Hillary Clinton is the true RACIST!

Racism is not always as obvious as someone saying some words. too many times the racist could seem to not be racist if he or she just does not say anything derogatory about someone else’s race. So, therefore, to be able to identify a racist, often one needs to look at their actions and decisions. If someone takes an action, or makes a decision, which results in damage or adversely affect a specific race (even if other races are affected as well).

racismNorth American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which went into force in 1994, changed relations between the U.S. and Mexico in two significant ways. It virtually eliminated tariffs between the two countries, and it made it easier for U.S. firms to invest in Mexico. Quoting an Economic Policy Institute article, by By Robert E. Scott • November 17, 2003, titled, “The high price of ‘free’ trade – NAFTA’s failure has cost the United States jobs across the nation,” I have included the following:

Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA’s impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers’ collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions and reduced fringe benefits.

Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in this country, but increases in imports tend to reduce jobs because the imports displace goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers.

In fact, most U.S. exports to Mexico are parts and components that are shipped to Mexico and assembled into final products that are then returned to the United States. The number of products that Mexico assembles and exports—such as refrigerators, TVs, automobiles, and computers—has mushroomed under the NAFTA agreement. Many of these products are produced in the Maquiladora export processing zones in Mexico, where parts enter duty-free and are re-exported to the United States in assembled products, with duties paid only on the value added in Mexico. The share of total U.S. exports to Mexico that is represented by Maquiladora imports has risen from 39% of U.S. exports in 1993 to 61% in 2002.2 The number of such plants increased from 2,114 in 1993 to 3,251 in 2002 (INEGI 2003a, 2003b).

Between 1994 (when NAFTA was implemented) and 2000, total employment rose rapidly in the United States, causing overall unemployment to fall to record low levels. But unemployment began to rise early in 2001, and 2.4 million jobs were lost in the domestic economy between March 2001 and October 2003 (BLS 2003). These job losses have been primarily concentrated in the manufacturing sector, which has experienced a total decline of 2.4 million jobs since March 2001. As job growth has dried up in the economy, the underlying problems caused by U.S. trade deficits have become much more apparent, especially in manufacturing.

If we look throughout the United States and look for areas where this is most clear, we can find that in areas where black and Latino US citizens live were strongly and adversely affected. They had to know ahead of time of the possible results, which were that specific races in the US would be impacted more than others. Though this fact was hidden from the public beneath the “positive” accolades which were supposed to occur. This implies intent. If this is true, and I believe it is, then the actors here (the Clintons) knew that blacks and Latinos were in danger of losing jobs (which would move out of the United States) and still took the action they did. They consciously took action which directly impacted and adversely affected the black and Latino US citizens. This is a signal of racism.

One more point, there is no question that Mexican citizens live in danger from drug cartels, rogue military units, and too often, from their own government. The Syrian refugees that Obama wants to bring into the United States, and with whom Hillary agrees, also live in danger, except that apart from suffering danger from Radical Islamic Terrorists, they were not in danger from their own government. Why are the Syrians more important than Mexicanos? Why does Hillary believe that Syrians are in greater need of US residency and citizenship, than Mexicans? Leftists Democrats love to accuse others (like Donald Trump), of racism, but their own actions prove to me that, in fact, it is they who are the racists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *