[mr.yet]

Get ready to Rumble

Globalist political heavyweights are preparing to formally propose to
Congress the merger of the U.S. Canada and Mexico into a North
American Union at the end of summer after they held secret meetings to
Devise a plan that will be presented to representatives of all three
Governments.

"A powerful think tank chaired by former Sen. Sam Nunn and guided by
trustees including Richard Armitage, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Harold
Brown, William Cohen and Henry Kissinger, is in the final stages of
preparing a report to the White House and U.S. Congress on the
benefits of integrating the U.S., Mexico and Canada into one
political, economic and security bloc," reports World Net Daily.

"The data collected for the report is based on seven secret roundtable
sessions involving between 21 and 45 people and conducted by CSIS. The
participants are politicians, business people, labor leaders and
academics from all three countries with equal representation. "

The report is entitled "North American Future 2025 Project" and was
Prepared in collaboration with the Center for Strategic &
International Studies (CSIS), who were previously instrumental in the
Passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994.

The plan outlines an agenda to unify the three countries into a
European Union style power bloc.

Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) documents released under the
FOIA show that a wide range of US administrative law is being
Re-written in stealth under this program to "integrate" and
"harmonize" with administrative law in Mexico and Canada, just as has
Become commonplace within the EU.

The documents contain references to upwards of 13 working groups
Within an entire organized infrastructure that has drawn from
Officials within most areas of administrative government including
U.S. departments of State, Homeland Security, Commerce, Treasury,
Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, Health and Human Services, and
The office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

The United States and the European Union have signed up to a new
Transatlantic economic partnership that will see regulatory standards
"harmonized" and will lay the basis for a merging of the US and EU
Into one single market.

18 states have introduced resolutions calling on their federal
Representatives to halt work on the North American Union (they include
Virginia and South Carolina). Three of these states (Idaho, Montana
And Oklahoma) have passed their resolutions.

22 U.S. Congressmen, including NC's Virginia Foxx and Walter Jones,
Along with all three Republican Congressmen running for President,
Have signed on as co-sponsors of HCR40, which calls on the executive
Branch to end all work on the North American Union and NAFTA superhighway

It time to email the senators and congressman again and voice your opinion, this is a bad move for the people of the US. The new superhighway in my opinion will open the door for free travel of terrorist

[tomder55]

Here is the link to the World Net Daily article :

WorldNetDaily: North American union plan headed to Congress in fall

Others who were with me on another site know that I have posted critical observations about a related issue... the NAFTA SuperHighway or NASCO that is already under construction.

I think it became clear during the immigration debate that many of our representatives and President Bush have bought into the new world order. Although I agree with many aspects of a security and trade corridor , I draw the line with open borders.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) report of 2005.. http://www.cfr.org/content/publicati...a_TF_final.pdf

The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.

President Bush met with former Mexican President Vincente Fox and Canadian PM Martin March of 2005 to announce the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP) SPP Home . Instead of submitting this agreement for consideration to the Senate ,the President bypassed the treaty confirmation process and instead the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union . Commerce Sec. Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are the US representatives to this work group . Note both Gutierrez and Chertoff were very vocal advocates of the immigration bill last month... Chertoff embarrassingly so given his position in the government. The rest of the name mentioned above ;Richard Armitage, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Harold
Brown, William Cohen and Henry Kissinger; does not surprise me in the least . The whole group of them come from the globalist /realist camp of foreign affairs thinking .

Say goodby to US sovereignty . While we will remain a country in name , our borders ,our currency even will cease to exist (to allegedly be replaced by the 'Amero' ).

It will be modeled by the EU . The EU of course is in the process of rewriting a European constitution that will supersede existing national constitutions in Europe. It is currently run by un-elected bureaucrats in Brussels.

The recently published book Amazon.com: The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger With Mexico and Canada: Books: Jerome R., Ph.D. Corsi covers much of this issue.

The next summit between Bush Calderon and Harper will take place Aug. 20 in Montebello, Quebec.

My own guess is that when all is said and done ,allot of the shared security and trade provisions will be adopted .But they will fall way short of their goal of a single entity . But we do have to remain vigilant. The rejection of the immigration bill was an important step.

