Wednesday, April 04, 2012

Obama Alienates Canada And Mexico At Summit - And It's Going To Cost Us A Lot Of Money

Three amigos? At the U.S.-Mexico-Canada summit, Mexican President Felipe Calderon, left, panned Obama for Fast and Furious, and Canadian PM Stephen...

Aside from the unprecedented occurrence of flapping his mouth and threatening the Supreme Court about a matter pending before the justices, President Obama was also busy at a recent summit alienating our two closest neighbors.

As usual, the president's lackeys in the media ignored this, but the Mexican and Canadian press reported the real story. And as you'll see, Canada's PM Stephen Harper, a staunch U.S. ally (or at least he used to be) was unusually blunt.

Normally, such summits are relatively friendly affairs dealing with trade issues that are settled more or less amicably and end with the usual platitudes and photo-ops. Not this time.

Mexico's President Calderon is already not a fan of the president because of Fast and Furious, which illegally supplied arms to the drug cartels strangling Mexico and resulted in over 200 murders of Mexican nationals. My sources tell me that President Calderon asked some pointed questions about what the U.S. was doing to investigate this, punish the officials responsible and clean up the mess President Obama's justice department created, and that the answers were less than satisfactory.

This puts Calderon in a terrible position politically as the Mexican public is asking him the same questions. El Universal, and Reforma, two of Mexico's top papers have led the charge on this one.

Our situation with Canada is even worse. Canada's National Post quoted former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson as saying the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and our alliance with Canada is "on life support."

It's not a well known fact to most Americans, but our biggest supplier of foreign oil is not the Middle East, but Canada.

Up until recently, the Canadians supplying us with oil at lower than market prices because of the NAFTA agreement. American companies actually refined some of the Canadian oil and exported it overseas at below market price, which the Canadians put up with because we had the refineries and they didn't, and besides..it was between friends and there were compensations on things like lumber and items American companies manufactured.

That changed when President Obama took office. He and PM Stephen Harper never quite hit it off that well anyway, partly because President Obama's policies on Afghanistan where Canadian troops are in combat and partly because of disagreements on Israel, a country PM Harper is a great supporter of.

But the rift widened greatly when President Obama repeatedly blocked Canada and Mexico's attempts to joint a lucrative eight-way free trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an alliance of the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Peru, Chile, and Singapore.

And it exploded when President Obama rejected the Keystone Pipeline.

The Canadians had patiently waited for President Obama to make a decision to allow what would have been an economic plus for both countries, creating jobs and allowing the Canadians to benefit by shipping more oil that way.

President Obama's farcical no on the pipe line was a wake up call for the Canadians:

In a public one-on-one interview here with Jane Harman, head of the Wilson Centre think-tank, Harper said Obama's rejection of the controversial pipeline -- even temporarily -- stressed Canada's need to find other buyers for oilsands crude.

And that wouldn't change even if the president's mind did.

"Look, the very fact that a 'no' could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets," Harper told Harman in front of a live audience of businesspeople, scholars, diplomats, and journalists.


As I previously reported on these pages, the Canadians finslly got sick and tired of Obama's dithering, sold the oil contracts to the Chinese and rerouted the oil to Vancouver.

And not only isn't that that decision going to change, but as the Winnipeg Free Press is reporting, PM Harper is now saying that as a consequence of our president's actions, American consumers will be paying for Canadian oil in the future at market rates:

Here's some quotes from an interview on the matter PM Harper did at the Wilson Center.

Harper: Now, in fairness though I've got to say that Canada's interests here are a little bit different. And particularly, I might as well be frank, particularly in light of the...of the interim decision at least on Keystone. What it really has highlighted for Canada is that our issue when it comes to energy and energy security is not North American self-sufficiency. Our energy [issue] is the necessity of diversifying our energy export markets. We can not be, as a country, in a situation where really our one, and in many cases almost only, energy partner could say no to our energy products. We just cannot be in that kind of position.

And the truth of the matter is that, when it comes to oil in particular, we do face a significant discount on the marketplace because of the fact that we're a captive supplier. We have made it clear to the people of Canada, one of our national priorities is to make sure that we have the infrastructure and the capacity to export our energy products outside of North America.

What Harper is saying if you read between the lines is that not only are the Canadians going to diversify whom they sell to but that their no longer going to rely on U.S. refiners. Look for Canada to begin work on its own refineries and oil infrastructure in the near future....probably financed by China.

This president could have okayed the Keystone pipeline with the of a pen. It would have created thousands of jobs, been a boost to U.S. exports and given us a safe and secure source of oil from a friendly neighbor. Instead, thanks to President Obama, we not only lost out on all of this permanently, but angered a loyal, long time ally in the bargain. And this president then had the nerve to blame this fiasco on Republicans, just like he does every other failure he engineers.

