Posted on 10/07/2006 3:56:30 AM PDT by Man50D
WASHINGTON – There are mixed signals coming from Mexico about the fate of a proposed mega-port in Baja California for mainly Chinese goods that would be shipped on rail lines and "NAFTA superhighways" running through the U.S. to Canada.
The port at Punta Colonet, planned as a major container facility to transfer Asian goods into America's heartland, got at least a temporary setback when a Mexican businessman announced a competing project in which he was seeking to secure mineral rights in the area.
Gabriel Chavez, originally one of the principal movers behind the port plan, now says there are significant amounts of titanium and iron to be mined offshore – a project he considers more important than the port.
Mexican ports czar Cesar Patricio Reyes placed a moratorium on further work toward port planning for three or four months while the government explores ways to make everyone happy.
It is no secret the Mexican government is still committed to the port plan. A map from the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies shows the proposed goods route into a North American community.
According to transportation officials in Arizona, one of the sites considered for a rail line from Punta Colonet, the Mexican government has released an official directive stating its intention to create a new marine facility there -- about 150 miles south of the U.S. border.
The port at Punta Colonet, when completed, is expected to rival the biggest West Coast ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, both heavily congested now.
Bringing goods into a Mexican port would mean lower costs for foreign shippers because of cheaper labor and less restrictive environmental regulations.
Hutchison Ports Mexico, a subsidiary of the Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., is keeping reports about progress on the venture close to the vest.
Only recently has the port become a source of controversy in the U.S. as Americans begin questioning highway and rail projects criss-crossing the country – many of which are designed to carry product from Mexico to the U.S. and Canada on the so-called "NAFTA superhighways."
Resentment is building inside the U.S. because of what appear to be secretive plans made outside normal government policymaking channels about immigration, border policies, transportation and integration of the three North American nations.
Transportation Secretary Maria Cino has promised to release plans within months for a one-year, NAFTA pilot program permitting Mexican truckers beyond the limited commercial zone to which they are currently restricted.
The program will likely involve about 100 Mexican trucking companies, the Department of Transportation says.
Under the North American Free Trade Agreement – NAFTA – the borders were to open partially to truckers from both countries in 1995. Full access was promised by 2000. Because of the restrictions on Mexican trucks, the Mexican government has imposed limits on U.S. truckers.
The U.S. restrictions were placed by the Clinton administration in response to demands from the Teamsters union, which said Mexican trucks posed safety and environmental risks. Currently, the U.S. permits Mexican truckers only in commercial zones close to the border that extend no further than 20 miles from Mexico.
While the American Trucking Association supports opening the border, other unions have joined in opposition with the Teamsters. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association came out this month in opposition to any Mexican truck pilot program.
Todd Spencer, the association's executive vice president, said the program would jeopardize safety on U.S. roads and would lead to an influx of cheap Mexican labor.
"A move by the U.S. Department of Transportation to open U.S. roadways to Mexican trucks puts the interest of foreign trade and cheap labor ahead of everything else, including highway safety, homeland security and the well being of hardworking Americans," Spencer said.
In a letter to the Interstate Trade Commission, Spencer wrote: "The net effect of admission of Mexican trucks into the U.S. marketplace would undoubtedly be negative. The supposed benefits to consumers from speculative reductions in shipping rates would be offset by the societal costs that are difficult to measure, but are easy to identify."
Raising more suspicions that such plans are leading to a future integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, a high-level, top-secret meeting of the North American Forum took place this month in Banff – with topics ranging from "A Vision for North America," "Opportunities for Security Cooperation" and "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."
Despite "confirmed" participants including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Central Intelligence Agency Director R. James Woolsey, former Immigration and Naturalization Services Director Doris Meissner, North American Union guru Robert Pastor, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Energy Secretary and Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and top officials of both Mexico and Canada, there has been no press coverage of the event. The only media member scheduled to appear at the event, according to documents obtained by WND, was the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady.
The event was organized by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canada West Foundation, an Alberta think-tank that promotes closer economic integration with the United States.
The Canadian event is just the latest of a series of meetings, policy papers and directives that have citizens, officials and members of the media wondering whether these efforts represent some sort of coordinated effort to implement a "merger" some have characterized as "NAFTA on steroids."