[ETWolverine]

Well, its certainly one way to eliminate border and immigration issues... just eliminate the border and national sovreignty.

Hasn't anyone noticed how poorly the European version of this idea is working out? The EU member nations are in disarray, most of them (certainly the richer ones) want out of the EU, and all of them feel that while they are getting about half of what they expected to get out of EU membership, they are all in agreement that it is the WRONG half.

This is an incredibly bad idea. It is essentially nothing less than the importation of poverty and socialism into the United States. The poverty of Mexico and the socialism of the Canadian healthcare system. Both of those countries are experiencing terrible social and economic failures, so they are attempting to piggyback onto the American socio-economic system which is doing better than theirs is. Fine and good for them, but what do WE get out of it? And why in the hell would we willingly give up any of our own sovereign decision-making abilities up to countries that are clearly less capable of productive decision-making than we are?

I think that a "North American Union" is an absolutely stupid idea. But then again, I expect no less from the "realist/globalist" crowd which is neither realistic nor global in nature.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Elliot asked "but what do WE get out of it?" Let's see, we get to wait up to 84 days for breast cancer surgery, and up to 9 months or more for a heart bypass.

We'll get our signage, voter forms, etc. in Spanish, English AND French. We'll get drug wars, corrupt police and extreme poverty. But hey, at least LA won't be the most polluted city in the country any more.

[Dark_crow]

Just as a side note to this, which is about all I can contribute given my ignorance in difficult these economic matters. I am retired and live in Baja California. All that stands between me and the beach is a city park and some restaurants along the beach. I could not possibly afford to retire in the most barren and desolate location in the US, must less in such a beautiful and temperate area.

Another less certain benefit is that an open border would likely take the air out of the various Mexican revolutionary groups in America, who are becoming a danger.

So far as Terrorist are concerned, I don’t see the danger becoming any greater with open borders than it is now.

EDIT: I thought it interesting that the 4th of July celebration in my neighborhood was as lively as any I have experienced in the US, and the restrictions for public at large display was more akin to those in the US in the 50’

[tomder55]

DC

That would assume that you could control the point of entry theory that is implicit in the CFR ideas. But I think that your contention that it couldn't get worse is true because we defacto already have open borders and the inherent threat by MS-13 and other gang/militas ;as well as the unknown infiltration by jihadis . [the family of 3 of the Fort Dix plotters(The Duka family ) crossed over via the Mexican border].

I happen to agree that capitulation to revolutionary groups be they Mexican or Jihadists would appear to ease the pressure and threat . But I do not wish to live as a Dhimmi .

[mr.yet]

Well, if going to open the borders between Canada and Mexico, why would I need the passport that they want everyone to get, Why bother with this requirement? Big Brother wants to track everyone.

[Dark_crow]

DC

That would assume that you could control the point of entry theory that is implicit in the CFR ideas. But I think that your contention that it couldn't get worse is true because we defacto already have open borders and the inherent threat by MS-13 and other gang/militas ;as well as the unknown infiltration by jihadis . [the family of 3 of the Fort Dix plotters(The Duka family ) crossed over via the Mexican border].

I happen to agree that capitulation to revolutionary groups be they Mexican or Jihadists would appear to ease the pressure and threat . But I do not wish to live as a Dhimmi .

I am surprised that you would draw the inference that I believe things can’t get worse, and that from opening the border between the US it follows that that would be capitulation to revolutionary groups.

Trade restriction has done more to create war than even the restriction of freedom.

The war with Japan, the revolutionary war with the British, and the American civil War- are just to name a few.

[JoeCanada76]

Well, its certainly one way to eliminate border and immigration issues... just eliminate the border and national sovreignty.

Hasn't anyone noticed how poorly the European version of this idea is working out? The EU member nations are in disarray, most of them (certainly the richer ones) want out of the EU, and all of them feel that while they are getting about half of what they expected to get out of EU membership, they are all in agreement that it is the WRONG half.

