst case scenario’ contingency plans which are kept under wraps from the public. These documents were unearthed buried deep within the American National Archives in Washington, D.C. – a top-secret document once regarded as the most sensitive on earth.
It was in 1930, that America first wrote a plan for war with ‘The Red Empire‘ – its most dangerous empire.
But America’s foe in this war was not Russia or Japan or even the burgeoning Nazi Germany.
Plan Red was code for an apocalyptic war with Britain and all her dominions.
After the 1918 Armistice and throughout the 1920s, America’s historic anti-British feelings handed down from the 19th century were running dangerously high due to our owing the U.S. £9billion for their intervention in The Great War.
British feeling against America was known to be reciprocal.
By the 1930s, America saw the disturbing sight of homegrown Nazi sympathisers marching down New York’s Park Avenue to converge on a pro-Hitler rally in Madison Square Garden.
Across the Atlantic, Britain had the largest empire in the world, not to mention the most powerful navy.
Against this backdrop, some Americans saw their nation emerging as a potential world leader and knew only too well how Britain had dealt with such upstarts in the past – it went to war and quashed them.
Now, America saw itself as the underdog in a similar scenario.
In 1935, America staged its largest-ever military manoeuvres, moving troops to and installing munitions dumps at Fort Drum, half an hour away from the eastern Canadian border.
By the 1930s, America saw the disturbing sight of homegrown Nazi sympathisers marching down New York’s Park Avenue to converge on a pro-Hitler rally in Madison Square Garden
It was from here the initial attack on British citizens would be launched, with Halifax, Nova Scotia, its first target.
‘This would have meant six million troops fighting on America’s eastern seaboard,’ says Peter Carlson, editor of American History magazine.
WAR PLAN RED, GREEN, PURPLE…
During the 1920s and 30s, the U.S. devised several colour-coded war plans to deal with potential adversaries.
Many of these war games were submitted to the Military Information Division by officers working in their own time.
Among the contingency plans developed were:
Orange: War against Japan
Green: Against Mexico
Purple: South America
White: Domestic uprising
Grey: Caribbean republics
Not surprisingly, many of these were hypothetical exercises – and provided only broad strategic outlines.
However, the planning was considered by the military to be good practice for its personnel.
‘It would have been like Verdun,’ alluding to the brutal conflict between German and French troops in 1916 which resulted in a death toll of 306,000.
Even Winston Churchill said while people regarded a war with the U.S. as inconceivable, it was not.
‘America felt Britain had thrown it under the bus in order to stay top dog,’ says Professor Mike Vlahos, of the U.S. Naval War College.
‘The U.S. was forced to contemplate any measure to keep Britain at bay.’
Even Hitler thought such a war was inevitable, but astonishingly wanted Britain to win, believing that to be the best outcome for Germany, since the UK could then join his forces to attack the U.S.
‘You have to remember the U.S. was born out of a revolutionary struggle against Britain in 1776,‘ says Dr. John H. Maurer, of the U.S. Naval War College.
Using available blueprints for this war, modern-day military and naval experts now believe the most likely outcome of such a conflict would have been a massive naval battle in the North Atlantic with very few actual deaths, but ending with Britain handing Canada over to the U.S. in order to preserve our vital trade routes.
However, on June 15, 1939, the same year as the German invasion of Poland, an internal U.S. memo states these plans for an invasion were ‘wholly inapplicable‘, but nevertheless ‘should be retained’ for the future.
This is now seen as the dawn of and prime reason behind the ‘special relationship‘ between our two countries.
Huge troop movements were launched as an overture to an invasion of Canada, which was to include bombing raids on industrial targets and the use of chemical weapons – the latter signed off by the legendary General Douglas MacArthur.
Isolationism, prosperity and decline: America after WWI
As close allies in numerous conflicts, Britain and America have long enjoyed a ‘special relationship’.
Stemming from Churchill and Roosevelt, it has since flourished – from Thatcher and Reagan, and Clinton and Blair, to the Queen and Obama.
We know now that FDR ultimately rejected an invasion of Britain as ‘wholly inapplicable’.
