All this done under the table; outside the functions of a representative republic. If Obama has such an open playing field for obliterating the constitutional government of this nation, it sure wasn't hampered by short sighted Bushists happily smoothing the grounds of that field.
More and more it is clear that Reagan was a last gasp of the notion of a more limited and constitutional government a gasp breaking in after 4 decades of ever increasing Statism and Rule by Bureaucracy. After it? A plummmet into a full blown Socialism [a really juicy melding of the National and International versions brewing before our eyes, oh yeah] and unashamed abrogation of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the integrity of the nation, and of the ideals which made this nation distinctive from the neverending reign of pisspots throughout Pepetopia.
"At the same time, I helped to convince Richard Haass at the Council on Foreign Relations that we should put together a trilateral task force to look at the future of North America. We recruited John Manley on Canada's side, along with William Weld, former governor of Massachusetts, and Pedro Aspe, the former Mexican economy minister, who had been so influential in promoting NAFTA.
The result of all of these efforts was that in 2005 Prime Minister Martin and President Bush and President Fox decided to sign what they called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America - the SPP. The left accused us of having bullied these leaders into action, which was total nonsense. The real issue, which everyone recognized, was the need to strengthen North American competitiveness and security.
At their next summit meeting, in 2006, the three leaders invited leading members of the CEO communities in the three countries to provide private-sector input on issues related to competitiveness. From that idea the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) was born, to be composed of 10 frontline CEOs from each of Canada, the United States and Mexico. We produced 10 of our most senior CEOs, while the Americans established an executive committee of 15 representing a broad range of large companies with rotating memberships. The Mexicans produced some heavy-duty people - many names you know well.
The first meeting of the NACC with the three leaders took place in Montebello, Quebec, in 2007. Our Mexican and American counterparts graciously asked us to write the first NACC report. It was very well received, albeit heavily criticized by unions on the left and others as elitist: "Why did these people have access to the national leaders while everyone else was left out?"
The second meeting of the NACC with the three leaders took place at their summit in New Orleans in 2008 - we were in the room with the leaders for a full hour and a half.
When President Obama came to power, he faced a lot of pressure to shelve the SPP and not follow through with the NACC because his advisors were looking for an institution that would also involve environmentalists, union leaders, et al. But at the North American Leaders' Summit in Guadalajara this summer, President Calderon and Prime Minister Harper both told President Obama that the NACC was very useful. In fact, the Canadian NACC group met with our prime minister and his key ministers for an hour and a half on the eve of his departure for the Guadalajara summit. He said that, regardless of whether the NACC continues formally on a trilateral basis, he welcomes our advice on trilateral issues. "
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Et alors? The business of America is business. Shutting out the carbon credit shitheads is a good thing. The only possible hitch is that Obama will bring those idiots in and the sensible CEOs and foreigners will bail.
Alord, apres toi le Deluge.
"All this done under the table; outside the functions of a representative republic. If Obama has such an open playing field for obliterating the constitutional government of this nation, it sure wasn't hampered by short sighted Bushists happily smoothing the grounds of that field."
When Clinton started this game, of superseding our national sovereignty through unions, of one degree or another, with Mexico and Canada, at least he did so through the means our Constitution set up for decisions on treaties and federal law. NAFTA, for example, whether you judge it for good or for ill, was approved by Congress and the people had the full opportunity to understand, and through their representatives have a say, in what is going on.
This deeper and more widespread "union making" has been done completely outside of the means our government is supposed to have for such decisions. It has been done almost completely not only out of sight of the public, but when it was discovered the public was lied to as to the extent and purpose of these actions.
The government and corporate actors worked to cause fundamental change in our national framework , and deliberately sought to bypass, to make irrelevant, our Constitution and the rules it set out for the role of the presidency, the congress, and the supreme court.
The business of business being business is a fine thing, and that businesses would seek to do business to their convenience is part of the way of a free nation, but to trash the Constitution to square that circle on being secure while not hurting your CEO's profits, whatever else it is, is to be deliberately put the alliance of corporation and governing class over our Constitution.
All this should have been done above board, with treaties or laws passed by Congress or constitutional amendments. In other words, all that Bill of Rights and "We, the People" blather should have been adhered to, or changed according to the deliberations set out by all those idjit unbusiness minded Adamses and Jeffersons and Hamiltons.
But, instead, the Bushists pathetic little game of "you don't need to know what you don't need to know; and you'll never know how much you did not need to know" [which was shit enough when specifically for the "WOT"] set out the field, all nice and painted and primed for someone, like Obama, to show them 'tards the possibilities of it all.
It was corruption, of business and of politics and of our laws, and left the field set for someone, like Obama, with an ambition for a far deeper, gangrenous, gamechanging corruption.
What leg do all those CEO's and Bushists have to stand on now? That a gentleman doesn't go that far?
Alors, the second term of the administration of Bush was a disaster [the only good thing being the persuasion of Bush, by the Petraeus group, to at last try the goddamn fucking too long delayed surge]
Obamakles represents a national catastrophe, a true gamechanger, and possibly, as far as our Constitution is concerned, an Extinction Event. But we shouldn't be blind to the incredibly short-sighted and venal stupidity of his predecessors as they unwittingly made a world safe for Da One. And the Bushists certainly did their part, in spades.
I think you're splitting hairs. Why is it a fundamental change to do what they're doing now and it wasn't with NAFTA?
In both cases, local laws are subordinated to international laws (mostly regarding trade) and someone is going to get screwed, as usual.
So?
All treaties are like that.
You don't like the under-the-table aspect, but that is the case always, and there's no big breach of law in everyone agreeing behind closed doors to push local lawmaking one way or another.
The laws are still enacted by congress with the usual oversight, i.e. none that is responsible, until someone breaks a big one.
There haven't been any.
Obama will fail at everything. Not to worry.
Post a Comment