firemarypeters


More lies from the lawbreaker
March 26, 2008, 9:10 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

The snow job that Mary Peters dumped on Denver today had to beat any blizzard the Mile-High City ever got in January.

Mary Peters was at a meat packing plant that doesn’t do business with Mexico. She was complaining that closing the border to trucks from Mexico would hurt the economy.

Your pants are on fire, hon.

Before NAFTA was passed, U.S. workers sold $1.5 billion more goods to Mexico than they bought from Mexico. Last year, U.S. workers bought $75 billion more goods from Mexico than they sold.

Ever wonder where all those jobs in Michigan and Ohio went? The fact that we bought $32 billion more autos from Mexico than we sold should give you a clue.

Mary Peters says that opening the border to trucks from Mexico “is a long-delayed implementation” of NAFTA. What she doesn’t say is it’s illegal. It’s illegal because Congress cut off funding for the program. It’s illegal because Mary Peters ignored laws that said she couldn’t open the border until state troopers could track Mexican drivers’ licenses. She couldn’t open the border until federal inspectors were posted to make sure the trucks are checked. She couldn’t open the border until inspectors could make sure Mexican drivers can speak English. She couldn’t open the border until the Transportation Department made sure that Mexican drivers were tested for drugs and alcohol according to U.S. standards.

But she did open the border to dangerous trucks. Instead of a safety net, we get a tissue of lies and a long trail of broken laws.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/26/bush-envoy-opening-border-to-trucking-good-for/ 


5 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Hey Obama is going to screw you on NAFTA!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59945

YOU should of backed Ron Paul!

Comment by ECM

At this web site- http://www.bmvbs.de/en/-,1872.994063/doc.htm – you will see what Mary and George W. are really up to. Basically they have signed an agreement with the European Union to give access (also known as ownership) of U.S. Airlines to foreigners as well as let the foreign airlines operate within the U.S. in direct competition with U.S. carriers. This basically amounts to TREASON.

The comments below are taken directly from the article which ALL OF YOU SHOULD READ- lest we become slaves of the Europeans.

“The Open Skies Air Services Agreement marks a historic step. Open Skies is merely a first step. Europe is pressing for further steps. Immediately after it has entered into force, we will therefore launch a new round of negotiations. The door to a genuine Open Aviation area will then be open. We want to further liberalize transatlantic air services. The objective of the negotiations will therefore be additional traffic rights and fewer restrictions on European ownership and control of US carriers.”

This is the same bunch that supported a Foreign company – EADS- to supply our new military tanker aircraft. It does not matter that part of the contract includes a U.S. company- the bottom line is that a big chunk of our money is going to the French who have NEVER supported our country except when they were getting the hell kicked out of them by the Germans.

Beware for the ENEMY is within.

Kiss my #%* George and Mary !!!

Comment by NSIDEFAER

So let me get this straight…
CONGRESS passes a law that says we have to open the borders (NAFTA). Then CONGRESS tries to pass a law that says we CAN’T open the border to trucks, but they screw up the simple task of wording it correctly. Now CONGRESS wants to hang SecTrans? Umm, hello? I think CONGRESS should be fired, NOT MARY PETERS! Oh wait, that would require VOTING! Why would a union member VOTE when he can just rally and sign a petition?
Wrong target, people. Wrong target.

Comment by Chuck

Chuck,
You don’t exactly have your facts correct. NAFTA was never intended to open the roads to unsafe trucks driven by folks with no experience to drive them; folks not held to the same standards as an American driver.

Thanks for the comment, it is always interesting to see how others take this in.

Comment by teamsterpower

Not sure why language is an issue. If the rules of the road are obeyed, it doesn’t matter what language the driver speaks. Case in point …. plenty of French speaking Quebecois drivers work the eastern Canada/US. Also, we need to be careful not to blow this up into a huge trade and commerce policy discussion when it’s really just the safety issue that serves as a clear basis for dispute.

Comment by Ken




Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>