But just how special was that relationship in the decade leading up to WWII?
By the start of the 1920s, the American economy was booming.
The ‘Roaring Twenties’ was an age of increased consumer spending and mass production.
But after the First World War, U.S. public opinion was becoming increasingly isolationist.
This was reflected in its refusal to join the League of Nations, whose principal mission was to maintain world peace.
U.S. foreign policy continued to cut itself off from the rest of the world during that period by imposing tariffs on imports to protect domestic manufacturers.
After a decade of prosperity and optimism, America was thrown into despair when the stock market crashed in October 1929 – marking the start of the Great Depression
These children were part of a squatter community, known bitterly as ‘Hoovervilles’ because of the President’s inability to even admit to the existence of a national crisis after the stock market crash in 1929
And its liberal approach to immigration was also changing.
Millions of people, mainly from Europe, had previously been welcomed to America in search of a better life.
But by 1921, quotas were introduced and, by 1929, only 150,000 immigrants per year were allowed in.
After a decade of prosperity and optimism, America was thrown into despair when the stock market crashed in October 1929 – marking the start of the Great Depression.
The ensuing economic hardship and mass unemployment sealed the fate of President Herbert Hoover’s re-election – and Franklin D Roosevelt stormed to victory in March 1933.
He was faced with an economy on the brink of collapse: banks had been shut in 32 states, and some 17million people had been thrown out of work — almost a third of the adult workforce.
And the reality of a worldwide economic depression and the need for increased attention to domestic problems only served to bolster the idea that the U.S. should isolate itself from troubling events in Europe.
When Franklin D Roosevelt was elected as President in 1933, he was faced with an economy on the brink of collapse
When Franklin D Roosevelt was elected as President in 1933, he was faced with an economy on the brink of collapse. Banks had been shut in 32 states, and some 17million people had been thrown out of work
However, this view was at odds with FDR’s vision.
He realised the necessity for the U.S. to participate more actively in international affairs – but isolationist sentiment remained high in Congress.
In 1933, President Roosevelt proposed a Congressional measure that would have granted him the right to consult with other nations to place pressure on aggressors in international conflicts.
The bill faced strong opposition from leading isolationists in Congress.
As tensions rose in Europe over the rise of the Nazis, Congress brought in a set of Neutrality Acts to stop America becoming entangled in external conflicts.
Although Roosevelt was not in favour of the policy, he acquiesced as he still needed Congressional support for his New Deal programmes, which were designed to bring the country out of the Depression.
By 1937, the situation in Europe was growing worse and the second Sino-Japanese War began in Asia.
In a speech, he compared international aggression to a disease that other nations must work to ‘quarantine’.
But still, Americans were not willing to risk their lives for peace abroad – even when war broke out in Europe in 1939.
A slow shift in public opinion saw limited U.S. aid to the Allies.
And then the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor in December 1941 changed everything.
China Wants To Construct A 50 Square Mile Self-Sustaining City South Of Boise, Idaho
Thanks to the trillions of dollars that the Chinese have made flooding our shores with cheap products, China is now in a position of tremendous economic power. So what is China going to do with all of that money? One thing that they have decided to do is to buy up pieces of the United States and set up “special economic zones” inside our country from which they can continue to extend their economic domination. One of these “special economic zones” would be just south of Boise, Idaho and the Idaho government is eager to give it to them. China National Machinery Industry Corporation (Sinomach for short) plans to construct a “technology zone” south of Boise Airport which would ultimately be up to 50 square miles in size. The Chinese Communist Party is the majority owner of Sinomach, so the 10,000 to 30,000 acre “self-sustaining city” that is being planned would essentially belong to the Chinese government. The planned “self-sustaining city” in Idaho would include manufacturing facilities, warehouses, retail centers and large numbers of homes for Chinese workers. Basically it would be a slice of communist China dropped right into the middle of the United States.
According to the Idaho Statesman, the idea would be to build a self-contained city with all services included. It would be modeled after the “special economic zones” that currently exist in China.
