Truckers to circle White House and block DC outerbelt in protest
|
|
| Also listed in: Central Ohio | Female political bloggers | V for Very-Vigilant | Young and Youngish |
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Categories: Corporate Accountability / Workers' Rights, Economic Fairness and Security, National Security, Immigration, Public Infrastructure / Transportation, Workers' Rights
Categories: Corporate Accountability / Workers' Rights, Economic Fairness and Security, National Security, Immigration, Public Infrastructure / Transportation, Workers' Rights
Protesting what? The North American Union. Never heard of the NAU? That's exactly how they like it...
From the John Birch Society:
Thanks to the now-infamous North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexican truckers will soon be allowed to travel within the United States free of any security checkpoints at our nation's border.
Historically, truckers from Mexico were allowed to cross into the United States, but were required to unload their cargo within 20-miles of crossing the U.S./Mexican border. President Bush has since launched a new pilot program that would allow Mexican truckers to travel freely on U.S. highways and interstates, a move that would greatly undermine the security of the United States.
Aside from the obvious security threat that would be posed by an unregulated flow of cross-border traffic, American truckers are concerned with job security. Mexican truckers are not restricted with the same regulations that American truckers are required to abide by. Therefore, American jobs would be threatened by Mexican truckers who would be willing to work for a much lower wage. Frosty Wooldridge, a trucker advocate from Colorado, is greatly concerned for his job. Wooldridge said in a public statement, "if this pilot program goes through, you'll see the disappearance of American trucking jobs."
Wooldridge has responded to this threat by organizing a truckers protest that is scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C. on April 23-24. This protest has been termed a "Truck Out" and will involve American truckers who, after driving their large rigs into Washington, will circle the White House, essentially constructing a rolling blockade. Read more...
Latest update on today's protest from SaveAmericaFund.org:
From the John Birch Society:
Thanks to the now-infamous North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexican truckers will soon be allowed to travel within the United States free of any security checkpoints at our nation's border.Historically, truckers from Mexico were allowed to cross into the United States, but were required to unload their cargo within 20-miles of crossing the U.S./Mexican border. President Bush has since launched a new pilot program that would allow Mexican truckers to travel freely on U.S. highways and interstates, a move that would greatly undermine the security of the United States.
Aside from the obvious security threat that would be posed by an unregulated flow of cross-border traffic, American truckers are concerned with job security. Mexican truckers are not restricted with the same regulations that American truckers are required to abide by. Therefore, American jobs would be threatened by Mexican truckers who would be willing to work for a much lower wage. Frosty Wooldridge, a trucker advocate from Colorado, is greatly concerned for his job. Wooldridge said in a public statement, "if this pilot program goes through, you'll see the disappearance of American trucking jobs."
Wooldridge has responded to this threat by organizing a truckers protest that is scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C. on April 23-24. This protest has been termed a "Truck Out" and will involve American truckers who, after driving their large rigs into Washington, will circle the White House, essentially constructing a rolling blockade. Read more...
Latest update on today's protest from SaveAmericaFund.org:
"Today, as our truckers and concerned citizens lined up to get onto the D.C. beltway, reports coming in have informed us that the truckers were told by the D.C. police that if the truckers were not carrying a valid load with a proper bill of lading and tried to access the D.C. beltway, they would be ticketed. All the big rig traffic trying to access the D.C. beltway was averted away from the beltway."
I'm sure the JBS hits on some truths and I share concerns about Trade Agreements like NAFTA. BTW, most Trade Agreements are supported by 90% of Repubs and opposed by 90% of Dems. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and betrayed many people who helped put him in office (he also misled us on that one). And, he gave cover to Repubs by signing NAFTA.
Progressive (adj): favoring or promoting progress.
If we are to re-examine what progressive really means, we'd better look ALL around us, not just at one or two organizations or people. In that case, it's sad that so many people place their hope in Democratic candidates when most are far from being progressive.
The JBS is organized around conspiracy theories?
Conspiracy (n) : a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act.
I would say the entire Bush Administration is involved in a conspiracy or two, no? Destroying the Constitution, waging illegal wars, murdering civilians (foreign and domestic), and taking away our liberties? Those sound like unlawful acts to me.
You should try stepping outside of your predefined box of what a conspiracy is and how its validity is determined. Facts are a good place to start.
This is not an attack on you, Doug, just an attempt to address the mind-boggling negative connotations with the word conspiracy. Some recent reading of David Ray Griffin has me fired up on this topic. Perhaps I'm making this more complicated than it needs to be. Maybe it's just so much easier for people to dismiss uncomfortable thoughts as "conspiracy theory", rather than investigating the facts for ones self. But that's not too progressive either...
About the John Birch Society: It's leaders are made up of elitist, racists who do not believe in equality and social justice. Most of its members are white men who have the need to blame people different from them to blame for their failures. Read up about JBS at wikipedia. Do they hit on a few truths here and there? Yes. Would the world be better if they were in power? Hell NO.
I think that some Democrats have dropped the ball on trade and immigration issues---and that's why JBS seems populist to some people. Bill Clinton can be blamed for signing NAFTA. And, until the early 1990's, it was always the Progressive view that immigration should be tightly controlled so the supply of labor was kept in check and hence wages were more likely to grow. But labor unions made a mistake and started growing membership by admitting undocumented workers in the 1990s.
The real way to stop the flow of illegal immigrants is to imprison CEO's and company presidents who hire them and give the company a death sentence to do business in that state. CONServatives never focus on the employers of undocumented workers. I believe we have an illegal employer problem and the left should frame it that way. Bush and his crowd love a huge supply of cheap laborers who can't vote. (Thanks--Thom Hartmann of Air America Radio for the talking points)!!
I should add that undocumented workers are people and they should not be denied food and medical care and other basic needs.
While I agree that the word will trickle back to Mexico that "some employers aren't hiring anymore", there will still be those employers who will risk imprisonment in pursuit of profit.
In my view, the REAL way to stop the flow of illegal immigrants is to help Mexico create jobs in its own country. Help Mexico's economy. Help its technology along. Oust corrupt politicians. Improve the infrastructure.
Instead of putting billions into building a wall at the border, put those billions into HELPING Mexico. A prosperous Mexico is the ONLY true solution to the illegal immigrant problem. In addition, the self-esteem of all Mexicans will be raised, which is important to me: as a Democrat, I care more about people than about personal gain.
Just because is in agreement with one position from a group does not in any way mean that there is agreement on any other subject!