This, by the way, is the energy policy Slo-Joe Biden just referred to as 'the very best it's ever been.'

Remember when Barack Obama was running for election? Remember how the line was that he was going to fix things and improve relations with our allies after 'Cowboy' Bush?

President Obama's tactics are pretty clear. None of this is an accident

What he and his far Left vampires want is to choke the American economy. They want an America where gas prices are as high or higher than they are in Europe, where most people are forced into public transportation run by the government and the private cars that exist are abominations like the Volt, where a light bulb costs ten times as much as before and where breaking one calls for an expensive hazmat cleansing rather than just a broom and a dustpan.

And above all, he wants an America where the tax payers are raped by government giveaways to green energy scams run by well connected insiders and Democrat campaign donors.

Because America, in his mind, deserves to be made to pay for our sins.

Absolutely disgraceful.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you Mr. Racist
Obama for destroying my country...

Chip Stewart said...

Here is another article from the Stewart Blog...posted to Faultline with a brief lead-in.

http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6960732812801813184#editor/target=post;postID=6152219539805493452

author: Chip Stewart
gastewart3@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

I cannot disagree with anything you said but I do disagree with the Mexican president. He certainly has a right to be pissed about fast and furious but those 200 murders are les then 1% of the drug related murders they had last year. The Mexican government is bought by the drug cartels so they will turn a blind eye on their drug manufacture and sales. So who is at fault for those murders not related to fast and furious???

Rob said...

The Mexicans would say that it's the American appetite for illegal drugs that's responsible, Anonymous.

Also, remember that a lot of these cartels like the Zetas were armed and trained by the U.S...and simply went where the money was and switched sides.

Mexico is indeed an extremely corrupt country, but let's just say these two little factors I mentioned haven't helped the situation one bit.

To Calderon's credit, he's at least made a decent try at fighting the cartels. Fast and Furious made him look like an absolute idiot for working with Obama and trusting the Gringos.

It's not just numbers in politics, but perception.

Regards,
Rob

Anonymous said...

I've already said what Mexico needs to do about "fast and furious." If the US does not investigate this fairly and hold the appropiate people accountable, Mexico should take this to international venues such as the ICC and the UN. It is vitally important that the US conduct this investigation properly and hold the appropiate people accountable. If this goes to the ICC or the UN general assembly, it would be an absolute nightmare for us.

While the US may not honor the ICC, getting a conviction against American officials in this venue would not be very difficult. They hate us any way. Also, the UN general assembly will vote against us out of spite. If Mexico wants to go to the UN Security council, getting a 4-1 vote against America wouold likely not be a problem. It would all send a deeply symbolic message and might even result in crippling economic sanctions placed on us.

To the American government officals, I'd say its vitally important we get this right so we can avoid all of this.

Now with that said, Mexico has been violating America's soverignty for years. Should it come as any surprise that they had they had theirs violated. In other words, they've blantantly disrespected us and it should come as no surprise that they reaped a whirlwind here. This does NOT make the actions of the US government in this area right, however.

If the borders are secured between our two countries, this largely solves the problem of the drug trade, however, any time the US makes even feeble noises about securing its borders the Mexican government cries foul. Could it be that the Mexican government likes the money they are getting to much from the drug trade? I think this is a real possibilty.

The axiom that good fences make good neighbors is largely spot on. By securing our borders we can go along way to improving the relations between both countries and this would go along way to placing them on equal footing.

You are correct to point out the Mexican government is corrupt. The US government is also corrupt. Unfortunately the people of our two great countries are caught in the middle.

America needs to do its part by doing the following: 1.) make sure fast and furious is thoroughly investigated and that the guilty are dealt with to the fullest extent of the law possible. I'm not opposed to having Mexican officials assist with the investigation, however, its understandable why neither country trusts the other but clear groud rules would need to be laid out for both sides in such an event and the American side would need some way to enforce their end. If things don't go right, Mexican officials can and will go to the media and perhaps other international bodies. American officials don't have this option. 2.)Secure our borders. This should put a huge dent in the drug trade. Doubly so, if Mexico secures their side.

B.Poster said...

The Zetas are far to competent and efficient to have been trained by the Americans. While they may have been able to incorporate certain things from the Americans, their tactics and skills with weapons are far superior to any thing America is capable of. If knowledge was shared, hopefully our people gained access to some of their tactical expertise. Somehow I doubt that happened.


I've asked this before in relation to support supplied to Islmaic terrorist groups. The same thing applies here. Is it wise to supply material support and treasure to an adversary in hopes they won't be or become an adversary? I think not.