Perhaps the most famous of these “special economic zones” is Shenzhen. Back in the 1970s, Shenzhen was just a very small fishing village. Today it is a sprawling metropolis of over 14 million people.
If the Chinese have their way, we will soon be seeing these “special economic zones” pop up all over the United States.
So exactly who is “Sinomach”?
The following description of the company comes directly from the website of Sinomach….
With approval of the State Council, China National Machinery Industry Corporation (SINOMACH) was established in January 1997. SINO-MACH is a large scale, state-owned enterprise group under the supervision of the State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission.
As you can see, Sinomach is basically an arm of the Chinese government.
The borrower is always the servant of the lender, and now China is buying up America.
The reality is that Sinomach is not looking only at Idaho. Sinomach is in discussions to develop “special economic zones” all over the United States.
Sinomach has recently dispatched delegations to Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania to explore the possibility of establishing “special economic zones” in those states.
Will such “self-contained communities” soon start appearing from coast to coast?
According to Dr. Jerome Corsi, the U.S. government has already set up 257 “foreign trade zones” across America. These “foreign trade zones” will apparently be given “special U.S. customs treatment” and will be used to promote global free trade….
“The FTZs tend to be located near airports, with easy access into the continental NAFTA and WTO multi-modal transportation systems being created to move free-trade goods cheaply, quickly and efficiently throughout the continent of North America.”
So what do our politicians think about all of this?
Most of them are greatly in favor of it.
“Idaho’s the last state that should say we don’t want to do business with Asia,” Idaho Lt. Gov. Brad Little said last year. “Asia’s where the money is.”
So will all of this “foreign investment” really bring jobs back to the American people?
Perhaps a few, but the truth is that these “special economic zones” that the Chinese are setting up are designed to be self-contained communist Chinese communities. Some Americans will likely be employed in these areas, but not nearly as many as our politicians would have you to believe.
In addition, these “special economic zones” represent a massive national security threat. The communist Chinese could potentially be able to bring in and store massive amounts of military equipment virtually undetected.
In the days of the Cold War, we would have never dreamed of giving the Russians a 50 square mile city in the middle of Idaho.
But today we have become convinced that the communist Chinese want to be our great friends.
The following quote originally appeared in the Idaho Statesman, but has since apparently been taken down….
“The Chinese are looking for a beachhead in the United States,” said Idaho Commerce Secretary Don Dietrich. “Idaho is ready to give them one.”
If relations between the U.S. and China go south someday, we will deeply regret giving China so many open doors.
The truth is that you can never fully trust the communist Chinese. Their top military officers talk about a coming conflict with the United States all the time. China is extremely interested in North America. In fact, the Chinese and the Mexicans have even been holding talks on military cooperation.
But even if you don’t consider the communist Chinese to be a military threat, you should be deeply concerned about the economic implications of what is happening.
Today, tens of millions of Americans are wondering why the economy is so bad.
Well, there are a lot of reasons, but the fact that we have sent China thousands of our factories, millions of our jobs and trillions of dollars of our national wealth is a major contributing factor.
If you do not know the truth about how badly the Chinese economy is wiping the floor with the Americen economy then you need to read this article: “40 Signs The Chinese Economy Is Beating The Living Daylights Out Of The U.S. Economy”.
Beautiful new infrastructure is going up all over China today, and meanwhile many of our once great manufacturing cities are turning into rotted-out war zones.
China would not be what they are today if we had insisted that they abandon the communist system and respect basic human rights before we ever opened up trade with them.
But that did not happen. Instead we enthusiastically welcomed China into the WTO and we let the predatory Chinese system run wild.
In 2010, China had a “current account balance” of over 272 billion dollars, which was the largest in the world.
In 2010, the United States had a “current account balance” of negative 561 billion dollars. According to the CIA world factbook, that put us in last place in the entire world. In fact, our negative current account balance was more than 9 times larger than anyone else in the world. If you go check out this chart it will give you a really good idea of how nightmarish our trade situation has become.
The world is changing and nothing is ever going to be the same again.
Just ask the residents of Boise, Idaho – they are about to have a 50 square mile self-contained communist Chinese city plopped right into their backyard.