This is an incredibly bad idea. It is essentially nothing less than the importation of poverty and socialism into the United States. The poverty of Mexico and the socialism of the Canadian healthcare system. Both of those countries are experiencing terrible social and economic failures, so they are attempting to piggyback onto the American socio-economic system which is doing better than theirs is. Fine and good for them, but what do WE get out of it? And why in the hell would we willingly give up any of our own soverign decision-making abilities up to countries that are clearly less capable of productive decision-making than we are?

I think that a "North American Union" is an absolutely stupid idea. But then again, I expect no less from the "realist/globalist" crowd which is neither realistic nor global in nature.

Elliot

Well Elliot, I would prefer the Canadian health care system then the american. Thank you anyway but no Canadian wants to adopt the american style health care.

As far as this proposal, I would prefer it not to happen but I am sure one day it will happen anyway, We (CANADIANS) would not piggy back on you guys anyway. We do not want anything to do with this proposal, so you are happy where you are and we are happy where we are. Lets keep it that way.

Joe

[excon]

Hello:

I like it, but...

It would solve all the immigration and terrorist issues we have now with our southern and northern borders. Plus, it would allow us to concentrate on our ports. Those are the reasons to be for it.

The reason to be against it, however, is that our standard of living would plummet. The reason we can employ workers at $20.00 an hour is because we have a border that separates us from people who earn only $1.75 an hour.

It isn't fair, but I'm on THIS side of the border, and I want to keep it that way as long as I can. Yes, we need to let a trickle of them in to blow our leaves, but any more would be the ruin of us.

This has nothing to do with race. I love Mexicans. It has to do with ME, my FAMILY, and our holdings.

excon

[tomder55]

Steve the Amero concept was introduced in 2001 Amazon.com: Toward a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New: Books: Robert A. Pastor

DC

I was mistaken in using the words can’t get worse instead of becoming any greater . I see the distinction . I do think dejure open borders is a capitulation or at least a tacitus admission that we cannot control them. This proposal may well be cover for that admission.

I did not argue against a liberal free and fair trade policy . I am in fact in favor of one. My concern has been security issues and our loss of sovereignty .

The EU Constitution that they tried to shove down the throats of the Europeans would've paved the way to a loss of national identity . The only difference perhaps is that the Europeans I have spoken to (except French ) like to think of themselves primarily as European . As you see above the Canadians do not consider themselves primarily North Americans .Mexicans on either side of the border consider themselves Mexican .And I am a racist xenophobic-nativist etc. (I heard them all in the last month)

[Dark_crow]

Steve the Amero concept was introduced in 2001 Amazon.com: Toward a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New: Books: Robert A. Pastor

DC

I was mistaken in using the words can’t get worse instead of becoming any greater . I see the distinction . I do think dejure open borders is a capitulation or at least a tacitus admission that we cannot control them. This proposal may well be cover for that admission.

I did not argue against a liberal free and fair trade policy . I am in fact in favor of one. My concern has been security issues and our loss of sovereignty .

The EU Constitution that they tried to shove down the throats of the Europeans would've paved the way to a loss of national identity . The only difference perhaps is that the Europeans I have spoken to (except French ) like to think of themselves primarily as European . As you see above the Canadians do not consider themselves primarily North Americans .Mexicans on either side of the border consider themselves Mexican .And I am a racist xenophobic-nativist etc. (I heard them all in the last month)

I suppose that our view on national identity contributes to our differing viewpoints. I identify only with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not with borders. America’s border is quite different today that it was at the time its government was formed.
“Slowly but surely, acre by acre, Mexico's Baja Peninsula is becoming an American colony.”

And this was 4 years ago
Americans Stake Claims in a Baja Land Rush - New York Times

[tomder55]

I was not aware of the change in the Mexican Constitution . The last info I had was that "Forbidden Zones" real estate was still restricted from American purchase.

Mexico, North America - Central America - Regional Information and Foreign Ownership Laws

There is a lot of confusion about the “Forbidden Zones.” Foreigners cannot directly own real estate within the “Forbidden Zones” of 100 kilometers of the Mexican border and 50 kilometers of its coasts. Within these restricted areas, foreign ownership is possible under a fideicomiso (pronounced fee-deh-com-ee-so), or bank trust.

