China Wants To Construct A 50 Square Mile Self-Sustaining City South Of Boise, Idaho

China Wants To Construct A 50 Square Mile Self-Sustaining City South Of Boise, Idaho



Thanks to the trillions of dollars that the Chinese have made flooding our shores with cheap products, China is now in a position of tremendous economic power. So what is China going to do with all of that money? One thing that they have decided to do is to buy up pieces of the United States and set up "special economic zones" inside our country from which they can continue to extend their economic domination. One of these "special economic zones" would be just south of Boise, Idaho and the Idaho government is eager to give it to them. China National Machinery Industry Corporation (Sinomach for short) plans to construct a "technology zone" south of Boise Airport which would ultimately be up to 50 square miles in size. The Chinese Communist Party is the majority owner of Sinomach, so the 10,000 to 30,000 acre "self-sustaining city" that is being planned would essentially belong to the Chinese government. The planned "self-sustaining city" in Idaho would include manufacturing facilities, warehouses, retail centers and large numbers of homes for Chinese workers. Basically it would be a slice of communist China dropped right into the middle of the United States.

According to the Idaho Statesman, the idea would be to build a self-contained city with all services included. It would be modeled after the "special economic zones" that currently exist in China.

Perhaps the most famous of these "special economic zones" is Shenzhen. Back in the 1970s, Shenzhen was just a very small fishing village. Today it is a sprawling metropolis of over 14 million people.

If the Chinese have their way, we will soon be seeing these "special economic zones" pop up all over the United States.

So exactly who is "Sinomach"?

The following description of the company comes directly from the website of Sinomach....

With approval of the State Council, China National Machinery Industry Corporation (SINOMACH) was established in January 1997. SINO-MACH is a large scale, state-owned enterprise group under the supervision of the State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission.
As you can see, Sinomach is basically an arm of the Chinese government.

The borrower is always the servant of the lender, and now China is buying up America.

The reality is that Sinomach is not looking only at Idaho. Sinomach is in discussions to develop "special economic zones" all over the United States.

Sinomach has recently dispatched delegations to Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania to explore the possibility of establishing "special economic zones" in those states.

Will such "self-contained communities" soon start appearing from coast to coast?

According to Dr. Jerome Corsi, the U.S. government has already set up 257 "foreign trade zones" across America. These "foreign trade zones" will apparently be given "special U.S. customs treatment" and will be used to promote global free trade....

"The FTZs tend to be located near airports, with easy access into the continental NAFTA and WTO multi-modal transportation systems being created to move free-trade goods cheaply, quickly and efficiently throughout the continent of North America."
So what do our politicians think about all of this?

Most of them are greatly in favor of it.

"Idaho’s the last state that should say we don’t want to do business with Asia," Idaho Lt. Gov. Brad Little said last year. "Asia’s where the money is."

So will all of this "foreign investment" really bring jobs back to the American people?

Perhaps a few, but the truth is that these "special economic zones" that the Chinese are setting up are designed to be self-contained communist Chinese communities. Some Americans will likely be employed in these areas, but not nearly as many as our politicians would have you to believe.

In addition, these "special economic zones" represent a massive national security threat. The communist Chinese could potentially be able to bring in and store massive amounts of military equipment virtually undetected.

In the days of the Cold War, we would have never dreamed of giving the Russians a 50 square mile city in the middle of Idaho.

But today we have become convinced that the communist Chinese want to be our great friends.

The following quote originally appeared in the Idaho Statesman, but has since apparently been taken down....

"The Chinese are looking for a beachhead in the United States," said Idaho Commerce Secretary Don Dietrich. "Idaho is ready to give them one."Indeed.

If relations between the U.S. and China go south someday, we will deeply regret giving China so many open doors.

The truth is that you can never fully trust the communist Chinese. Their top military officers talk about a coming conflict with the United States all the time. China is extremely interested in North America. In fact, the Chinese and the Mexicans have even been holding talks on military cooperation.