The ghost towns of China: Amazing satellite images show cities meant to be home to millions lying deserted
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:53 AM on 18th December 2010
These amazing satellite images show sprawling cities built in remote parts of China that have been left completely abandoned, sometimes years after their construction.
Elaborate public buildings and open spaces are completely unused, with the exception of a few government vehicles near communist authority offices.
Some estimates put the number of empty homes at as many as 64 million, with up to 20 new cities being built every year in the country’s vast swathes of free land.
The photographs have emerged as a Chinese government think tank warns that the country’s real estate bubble is getting worse, with property prices in major cities overvalued by as much as 70 per cent.
Ghost city: Kangbashi was meant to be the urban centre for wealthy coal-mining community Ordos and home to its one million workers, but its roads are eerily empty and the houses stand vacant
The mostly empty city of Bayannao¿er, which boasts a beautiful town hall and World Bank-sponsored water reclamation building
Of the 35 major cities surveyed, property prices in eleven including Beijing and Shanghai were between 30 and 50 per cent above their market value, the China Daily said, citing the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Prices in Fuzhou, capital of the southeastern province of Fujian, had the worst property bubble with average house prices more than 70 per cent higher than their market value, according to the survey conducted in September.
The average price in the 35 cities surveyed was nearly 30 per cent above the market value, the report said.
Property prices have remained stubbornly high despite the government adopting a slew of measures since April including hiking minimum downpayments to at least 30 per cent and ordering banks not to provide loans for third home purchases.
Prices in 70 major cities were up 0.2 per cent in October from the previous month and 8.6 percent higher than a year ago, official data showed.
The increase came after prices gained 0.5 per cent month on month in September, which was the first increase since May.
Property bubble: Zhengzhou New District features vast public buildings that have never been used
Half of Erenhot is empty. The other half is unfinished
Now here’s Kangbashi, a new city with capacity for 300,000 — that houses 30,000
Massive stimulus measures taken since 2008 to fend off the financial crisis injected huge amounts of liquidity in the market and have been blamed for fuelling real estate prices.
‘The government target is not clear and policy is incoherent,’ CASS senior research Ni Pengfei was quoted saying.
According to research carried out by Time magazine, fixed-asset investment in the Asian country accounted for more than 90 per cent of its overall growth – with residential and commercial real estate investment making up nearly a quarter of that.
Regional governments across China have been building massive real estate projects, including Kangbashi in Inner Mongolia and Zhengzhou New District, which have remained empty, because of the high prices and interest in investment.
Kangbashi, which was built in just five years, was meant to be the urban centre for Ordos City – a wealthy coal-mining hub home to 1.5million people.
It was filled with office towers, administrative centres, museums, theatres and sports facilities as well as thousands of homes, but remains virtually deserted.
The ghost city of Dantu has been mostly empty for over a decade
The orange area to the north-east of the Xinyang has yet to be occupied
No cars in the city except for approximately 100 clustered around the government headquarters
Zhengzhou New District residential towers: Soaring property prices in China and high levels of investment has fuelled the construction of up several new cities. Experts fear a subsequent property crash could damage the global economy
Prices have continued to soar, investors have increasingly turned to property speculation fuelling the continued bubble.
The onset of the 2008 global recession was the bursting of the real estate bubble in the U.S. and experts fear a similar situation in China could prove catastrophic for still struggling economies and banking systems.
Beijing has introduced measures to cool ‘ridiculous’ property prices, but the risks of a crash mean the campaign is unlikely to ease up in the next year.
Public discontent has been fuelled by high prices in China’s cities and the measures, introduced in April, have made it more difficult for speculators and developers to hoard land and chase up prices as lending has been restricted.
Wang Shi, chairman of China Vanke – the country’s largest property developer – said: ‘Tightening measures will not loosen next year.
‘If we can control the pace of property price gains within a reasonable range, it’s already an achievement.’