With the fideicomiso, a Mexican bank trust is created for a period of 50 years. The trust may be extended for an additional 50 years. The bank holds legal title to the property. The bank acts as trustee; the property buyer retains beneficial use.

Another article states :

Foreigners have the right to own real property, provided they do not invoke the protection of their government.

Boundaries in this instance sounds important because I do not believe your US Constitutional rights extend South of the border . With a new North American Union the Constitution may be toilet paper as laws are modified to accommodate the agreement.

[Dark_crow]

Hello:


The reason to be against it, however, is that our standard of living would plummet. The reason we can employ workers at $20.00 an hour is because we have a border that separates us from people who earn only $1.75 an hour.


excon

Your reasoning is absolutely wrong… the reason you earn $20.00 an hour has nothing to do with the border, it is because of your talents. Do you seriously believe a $1.75 an hour person from Mexico has your talent?

[ETWolverine]

Well Elliot, I would prefer the Canadian health care system then the american. Thank you anyway but no Canadian wants to adopt the american style health care.

Really?

Then why do so many Canadians cross the border to obtain health care in the USA? Why is it that in every poll taken in Canada regarding the healthcare system, the group most likely to be interested in getting rid of government-run healthcare is the poor... the very people this system was supposedly created to help?

Joe, if you are happy with average waits of several months for simple procedures, with a two-month average wait for an MRI and a 4-month average wait for a visit to an oncologist, then be my guest. You are free to have that system. But don't try to convince me that it is better than our system, when so many of your people come HERE to get treated because they can't get timely treatment at home. In fact, it has been stated by a number of experts in the field that if it wasn't for a large percentage of the Canadian population coming to America to get healthcare, the Canadian system would have already collapsed.

As far as this proposal, I would prefer it not to happen but I am sure one day it will happen anyway, We (CANADIANS) would not piggy back on you guys anyway. We do not want anything to do with this proposal, so you are happy where you are and we are happy where we are. Lets keep it that way.

Joe

You already do piggy-back off us, and apparently not all of your people are "happy where they are" because they keep coming HERE for medical care.

Are you aware that despite being the #1 spender on healthcare per capita among nations with nationalized healthcare, Canada ranks near the bottom in terms of availability of diagnostic equipment, number of doctors per 1000 patients, and mortality rates among infants and the elderly? That is from a report by the Fraser Institute from 2006 called "How Good Is Health Care? 2006 Report". Another Fraser Institute report states that the average wait for a CT scan in Canada is 4.3 weeks and for an MRI is 10.3 weeks.

Here's an interesting statistic about the Canadian healthcare system: The Manhattan Institute's Dr. David Gratzer, a Toronto physician, has stated that until recently 7 of 10 Canadian provinces (representing 95% of Canadian citizens) had contracts with AMERICAN COMPANIES FOR CANCER CARE. Over the past 5 years, however, Canadian cancer patients have instead been sent to under-utilized rural medical facilities for their cancer care "much like someone going from Manhattan to Buffalo for chemotherapy.”

There is even a company called Timely Medical Alternatives Inc. that has made a business out of transporting sick Canadians to the USA to avoid the long queues. Note that this is COMPLETELY LEGAL in Canada, because these patients aren't cutting the line, they are LEAVING the line. TImely Medical Alternatives Inc. provided the following statistics:

Typical Wait Times (after initial visit to a G.P.)

Wait to see a specialist for initial consultation
- Public: 6 - 12 months
- Private: 10 days

Wait for diagnostic imaging (excluding X-Rays) after seeing surgeon
- Public: 4 - 8 months
- Private: 24 hours

Wait for a biopsy (if necessary)
- Public: 2 months
- Private: 4 days

Wait for pathological analysis of tissue
- Public: 14 days
- Private: 1 - 3 days

Wait for follow-up visit to surgeon to discuss results of diagnostics
- Public: 1 - 3 months
- Private: 7 days

Wait for a surgical/hospital date to be set
- Public: 6 - 18 months
- Private: 1 day

Wait for surgery after date is set
- Public: 6 - 10 months
- Private: 7 days

They also noted that "There are only 3 countries in the developed world where it is (officially) illegal to spend your own money to take care of your own health - North Korea, Cuba, and Canada. Is it logical that we are the only 3 countries marching "in step"?"

