• JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 64
  • JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 1668
  • JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 179
  • JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 64
  • JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 1668
  • JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 179


Written by Warren Mass on Friday, April 09 2010 14:46.

A Fox News report of April 8 notes that the UN is housing relief workers sent to Haiti to offer services following the nation’s devastating 7.0 earthquake on January 12 aboard two chartered luxury cruise ships. One of the ships has been dubbed the "Love Boat" by UN staff members.

The United Nations World Food Program announced on its website on March 19 that two UN-chartered passenger cruise ships, the Ola Esmeralda and the Sea Voyager, had docked in Port au Prince harbor.

But Fox noted that the website announcement did not disclose that the vessels were not intended to house homeless Haitian refugees, but would instead accommodate employees of the U.N. itself. The UN website also did not reveal that the cost of leasing the ships was $112,500 a day and that one of the vessels is owned by a company closely linked to the government of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.

The fuses have been lit and the explosions are all but certain. The question is: Will enough citizens awake in time and compel our elected officials to take the necessary action to protect America from the blast? No, we are not referring to another imminent attack by Osama bin Laden’s minions.

The explosive is not TNT, ANFO, or RDX. It is labeled "ICC," for International Criminal Court, the new UN global tribunal set to go into operation July 1st. It is aimed not at specific buildings or individuals, but at blowing away the entire constitutional system that protects our rights as individuals.

Contrary to media reports, White House pronouncements, and congressional statements, recent measures taken by the Bush administration have provided no real and lasting protection against the ICC’s threats to our liberties. Indeed, the misperception that current U.S. halfway measures and rhetoric afford genuine safety actually compounds our danger by lulling the American people and Congress into a false sense of security and providing a disincentive to take timely and effective action now, when it is most needed.

At her press conference on September 19, 2001, our nation’s national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, noted with approval some of President Bush’s actions in the wake of the terrorist attacks on our nation. “One of the very first calls he made was to Jiang Zemin in China,” she recalled. She reported that our president enjoyed a very friendly, consoling, and cooperative reception from the Chinese Communist dictator.

But one day before Ms. Rice’s televised account, New York Times reporter Serge Schmemann wrote that China “would support military action for the terror only if the action was consistent with the United Nations charter.” In the words of Zhu Bangzao, chief spokesman of China’s military, “All actions should be consistent with international law, especially the U.N. Charter.” On September 13th, two days after the commercial airliners became death-dealing bombs, USA Today reproduced a portion of an editorial from Beijing’s China Daily, the voice of the Chinese Communist government. It called for “the international community … to wage all-out war on terrorism by, in the final analysis, establishing a new world order....” (Emphasis added.) Communist China obviously wants to enhance the UN’s prestige by involving the organization in any military response to the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania.

TPPAOver the weekend, while making the rounds of Asian capitals, President Obama announced that the United States would join negotiations for a trans-Pacific trade deal with seven other pacific rim countries: Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Brunei, Vietnam, Peru and Chile. 

U.S. commitment to the trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is being called a "major breakthrough" in the New Zealand press. New Zealand's prime minister John Key said the negotiations were initiated on the weekend and could be completed by 2011.

What is wrong with this picture? Over a year ago, progressive observers in Australia explained it for the less educated members of the Fourth Estate in the United States:

For the US to undertake negotiations for a trade agreement Congress has first to grant approval to start specific negotiations, and has also to grant Trade Promotion Authority to enable the Executive to conclude the negotiations and put an agreement to Congress with a yes or no vote, without amendments. There has been no formal Congress approval of TPPA negotiation, President Bush’s Trade Promotion Authority has also expired in March 2007. This means the current US administration has no approval to start negotiation and no authority to conclude them.

It is really that clear cut. Apparently, however, bureaucrats in the United States Trade Representative's (USTR) office believe that publishing their intent to abbrogate the Constitution of the United States in the Federal Register absolves them of any immediate need for Congressional approval. 

In their Federal Register posting, The USTR claims authority to negotiate on the TPP under Chapter 19 of U.S. Code 3804. This Section of the code was created by the Trade Act of 2002 which expired on July 1, 2007.

For reference, Section 3803, immediately preceding Section 3804, is titled, "Trade agreements authority." It reads:

...this chapter will be promoted thereby, the President -
(A) may enter into trade agreements with foreign countries
before -
(i) July 1, 2005; or
(ii) July 1, 2007, if trade authorities procedures are
extended under subsection (c) of this section;

TPA was extended from July 2005 to July 2007 under subsection c, but it officially expired on July 1, 2007. USTR is taking a novel approach and acting as if section 3804 is still valid even though the authority given in 3803 to follow the procedures in 3804 has expired. They are claiming that the procedures are alive even though the authority that created them is dead. I'm not a lawyer, but this sure looks like another case where the criminals in Washington are pretending they have power and hoping we don't call them on it. Similar to our "voluntary" income tax I suppose.

Still, the rule of law has not yet been openly declared null and void in the United States. If, in fact, the U.S. has entered into negotiations on the TPPA this weekend, President Obama and the USTR are openly violating our Constitution and should be held accountable. 

Please contact your Congressman today to demand an explanation. The question is simple: Under what authority is the Obama adminstration negotiating U.S. entry into the TPPA? The answer is equally simple: U.S. involvement in the TPPA is illegitimate and must be immediately ceased. If your Congressman can't figure this one out, they should be removed from office.

Note: The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is the sister agreement to the Trans-Atlantic Agenda. Together with NAFTA and the North American Leaders Summit (new name for the discredited SPP), these deals are building blocks for an integrated system of global governance managed by Western financial interests and their collaborators around the world. What we did to the stop the SPP, we can do to the TPPA.  Let's get to work.

Representatives from the three NAFTA countries visit before the Oct 19 meeting in DallasFifteen years ago our countries launched the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Since its entry into force, trade and investment flows have increased, investment has grown, and our economies have become more competitive. The benefits of expanding trade have flowed to businesses, farmers, workers, and consumers.... Today we met to celebrate our achievements and to lay a course for the future.

Yes, you have just read something produced by government bureaucrats working in the ministry of propaganda — the NAFTA Free Trade Commission (FTC) to be exact. For those with a stomach for it, you can read the full version of the FTC's joint statement of October 19 here.

Force is the operative word in the "Free" Trade Commission's opening statement. NAFTA has nothing to do with real free trade. It has always been about managing the flow of money and wealth into the coffers of those who wrote the agreement for their benefit.

JBS Facebook JBS Twitter JBS YouTube JBS RSS Feed