In most neighbourhoods of Dantu, there are no cars, no signs of life
A giant empty hotel sits in the city of Erenhot
This city was built in the middle of a desert: Erenhot, Xilin Gol, Inner Mongolia
Property sales for Vanke already exceeded $15billion so far this year, but Mr Shi has insisted China will not end up in a worse place than Dubai – where a property price bubble imploded during the global financial crisis.
He said: ‘It could be really, really bad without the government stepping in.
‘If the bubble bursts, Japan’s past will be China’s present.’
But short-seller Jim Chanos has issued a more dire warning, and said he expected China’s economy to implode in a real estate bust.
He said the country was ‘on an economic treadmill to hell’ and the country’s bubble was ‘Dubai times 1,000’.
In the 1980s, Tokyo saw a massive rise in property prices and a subsequent crash. The Hong Kong property market experienced a similar phenomenon in the 1990s.
This $19 billion development is packed with blocks of empty houses
This giant new development doesn’t even have a name yet
G8 leaders omit mention of 1967 borders in Middle East statement
Diplomats say that Canada objected to a specific mention of the 1967 borders in statement issued by world leaders calling for resumption of Israel-Palestinian peace talks.
Group of Eight leaders had to soften a statement urging Israel and the Palestinians to return to negotiations because Canada objected to a specific mention of 1967 borders, diplomats said on Friday.
Canada’s right-leaning Conservative government has adopted a staunchly pro-Israel position in international negotiations since coming to power in 2006, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper saying Canada will back Israel whatever the cost.
Stephen Harper May 27, 2011 (Reuters)
Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper (R) chats with Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron as they walk to the G8 Summit in Deauville May 27, 2011.
Diplomats involved in Middle East discussions at the G8 summit said Canada had insisted that no mention of Israel’s pre-1967 borders be made in the leaders’ final communique, even though most of the other leaders wanted a mention.
“The Canadians were really very adamant, even though Obama expressly referred to 1967 borders in his speech last week,” one European diplomat said.
A spokesman for Harper would not comment on the line Canada had taken, saying only that the final communique would make positions clear.
In the final communique, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters, the leaders call for the immediate resumption of peace talks but do not mention 1967, the year Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt during the Six-Day War.
“Negotiations are the only way toward a comprehensive and lasting resolution to the conflict,” the communique said.
“The framework for these negotiations is well known. We urge both parties to return to substantive talks with a view to concluding a framework agreement on all final status issues.
“To that effect, we express our strong support for the vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace outlined by President Obama on May 19, 2011.”
In his speech last week, Obama said pre-1967 borders should be a basis of talks to achieve a negotiated settlement, although he also acknowledged any agreement would ultimately involve land swaps on either side of the border.
That position was rejected by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said Israel would be indefensible if it returned entirely to the borders that existed before 1967.
Canada’s strong backing for Israel was cited by diplomats last year as one reason why Canada failed to win a rotating two-year seat on the United Nations Security Council.
Harper has made is position on Israel very clear, saying last year: “When Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack, is consistently and
conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand.”
When I think of paying with plastic, I think of credit or debit cards. However, my thought process is going to have to change. Canada will soon join a growing list of countries that use a polymer-based plastic instead of paper for its cash. The new plastic money will be rolled out in phases with the $100 bill scheduled for introduction in November. In March 2012, a $50 bill will be added to the mix and the rest of the smaller bills will be introduced by the end of 2013.
There are several benefits to plastic cash – enhanced security, a longer life and the money is even cleaner. We all know how dirty money can be but the new bills are resistant to water, oil, sweat, dust and more.
“Further, scientific evaluation has shown that there is significantly less bacteriological growth on polymer banknotes, and that any bacteria which gets onto the notes quickly dies because of the lack of nutrients on the non-porous and non-fibrous material.” Source: Securency International Pty Ltd.
While the cleanliness factor is nice, the security benefits are one of the biggest draws of switching to plastic money. Australia has been using polymer-based cash for more than a decade and the country has seen a significant reduction in counterfeit bills.
The polymer-based money is also recyclable. The money is made out of polypropylene, which can be recycled and used to create new products including plumbing fittings, compost bins and other household items.
