![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
Sunday, February 24, 2008
A look at global currency unions
Here is a nice concise look at the various monetary unions already in place as well as those currently slated for implementation with timelines. Check it out...
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Nice trick.
A provision mysteriously tucked into the Military Commission Act (MCA) just before it passed through Congress and was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006 , redefines torture, removing the harshest, most controversial techniques from the definition of war crimes, and exempts the perpetrators—both interrogators and their bosses—from prosecution for such offences dating back to November 1997.
Joanne Mariner of Human Rights Watch adds..... read more
Joanne Mariner of Human Rights Watch adds..... read more
NORTHCOM
“Federal Plans for Implementing Expanded Martial Law Authority” are to be executed via the recently created domestic military command, the Northern Command or NORTHCOM. “One key USNORTHCOM planning assumption,” says Lowenberg, “is that the President will invoke the new Martial Law powers if he concludes state and/or local authorities no longer possess either the capability or the will to maintain order.” In fact, this “highly subjective assumption,” as Lowenberg puts it, has been in the works for some time now. According to the General, the “US Northern Command has been engaged for some time in deliberative planning for implementation of Section 1076 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization. The formal NORTHCOM CONPLAN 2502-05 was approved by Secretary of Defense Gates on March 15, 2007,”...................
see the rest of the story here
see the rest of the story here
According to spp.gov
The following was taken from the official www.spp.gov website with my 3-cents-worth after each one.
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP):
Myth vs. Fact
Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.
Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.
UNJ- sounds so benign... if it was never signed, it couldn't possibly be an agreement, right?
Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.
Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.
UNJ - notice it says the SPP doesn't seek that. It doen't say that some other 'partnership' or agreement will not.
Myth: The SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.
Fact: U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.
UNJ - Here they use the term knowledge as opposed to approval. Many members of Congress are also members of agencies such as the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, etc. Obviously, they would have 'knowledge' of SPP efforts and plans. However, that's a far cry from Congressional Approval or oversight.
Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.
Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.
UNJ - Again, this is all based on the stance that the SPP is not an 'official' treaty. As long as they can consider it merely 'dialog', there are technically no violations or infringing by the SPP.
Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.
Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.
UNJ - This one is pretty slick.... notice where they say US federal agencies can only operate within US law?....They DON'T say SPP. Nor do they mention Canadian or Mexican agencies. Nor do they say any newly formed or 'to-be-formed' agencies...
Myth: The U.S section of the SPP is headed by the Department of Commerce.
Fact: The SPP is a White House-driven initiative. In the United States, the Department of Commerce coordinates the ‘Prosperity’ component, while the Department of Homeland Security coordinates the ‘Security’ component. The Department of State ensures the two components are coordinated and are consistent with U.S. foreign policy.
UNJ - Catch that? The SPP is a White-House-driven initiative... but it's NOT a treaty and NOTHING HAS BEEN SIGNED BY ANYONE, and none of it has been voted on by Congress... but it's a White-House-driven initiative! nice loop-dee-doo, huh?
Myth: The U.S. Government, working though the SPP, has a secret plan to build a "NAFTA Super Highway."
Fact: The U.S. government is not planning a NAFTA Super Highway. The U.S. government does not have the authority to designate any highway as a NAFTA Super Highway, nor has it sought such authority, nor is it planning to seek such authority. There are private and state level interests planning highway projects which they themselves describe as "NAFTA Corridors," but these are not Federally-driven initiatives, and they are not a part of the SPP.
UNJ - Here they never address the CONCEPT of a superhighway. They continually use the term NAFTA Super Highway. They never claim to not be working on a highway that runs from Mexico to Canada... just nothing actually called a NAFTA Super Highway...understand?
Myth: The U.S. Government, through the Department of Transportation, is funding secretive highway projects to become part of a “NAFTA Super Highway”.
Fact: Many States in the American Midwest are proposing or undertaking highway projects to improve or build roads as Federal-aid and State or private sector revenue becomes available. All projects involving Federal-aid funds or approvals are subject to normal Federal-aid requirements, such as review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including public involvement. This public involvement, the common thread among all these activities, makes them anything but “secret.” In addition, Congress directs Department of Transportation funding for specific highway projects.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will continue to cooperate with the State transportation departments as they build and upgrade highways to meet the needs of the 21st century. Rather than evidence of a secret plan to create a NAFTA Super Highway that would undermine our national sovereignty, the FHWA’s efforts are a routine part of cooperation with all the State transportation departments to improve the Nation’s highways.
UNJ - Again, the foundation defense is that it is not officialy called a "NAFTA Super Highway." Also, it gives the US gov't an indirect involvement saying they give Federal funding to the states. THE STATES then independantly build the roads.
Myth: U.S. Government officials sponsored a secret SPP planning meeting in Banff, Alberta in September 2006.
Fact: The U.S. Government did not sponsor the meeting in Banff. The North American Forum, a private initiative that is separate from the U.S. Government, hosted the September 12-14, 2006 conference “Continental Prosperity in the New Security Environment.” Academics, businesspersons, private citizens, and government officials from the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments attended the conference. The North American Forum is not a product of the SPP.
UNJ - Here the key word smear is sponsor. The NAF hosted it, and US gov't officials simply attended it. I wonder if they travelled and stayed there on their own personal dime, or if money came from the US gov't to cover those expenses...
Myth: The SPP will cost U.S. taxpayers money.
Fact: The SPP is being implemented with existing budget resources. Over the long-term, it will save U.S. taxpayers money by cutting through costly red tape and reducing redundant paperwork. This initiative will benefit the taxpayers through economic gain and increased security, thereby enhancing the competitiveness and quality of life in our countries.