But even if you don't consider the communist Chinese to be a military threat, you should be deeply concerned about the economic implications of what is happening.

Today, tens of millions of Americans are wondering why the economy is so bad.

Well, there are a lot of reasons, but the fact that we have sent China thousands of our factories, millions of our jobs and trillions of dollars of our national wealth is a major contributing factor.

If you do not know the truth about how badly the Chinese economy is wiping the floor with the Americen economy then you need to read this article: "40 Signs The Chinese Economy Is Beating The Living Daylights Out Of The U.S. Economy".

Beautiful new infrastructure is going up all over China today, and meanwhile many of our once great manufacturing cities are turning into rotted-out war zones.

China would not be what they are today if we had insisted that they abandon the communist system and respect basic human rights before we ever opened up trade with them.

But that did not happen. Instead we enthusiastically welcomed China into the WTO and we let the predatory Chinese system run wild.

In 2010, China had a "current account balance" of over 272 billion dollars, which was the largest in the world.

In 2010, the United States had a "current account balance" of negative 561 billion dollars. According to the CIA world factbook, that put us in last place in the entire world. In fact, our negative current account balance was more than 9 times larger than anyone else in the world. If you go check out this chart it will give you a really good idea of how nightmarish our trade situation has become.

The world is changing and nothing is ever going to be the same again.

Just ask the residents of Boise, Idaho - they are about to have a 50 square mile self-contained communist Chinese city plopped right into their backyard.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/china-wants-to-construct-a-50-square-mile-self-sustaining-city-south-of-boise-idaho

does anyone find this offensive????? I do

retired2934 wrote:does anyone find this offensive????? I do

I absolutely agree.

here is a article from Dec. 31, 2010

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/12/31/1472023/chinese-company-eyes-boise.html

Quote from above article: While Otter was in Beijing in June, he spoke about the project with Jin
Kening, chairman of the China National Chemical Engineering Corp. — a
different government-owned company. Don said Chinese national companies
do compete with each other, but won’t let their own competition get in
the way.

Executive order #12803....uhmm?

chevy#3 wrote: Executive order #12803....uhmm?

OK I found this:

http://waterindustry.org/12803.htm

.......signed by George Bush Sr. in 1992, which authorized the selling off of infrastructure to private parties.


Title 3
Executive order 12803 of April 30, 1992
57 FR 19063 / May 4, 1992

TEXT: By the authority vested in me as president by the laws of the United States of America, end in order to ensure that the United States achieves the most beneficial economic use of its resources, it is hereby ordered as follows:Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) “Privatization” means the disposition or transfer of an infrastructure asset, such as by sale or by long-term lease, from a State or local government to a private party. (b) “infrastructure asset” means any asset financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government and needed for the functioning of the economy. Examples of such assets include, but are not limited to: roads, tunnels, bridges, electricity supply facilities. mass transit, rail transportation, airports, ports. waterways, water supply facilities, recycling and wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, housing, schools, prisons, and hospitals. (c) “Originally authorized purposes” means the general objectives of the original grant program; however, the term is not intended to include every condition requires for a grantee to have obtained the original grant. (d) “Transfer price” means: (i) the amount paid or to be paid by a private party for an infrastructure asset, if the asset is transferred as a result of a competitive bidding; of (ii) the appraised value of an infrastructure asset, as determined by the head of the executive department or agency and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, if the asset is not transferred as a result of competitive bidding. (e) “state and local governments” means the government of any state of the United States, the District of Columbia. any commonwealth. territory, or possession of the United States, and any country, municipality, city, town. township, local public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, regional or interstate governmental entity, council of governments, and any agency or instrumentality of a local government, and any federally recognized Indian Tribe. Sec. 2. Fundamental Principles. Executive departments and agencies shall be guided by the following objectives and principles: (a) Adequate and well-maintained infrastructure is critical to economic growth. Consistent with the principles of federalism enumerated in Executive Order No. 12612, and in order to allow the private sector to Provide for infrastructure modernization and expansion, State and local governments should have greater freedom to privatize infrastructure assets. (b) Private enterprise and competitively driven improvements are the foundation of our Nation’s economy and economic growth. Federal financing of infrastructure assets should not act as a barrier to the achievement of economic efficiencies through additional private market financing or competitive practices, or both. (c) State and local governments are in the best position to assess and respond to local needs. States and local governments should, subject to assuring continued compliance with Federal requirements that public use be on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, have maximum possible freedom to make decisions concerning the maintenance and disposition of their federally financed infrastructure assets. (d) User fees are generally more efficient than general taxes as a means to support infrastructure assets. Privatization transactions should be structured so as not to result in unreasonable increases in charges to users. BACK TO POLICY HOMEPAGE