I think that says it all, Joe. Sure, you pay less out of pocket than we do... but then again, you get less too. And in truth, you actually spend as much as we do for healthcare, you just spend it in the form of taxes rather than medical bills. In the end, the total spent is about the same, but our doctors and equipment are better, there are more of them, and we don't wait as long for a procedure.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Mr. Yet,

Big Brother is SUPPOSED to track everyone. They are supposed to know who is in this country, what business they have here, and whether they are breaking the law or not. That's their job. And if they DON'T know the answers to those questions, then we as a society need to ask ourselves two questions: 1) Where is all the money I am payuing in taxes going? And 2) If the government isn't doing their Constitutional job of protecting the sovereign borders from all threats, foreign and doemstic, then who will?

Elliot

[CaptainRich]

Mr. Yet,

Big Brother is SUPPOSED to track everyone. They are supposed to know who is in this country, what business they have here, and whether they are breaking the law or not. That's their job. And if they DON'T know the answers to those questions, then we as a society need to ask ourselves two questions: 1) Where is all the money I am payuing in taxes going? and 2) If the government isn't doing their Constitutional job of protecting the sovereign borders from all threats, foreign and doemstic, then who will?

Elliot

I'd like to see where the tax dollars are going, anyway.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone when I say if I overspent my budget the way our national budget has been overspent, I'd probably be in jail.

[CaptainForest]

Elliot,

Why are you so anti-Canadian?

I am reading what you are writing and you are twisting the facts so much to suit your own purpose it is quite disgusting.

You say that many Canadians go to the US for Health Care. I don't see where you talk about how the Government of Canada PAYS for a lot of this coverage in the US? Seriously, where did you say that? Technically, it isn't the federal government, it is the provincial governments, but nevertheless, you make no mention of that.

As for out long waiting times. That is true, that is the downside to our system. But on the flip side, no one is penalized for not having the money to pay for health care. How many Americans are uninsured? If I get break my arm, and I go to the emergency room at my local hospital…guess how much I get charged? Nothing. That's right, nothing.

Yes we might have long waiting times for MRI's, but it is a far more fair system than what they have in the USA.

Most Canadians want to get rid of the health care? Especially the poor? That is so interesting, where do you get your numbers? Because in a poll that I just read, 87% of Canadians think the Canadian system is BETTER than the US system.

Where are you reading your twisted facts? Yes, the poor in Canada are generally more displeased with the QUALITY of the health care in this country than the rich, but they do not want to see a US style system. And there are plenty of reasons as to explain that correlation.

[ETWolverine]

Why are you so anti-Canadian?

I am reading what you are writing and you are twisting the facts so much to suit your own purpose it is quite disgusting.

I'm not anti- Canadian. I'm anti-socialism and anti-socialized healthcare. I actually love the Canadian people. That's why I want better health care for them.

You say that many Canadians go to the US for Health Care. I don’t see where you talk about how the Government of Canada PAYS for a lot of this coverage in the US? Seriously, where did you say that? Technically, it isn’t the federal government, it is the provincial governments, but nevertheless, you make no mention of that.

Actually, I did say that. My exact quote was this: "Here's an interesting statistic about the Canadian healthcare system: The Manhattan Institute's Dr. David Gratzer, a Toronto physician, has stated that until recently 7 of 10 Canadian provinces (representing 95% of Canadian citizens) had contracts with AMERICAN COMPANIES FOR CANCER CARE. Over the past 5 years, however, Canadian cancer patients have instead been sent to under-utilized rural medical facilities for their cancer care "much like someone going from Manhattan to Buffalo for chemotherapy.”" See it in my response to Jesushelper on 7/9/07, 4:44pm.

As for out long waiting times. That is true, that is the downside to our system. But on the flip side, no one is penalized for not having the money to pay for health care.

Neither does anyone in the USA who cannot afford it. In fact, the USA has federal laws on the books that state that hospitals MUST provide emergency care regardless of ability to pay. Nobody here is refused medical care because they can't pay.

How many Americans are uninsured?