UNJ- Here they simply say it won't cost any 'new' money. They admit costs are coming out of EXISTING budget resources (ie. - US gov't). Then they use slight-of-hand by moving on to how it should potentially save money in the future. Not once did they actually deny that it costs US taxpayer money.
Myth: The SPP creates a NAFTA-plus legal status between the three countries.
Fact: The SPP does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. It creates no NAFTA-plus legal status.
UNJ - It does not rewrite or renogiote NAFTA. It establishes itself IN ADDITION to NAFTA. It technically doesn't create a NAFTA-plus legal status (by that name or term). NAFTA is NAFTA, the SPP is the SPP...neither of them are called 'NAFTA-plus'.
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP):
Myth vs. Fact
Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.
Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.
UNJ- sounds so benign... if it was never signed, it couldn't possibly be an agreement, right?
Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.
Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.
UNJ - notice it says the SPP doesn't seek that. It doen't say that some other 'partnership' or agreement will not.
Myth: The SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.
Fact: U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.
UNJ - Here they use the term knowledge as opposed to approval. Many members of Congress are also members of agencies such as the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, etc. Obviously, they would have 'knowledge' of SPP efforts and plans. However, that's a far cry from Congressional Approval or oversight.
Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.
Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.
UNJ - Again, this is all based on the stance that the SPP is not an 'official' treaty. As long as they can consider it merely 'dialog', there are technically no violations or infringing by the SPP.
Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.
Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.
UNJ - This one is pretty slick.... notice where they say US federal agencies can only operate within US law?....They DON'T say SPP. Nor do they mention Canadian or Mexican agencies. Nor do they say any newly formed or 'to-be-formed' agencies...
Myth: The U.S section of the SPP is headed by the Department of Commerce.
Fact: The SPP is a White House-driven initiative. In the United States, the Department of Commerce coordinates the ‘Prosperity’ component, while the Department of Homeland Security coordinates the ‘Security’ component. The Department of State ensures the two components are coordinated and are consistent with U.S. foreign policy.
UNJ - Catch that? The SPP is a White-House-driven initiative... but it's NOT a treaty and NOTHING HAS BEEN SIGNED BY ANYONE, and none of it has been voted on by Congress... but it's a White-House-driven initiative! nice loop-dee-doo, huh?
Myth: The U.S. Government, working though the SPP, has a secret plan to build a "NAFTA Super Highway."
Fact: The U.S. government is not planning a NAFTA Super Highway. The U.S. government does not have the authority to designate any highway as a NAFTA Super Highway, nor has it sought such authority, nor is it planning to seek such authority. There are private and state level interests planning highway projects which they themselves describe as "NAFTA Corridors," but these are not Federally-driven initiatives, and they are not a part of the SPP.
UNJ - Here they never address the CONCEPT of a superhighway. They continually use the term NAFTA Super Highway. They never claim to not be working on a highway that runs from Mexico to Canada... just nothing actually called a NAFTA Super Highway...understand?
Myth: The U.S. Government, through the Department of Transportation, is funding secretive highway projects to become part of a “NAFTA Super Highway”.
Fact: Many States in the American Midwest are proposing or undertaking highway projects to improve or build roads as Federal-aid and State or private sector revenue becomes available. All projects involving Federal-aid funds or approvals are subject to normal Federal-aid requirements, such as review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including public involvement. This public involvement, the common thread among all these activities, makes them anything but “secret.” In addition, Congress directs Department of Transportation funding for specific highway projects.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will continue to cooperate with the State transportation departments as they build and upgrade highways to meet the needs of the 21st century. Rather than evidence of a secret plan to create a NAFTA Super Highway that would undermine our national sovereignty, the FHWA’s efforts are a routine part of cooperation with all the State transportation departments to improve the Nation’s highways.
UNJ - Again, the foundation defense is that it is not officialy called a "NAFTA Super Highway." Also, it gives the US gov't an indirect involvement saying they give Federal funding to the states. THE STATES then independantly build the roads.
Myth: U.S. Government officials sponsored a secret SPP planning meeting in Banff, Alberta in September 2006.
Fact: The U.S. Government did not sponsor the meeting in Banff. The North American Forum, a private initiative that is separate from the U.S. Government, hosted the September 12-14, 2006 conference “Continental Prosperity in the New Security Environment.” Academics, businesspersons, private citizens, and government officials from the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments attended the conference. The North American Forum is not a product of the SPP.
UNJ - Here the key word smear is sponsor. The NAF hosted it, and US gov't officials simply attended it. I wonder if they travelled and stayed there on their own personal dime, or if money came from the US gov't to cover those expenses...
Myth: The SPP will cost U.S. taxpayers money.
Fact: The SPP is being implemented with existing budget resources. Over the long-term, it will save U.S. taxpayers money by cutting through costly red tape and reducing redundant paperwork. This initiative will benefit the taxpayers through economic gain and increased security, thereby enhancing the competitiveness and quality of life in our countries.
UNJ- Here they simply say it won't cost any 'new' money. They admit costs are coming out of EXISTING budget resources (ie. - US gov't). Then they use slight-of-hand by moving on to how it should potentially save money in the future. Not once did they actually deny that it costs US taxpayer money.
Myth: The SPP creates a NAFTA-plus legal status between the three countries.
Fact: The SPP does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. It creates no NAFTA-plus legal status.
UNJ - It does not rewrite or renogiote NAFTA. It establishes itself IN ADDITION to NAFTA. It technically doesn't create a NAFTA-plus legal status (by that name or term). NAFTA is NAFTA, the SPP is the SPP...neither of them are called 'NAFTA-plus'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