Last week, government documents released by a Freedom of Information Act request revealed the Bush administration is running what some observers see as a "shadow government" with Mexico and Canada in which the U.S. is crafting a broad range of policy in conjunction with its neighbors to the north and south.
If I understand your chart correctly, these items are components of some other food.
As a matter of fact, many places making tortillas are called "tortilla factories" and they are much like donut shops with the conveyor belts.
The chart is confusing if a tortilla is the same as an orange or apple.
Joseph Farrah is a bona fide patriot, and nobody's fool.
What does that even mean? Half of GDP or half the increase in GDP? Over what period?
At least he knows what an auction is.
Unlike you.
Remember what was said and then fan it out to every other industry that is related in any manner. "related to housing sales, construction and spending from home equity loans."
housing sales, for example when broken down is going to cover a percentage of the marketing industry, advertising industry, sales industry, communications industry, banking and loans, brokerages, with all the leased vehicles, new vehicle sales, rental vehicles, etc. used by that portion of the industry. And so on.
I fail to see how the normal expansions and contractions of an economy are germain to the subject?
Let's see, GDP in constant 2000 dollars (billions) between 1995 and 2005:
1995 8,031.7
1996 8,328.9
1997 8,703.5
1998 9,066.9
1999 9,470.3
2000 9,817.0
2001 9,890.7
2002 10,048.8
2003 10,301.0
2004 10,703.5
2005 11,048.6
Call it $96.2 trillion of GDP, let's call half, $48 trillion. That's a lot of GDP for what, 1.2 million houses a year? $48 trillion for 12 million houses, works out to about $4,000,000 per house.
Your guess sounds a bit off.
When I look at just the houses I have owned, I can easily see where the lives of at least 2000 people, possibly more were involved in some manner or another.
Remember I am thinking about how someone was invovled in the simple thing such as melting the glass for each light bulb. Without them I would have lived under kerosene lanterns or candles.
You are attempting to restrict the area of involvement to narrowly.
Not at all, just noticing that housing last year could not have accounted for $5 trillion or more of GDP. Unless you have some back up showing that it did?
I never claimed that it does exist. The facts are that there are some cretins, such as Robert Pastor who have a hard-on for such a thing and will try their damndest to make it happen. Why do you find it so offensive when people try to warn others about scumbags like him?
Same way with shutters. There is a mass produced product that is used by small batch plants that are customizing for the end user.
There are numerous other examples.
These jokers despise the Minutemen too. What a shocker.
I'd be interested to get your opinions on what Mr. Ficklin advocates in post #35.
You look at the world market as strong and growing. Overall I do too but my main area of interest is the health and welfare of these United States because this is where my family is. I don't lose sleep when Sudan has difficulties. I do when the US does.
I well understand that the term recession is a curse word in your lifestyle because you are a Republican globalist. An American recession is what causes sufferring amongst Americans, not something I care to witness again.
I don't think that sending our job overseas is something we should be doing if we want to remain top dog. While I am not a true isolationist I'm damn close in your eyes because I care more about America than I do internationalism.
I am aware that the lack of alcohol in my coffee forces me to see what reality actually is. I know it's a tough way to live but have no fear, I can handle it.
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."
- Mark Twain
I have no interest in explaining to you in more detail that I have how an economy breaks down into the various subsections and the inter relationships.
OTOH, the isolationists, populists, and protectionists advocate policies very detrimental to America.
There is no need for you to explain anything in more detail. I'm satisfied just knowing that your guess was wrong and that housing does not compose 50% of GDP. Not last year, not this year and not over the last 10 years.
Sure sounds to me like he's advocating in favor of the OBL and what he say sounds eerily familiar to Pastor's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee . We're just not accustomed to seeing it from those who usually bum rush these threads accusing us of tinfoil hat conspiracies in an effort to silence the discussion. I said a while back that once the FOIA came out, the OBL gang were going to have to regroup and get direction on what to do next.
But I've got to hand it to Ben, he appears to be the first. Apparently they realize that this information, thanks to Corsi, etc., IS getting out and those of us who oppose it will NOT be silenced, despite the attempts at schoolyard bullying. I guess they figure they have no other choice but to ADMIT that they are actually IN AGREEMENT with and support Bush's OBL agenda. As if we didn't know ;-)
I would STRONGLY encourage anyone who hasn't, to get familiar with Pastor, imo, one of the most dangerous threats to our country:
http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2005/PastorTestimony050609.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.