I can’t think of a downside to plastic money. I know that BPA is often associated with plastics but even our paper money is contaminated with BPA.
Melissa Hincha-Ownby blogs for the Mother Nature Network.
Canadian officials ‘secretive’ on North American perimeter security agreement
Unifying the once sovereign nations of North America under treaty law continues to move forward by stealth. And many Canadians are sitting uneasy about the secrecy.
Members of Canada’s CTV express concern in the following clip about a draft agreement for ‘integrated perimeter security’ between the U.S. & Canada that Canadian officials have refused to release. As one of CTV’s panel members points out, it seems the Canadian government has “put the cart before the horse,” intent on ‘first signing the deal, then discussing it.’ Another panelist quips he has a copy of the agreement that “doesn’t exist,” refusing to show it to viewers because officials were keeping it under wraps.
While some of the CTV panelists were not against the agreement, it was termed a ‘mini-NAFTA’ that could undermine sovereignty through its integration scheme. “Perimeter agreement could mean goodbye to the 49th parallel,” as one journalist put it, emphasizing that the plan utilized the word “integrate.”
According to The Globe and Mail, “The federal government wants members of the public to impart their “shared vision” for the security of the Canada-U.S. perimeter – it just doesn’t want to explain what that means.”
CTV interviewed Canada’s foreign minister Lawrence Cannon in recent weeks, who was reluctant to “speculate” on the non-yet-public North American perimeter security deal. Cannon instead told viewers to “breath easily” until such an agreement is signed, urging viewers to ‘keep worrying about the economy’ instead.
Whatever the official reasons for secrecy, the strategy is in keeping with leaked documents obtained in the U.S. from a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit, that reveals plans to achieve North American integration “by stealth.” The concept for the North American “perimeter security” comes directly from plans formulated at the 2005 Security and Prosperity Partnership Summit and written about in Council on Foreign Relations documents:
The Task Force offers a detailed and ambitious set of proposals that build on the recommendations adopted by the three governments at the Texas summit of March 2005. The Task Force’s central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.
The Canadian equivalent of FOIA has refused altogether to release documents about the agreement:
In a letter written March 4, Public Safety officials said: “The records pertaining to your request have been entirely withheld.” The department said the information could be injurious to international affairs, that it contained information developed for a government institution or minister, that it would provide an account of a government consultation, and that it is a matter of cabinet confidence.
This secrecy makes sense from the perspective that the CFR warned in Dec. 2010 that a 2011 push for U.S.-Canadian perimeter security would pose challenges: “While the initiative as outlined makes tremendous sense on both sides of the border, it will face significant opposition in Canada from those who fear that national sovereignty will be sacrificed on the altar of continental security.”
As Global Research points out on March 31, the Canadian government has since launched a website for public feedback after their secret negotiations became a hot topic:
“Since the Beyond the Border declaration was announced, the Canadian government has taken some heat for the bilateral talks being held in secret. In an attempt to try and curb some of the criticism, they launched a new website where the public can share their ideas on the planned security perimeter.”
While a general idea of the border security plan is being discussed, it would be hard for Canadians to weigh in with a fully informed opinion when the particulars of the agreement are being withheld. This point has been made by the Council of Canadians and other critics of the plan:
In a recent Action Alert, the Council of Canadians acknowledged, “no one can know for sure what ‘perimeter security’ means until the details, which are being developed behind closed doors, are announced in June. And we are being asked to suggest only improvements (not criticisms) of a plan we haven’t seen.
Moreover, joint action on the border with the United States may not be advisable (aside from secrecy and sovereignty issues), since it has all but admitted it refuses to enforce its own policies on the border. Today FOX News reports that border patrol had been told not to make arrests of illegal immigrants crossing the border:
US Border Patrol officials were ordered to reduce — and at times even stop — arrests of illegal immigrants caught trying to cross the US border, an Arizona sheriff claimed in a report published Friday by FOXNews.com
Whatever the merits of a border perimeter might be (i.e. increased “security” and “prosperity” under a one-world government of, by and for the corporations), there are no plans to release the details until June.