Approximately 15 million (approximately 5% of the total US population). Of that number, approximately half are single males between the ages of 18 and 35 in good health who choose not to pay for insurance, but would rather spend their money on the latest flat-screen TV. Fine, that's a personal choice. But why should my tax dollars pay for their insurance just because they want the latest flat-screeen TV? The other 2.5% are served by the hospital system that doesn't charge them for their services.

If I get break my arm, and I go to the emergency room at my local hospital…guess how much I get charged? Nothing. That’s right, nothing.

Really? How much do you pay in taxes? There's no such thing as "FREE HEALTHCARE". It doesn't exist. You are paying... and you are actually paying much more than we are, because your taxes are higher than ours. And your service sucks by comparison to ours. So you are paying more and getting less. And again, that's not a criticism of Canadians. It's a criticism of the Canadian government-run healthcare system.

Yes we might have long waiting times for MRI’s, but it is a far more fair system than what they have in the USA.

You reallyu believe that paying higher taxes to cover the cost of services being used by other people is FAIR? You and I clearly have a different definition of fairness.

Most Canadians want to get rid of the health care? Especially the poor? That is so interesting, where do you get your numbers? Because in a poll that I just read, 87% of Canadians think the Canadian system is BETTER than the US system.

I find that interesting. Because the CMA Report Card poll for 2006 (July 2006) showed that 33% of those polled gave the Canadian healthcare system a C or F rating. Only 30% gave the system an A, and that number has been trending downward for the past several years from 35% in 2003. Furthermore, only 30% gave the system an A for primary care, while only 13% gave the system and A for specialty care, and only 14% gave the system an A for access to diagnostic equipment (MRIs and CTs). Only 13% gave an A for pediatic care. 74% gave the system a failing grade for care of special need children, and 66% gave a failing grade for mental health care. 40% of Canadians surveyed believe the healthare system is going to deteriorate over the next 2-3 years. Only 38% gave the federal government's performance regarding healthcare an A or B grade, and only 43% gave the provincial governments an A or B grade.

So it hardly seems as if the Canadian system of "universal healthcare" is universally appreciated by the Canadian people.

Furthermore, the polls that show that Canadians prefer the Canadian system to the American system tend to be skewed. If you instead ask the question, "Which do you believe has the better QUALITY of healthcare?" the answer is almost universally that the US system is better. The part that Canadians prefer is not having to pay out of pocket. But they hate the wait times, they hate the lower quality of care, and those who can afford it come here for healthcare.

Where are you reading your twisted facts? Yes, the poor in Canada are generally more displeased with the QUALITY of the health care in this country than the rich, but they do not want to see a US style system. And there are plenty of reasons as to explain that correlation.

The "twisted facts" come from the CMA itself, based on its own polls.

And the rich in your country are less displeased with Canadian healthcare quality because they come to the USA for their healthcare. The poor in Canada don't have that option.

The very system that your government designed to make the system "fair" is the cause of the very elitism and multi-tiered system you were trying to avoid. Those who can afford better healthcare come to America and avoide the queues. (Or do you deny that it happens?)

Those who cannot afford to come to America for healthcare suffer and hope that their diseases don't progress to far while they wait on the queue for a diagnostic test, and then another for a consultation with a specialist, and then possibly a third for surgery or other treatment. IF they don't die, and IF their disease doesn't progress too far in the interim, they may get care that is below the standards we regularly have here in the USA, performed by the Canadian doctors who weren't able to get jobs in the USA's private medical industry.

Elliot

[BABRAM]

Get ready to Rumble


The documents contain references to upwards of 13 working groups
within an entire organized infrastructure that has drawn from
officials within most areas of administrative government including
U.S. departments of State, Homeland Security, Commerce, Treasury,
Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, Health and Human Services, and
the office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

The United States and the European Union have signed up to a new
transatlantic economic partnership that will see regulatory standards
"harmonized" and will lay the basis for a merging of the US and EU
into one single market.

I share the same concern as many other that have responded, more specifically U.S. citizens. However I'm certain with the current global economy and the strength of the Euro, the English pound, and perhaps a few other country currencies... we (the U.S.) are not the center of the economic universe as we once were.


Bobby