Sec. 3. Privatization initiative. To the extent permitted by law, the head of each executive department and agency shall undertake the following actions: (a) Review those procedures affecting the management and disposition of federally financed infrastructure assets owned by State and local governments and modify those procedures to encourage appropriate privatization of such assets consistent: with this order;(b) Assist State and Local governments in their efforts to advance the objectives of this order; and (c) Approve State and local governments’ requests to Privatize infrastructure assets, consistent with the criteria in section 4 of this order and, where necessary, grant exceptions to the disposition requirements of the “Uniform Administration Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments” common rule, or other relevant rules or regulations for infrastructure assets; provided that the transfer price shall be distributed, as paid, in the following manner: (i) State and local governments shall first recoup in full the unadjusted dollar amount of their portion of total project costs (including any transaction and fix-up costs they incur) associated with the infrastructure assets involved; (ii) if proceeds remain, then the Federal Government shall recoup in full the amount of Federal grant awards, associated with the infrastructure assets, less the applicable share of accumulated depreciation on such asset (calculating using the Internal Revenue Service accelerated depreciation schedule far the categories of assets in question); and (iii) finally, the State and local governments shall keep any remaining proceeds, Sec. 4. Criteria. To the extent permitted by law, the head of an executive department or agency shall approve a request in accordance with section 3(c) of this order only if the grantee: (a) Agrees to use the proceeds described in section 3 (e)(iii) of this order only far investment in additional infrastructure assets (after public notice of the proposed investment) or for debt or tax reduction; and (b) Demonstrates that a market mechanism, legally enforceable agreement, or regulatory mechanism will ensure that: (i) the infrastructure asset or assets will continue to be used for their originally authorized purposes; and (ii) user charges will be consistent with any current Federal conditions that protect users and the public by limiting the charges. Sec. 5. Government-wide coordination and Review. In implementing Executive Order Nos. 12291 and 12498 and OMB Circular No. A-19, the Office of Management and Budget, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the provisions of those authorities, shall take action to ensure that the policies of the executive department and agencies are consistent with the principles, criteria. and requirements of this order. me Office of Management and Budget shall review the results of implementing this order and report thereon to the President one year after the date of this order. Sec. 6. Preservation of Existing m Authority. Nothing in this order is in any way intended to limit any existing authority of the heads of executive departments and agencies to approve privatization proposals that are otherwise consistent with law. Sec. 7. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentality’s, its officers or employees, or any other person. /a/ George Bush THE WHITE HOUSE April 30, 1992.

New article out of Texas on it:

http://www.texasrepublicansclub.com/2009/07/was-america-sold/#more
Was America Sold?





By Nancy Levant
NewsWithViews.com
In 1992, George H.W. Bush signed Executive Order 12803, which gave
D.C. the authority to sell America’s infrastructure. They called this
authority “Infrastructure Privatization.” E.O. 12803 tells us this power
cleared the way for the “disposition or transfer of an infrastructure
“asset” such as by sale or by long-term lease from a State or local
government to a private party.”Rest of the story at the above link.

I watched a video some were , were china built a city like that somewere but hardly anyone lived in it but a very few. I will see if I can find it