If Henry Kissinger and Richard N. Gardner told you they wanted to destroy our nation’s independence via a “piecemeal” approach while calling their treachery something else, wouldn’t you be on guard? Wouldn’t you watch for and oppose them, their allies, and their plans as they place pieces into a mosaic that will become a world government? Of course you would. Well, they and numerous others have boldly told us what they intend, have already taken several steps toward achievement of the overall goal, and surely delight in seeing their nightmarish dreams moving toward fulfillment.
Some of the pieces of this world government mosaic have already been created. NAFTA is perhaps the most important. But another, the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) offered by both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush, ran into a substantial roadblock erected by The John Birch Society. It is no longer being promoted and something else has taken its place. Now there’s a need to create another roadblock, one needed to stop America’s entry into a proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement.
Remaining faithful to the piecemeal approach, individuals promoting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have successfully entwined the following nations in negotiations toward the overall goal: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. Representatives of each of these nations will meet in Auckland, New Zealand, during December 3-12, 2012, for the 15th round of TPP negotiations. The purpose of their gathering is to cement agreement about a formal TPP trade pact in the near future.
Trade pact? How could anyone be opposed to a trade pact? The answer, very simply, is that economic integration is always followed by political integration. Is economic integration the initial goal of the TPP? Indeed it is, and that goal is so stated in the “Trans- Pacific Partnership Frequently Asked Questions” section of the official website of the the United States Trade Representative (http://www.ustr.gov/tpp), which candidly states: “The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a vehicle for Asia-Pacific-wide economic integration.” Further indicating TPP’s goal, the group’s organizers boldly discussed the “vision of negotiating a high-standard, 21st century regional agreement.” In other words, the TPP conference in New Zealand is a grand step toward gaining nation-by-nation approval of another sovereignty-compromising trade agreement.
As stated by proponents of this latest attack on national sovereignty, the bait being used to build sentiment toward an eventual Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement is “jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity.” This is exactly what lured 27 nations in Europe to enter into the European Union. None were told that they were joining a sovereignty- compromising political group, but many Europeans now realize that this is precisely what happened. It will surely happen to the United States and other nations if their leaders continue down the rosy path being laid out for them by the TPP.
“The “free trade” claimed by promoters of TPP and like-minded agreements is not genuine free trade. NAFTA contains close to 2,000 pages of regulations. It has cost the U.S. millions of jobs, led to the closing of countless factories, opened the borders, and even formed judicial panels whose rulings supersede state and federal judicial decisions. It’s not truly free and its purpose was always more control over nations than exchanging goods. If Canada and the U.S. successfully engaged in mutually beneficial trading for hundreds of years before NAFTA, why was the pact deemed necessary? The answer is the hook behind the bait. The hook brings the bait-taker toward political integration, a clever phrase that means loss of sovereignty.
In the early 20th Century, American industrialist Lewis E. Lloyd enthusiastically endorsed the idea of free trade. But he eventually reversed his opinion and wrote a book in 1955 entitled Tariffs: The Case For Protection. He listed eight conditions that trading partners would have to accept if free trade were truly to exist. These were: (1) Taxes must be comparable; (2) A single monetary system must be in use; (3) There must be uniform business laws; (4) There must be similar business ethics; (5) Uniform wage rates must prevail; (6) Migration of labor must exist; (7) There must be freedom from the threat of war; and (8) There must be a world government.
If a super government had an enforcement arm powerful enough to assure compliance with such require- ments by once-independent nations, it would also have power sufficient to create world tyranny. Which brings us back to the likes of Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard N. Gardner and, of course, David Rockefeller, who is the patron of each.
Trade agreements have to be approved by both Houses of Congress (as was NAFTA). Each member of Congress therefore, and especially those newly elected, must be alerted by constituents. “No Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement” is the message. The inde- pendence of our country requires that you begin to act on this project. But also start to contact business lead- ers, city and community officials, and others to ask that they, too, alert U.S. senators and representatives about coming proposals arising from the TPP negotiations and the trade pact agreement that will follow.
If you think your elected officials need a little bit more evidence to convince them to oppose moves toward another free trade agreement, inform them that a man named Karl Marx addressed the topic in a speech he delivered in Brussels on January 8, 1848. He said: “Free trade breaks up old nationalities ... in a word, the free trade system hastens social revolution.” If Marx praised free trade, it cannot be good for America.
We won the fight to block the FTAA. We can win the fight to block the TPP too. And, with a few more significant victories, we can win the whole war.
Contact your senators and representative in opposition to congressional approval of any Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement.
(This article was first published as "The Enemy Never Sleeps but His Plans Can Be Blocked" in the December 2012 Bulletin of The John Birch Society, and is posted here with permission.)
(Graphic of Pacific Ocean via Shutterstock.)