In the case of the Zetas, it seems very unlikely the Mexican government did not know about this and it seems even less likely the operation would have been implemented without their consent and approval. The same thing with fast and furious. It seems unlikely this operation would have been unknown at the highest levels of the Mexican government. As infiltrated as the US government is with sympathizers of Mexico positions, it stretches credibility to the breaking point to think they would not have known about this from the beginning. Furthermore they could have used their allies in the media to bring attention to this and get it stopped before it even got started if they did not approve.

Given these facts, I think they knew about it from the start, were consulted with, oversaw, and approved the whole thing. When the whole thing fell apart, it made perfect political sense to blame the gringos.

Does Mexico really want this investigation into this that needs to happen? Very likely not. They don't want it revealed they were in this whole evil thing up to their necks!! Nevertheless we do need to investigate this, find out what happened, how it happened, and hold the guilty accountable to the fullest extent of the law. This is the right thing to do and furthermore it may help to head off a UN or ICC investigation which would be an absolute nightmare for us. There's very few things worse than kangaroo courts or witch hunts and that is precisely what a UN or ICC investigation would be.

Rob said...

Anonymous, the US does not recognize the ICC's jurisdiction - along with a number of other countries.

A thorough investigation of F&F would undoubtedly result in the impeachment of AG Eric Holder, and might even go further up the tree since I doubt this was his idea alone. I doubt it's going to happen, not while President Obama is in office.

Securing the borders.. I agree it's an important national security objective. But I doubt it will significantly affect the drug trafficking. It merely means the price will go up and the financial rewards will attract even more smugglers.

Poster, I know your frequently expressed opinion is that the U.S. Military, Law enforcement and security apparatus are totally incompetent and far surpassed by other countries, and I've tried to point out from time to time exactly why I think you're mistaken.

But do some research,and you'll find out the Zetas were U.S. trained.

Regards,
Rob

B.Poster said...

Ultimately it does not really matter whether the US recognizes the ICC or not. The Mexican government could get a conviction in absentia or whatever the legal term is. Then any guilty US officials could be siezed where ever they may be. The symbolic value of this situation would be tremendous. This could be used to extract tough punitive measures agains the US.

You are probably correct a complete investigation of this likely would result in the impeachment of Mr. Holder and perhaps others. In fact, I would not be surprised if it reaches into the highest levels of the Mexican government as well. As stated previously, your plans don't work out, blame the gringos to the north. It costs you nothing and the political benefits are awesome!!

The meida typically overestimates the capabilities of US law enforcement, military, and intellegence capabilities. This makes them much easier to vilify. Also, these groups themselves tend to over state their capabilities. It makes it easier to justify their funding.

While the US likely did supply some training and support to the Zetas, this is not in dispute, their level of competence and expertise far surpasses that of any American counterparts who would train them. As such, it is immaterial to them but could be devestating to us. We've supplied knowledge of our tactics and weapons to an entity that is for all intents and purposes an enemy. Is this wise? I think not. Also, did our people get access to some of the tactical expertise possessed by the Zetas. Again, somehow I think not. Totally incompentent boobs, all of them.

B.Poster said...

While I think you may be spot on about the prices of drugs going up when the borders are secured, at least initially, this usually happens when the supply of any thing that is in demand goes down. I respectfully disagree with the notion that secure borders will not significantly reduce the drug trade.

If the borders are secured, then the supply for new addicts and the supply for existing addicts will be decreased. Also, border patrol agents and military personnel need to have the latitude to actually do their jobs. As it is right now, if they actually apprehend someone or try to secure the borders, they are likely to get prosecuted!!

Securing the borders will cut out the supply. When trying to solve a problem, the first thing to do is cut off the supply. This needs to be followed up by extensive anti-drug education programs. This combination should solve the problem within a few years.

This can work even better if Mexico helps on their side by securing their side of the border as well. Good fences make good neighbors. Does Mexico wish to be a good neighbor?

Of course any time America makes any feelbe efforts to talk abuut securing the borders, Mexico complains bitterly. Securing the borders would do more to solve the illicit drug problem than any thing we are currently doing?

Is the Mexican government serious about solving this problem? Is the American government serious about solving this problem? Sadly I'd say no.

At least in the case of the American government, tney have an exucse for their approach. Any attempt to secure the borders especially the Southern one would result result in almost intanst and devestating economic sanctions by the world against the US. Mexico has no such excuse. Apparently its more important to them to be able to flood the US with millions of illegals rather than protect their citizens from the drug gangs. Truly disgraceful.

Finally, whose idea was it to supply ANY support to the Zetas? Knowing Mexico is hopelessly corrupt should have clued someone into what a bad idea that would be. Of course is America much better in the corruption department? Sadly I'd say no. In fact, it might be even worse!!