The Free Trade Agenda… It’s not about trade and it certainly is not free !!!
If the Free Trade Agenda is not about Trade, then what is it about?
It is all about convincing a slumbering Congress to transfer it’s responsibility “to regulate trade among the states and with foreign nations” to supra-national councils (aka soviets) that are unelected, appointed bureaucrats. Once accomplished, the American people will lose the ability to influence trade policy through their elected officials and become victimized by new, ever-increasing, far-reaching global trade policies and global enforcement agents. Think the regulatory monstrosity is bad now?
This is all unlawful, mind you.
#1. If Congress is to cede power that is explicitly defined in the Constitution, how can it be accomplished by simple legislation? Would that not be considered an alteration of the Constitution and the checks and balances defined within it? Yet we have allowed NAFTA, GATT, the WTO and other similar agreements to be handled in this slick manner. Shame on us! These people should be forced to attempt these schemes through a proper amendment procedure which would be far more difficult if not impossible to accomplish. The supreme court has held as recently as 1998 “the non-delegation doctrine” in Clinton et al v. City of New York. This ruling cited J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928), an opinion of at least 80 years duration.
#2. Assuming an amendment were to open the door to this nefarious activity, isn’t a trade agreement involving other foreign powers a Treaty? As such, a simple law is not suffice. This type of agreement would also need to muster two-thirds vote in the Senate as any other treaty requires.
Now it becomes obvious why the President always seeks “Fast Track” or “Trade Promotion Authority” to sneak these agreements through. Under a fast track or TPA method, the Congress is confined to an up or down vote. Debate is limited if allowed at all and no amendments may be offered. Perhaps POTUS knows that even a minor amount of scrutiny will disclose the unlawful nature of the entire process and the treasonous results of the various agreements.
#3. Is “Fast-Track” or “Trade Promotion Authority” constitutional? Not only did the supreme court uphold “the non-delegation doctrine” it also found that “The Line Item Veto”, which was at the heart of this case, violated the “presentment” clauses. Doesn’t “Fast Track” also violate the presentment clauses?
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the president of the United States… US Constitution – Article 1 Section 7 clause 3
The truth is, there is no legitimate means by which this type of agreement can be ratified. Trade matters belong to the whole Congress. And agreements among nations belong to the Senate & President. The President & the Senate can not do by treaty that which the entire government is denied by the Constitution itself. Treaties must be pursuant to the Authority of the Constitution. The non-delegation doctrine requires a specific amendment to allow the delegation of trade authority from the Congress to another body. The multiplicity of nations involved in trade agreements would require treaty law. Even after these hurdles would be cleared, there is some doubt as to whether or not a treaty can include non-governmental organizations and multiple nation states. The entire “Free Trade Agenda” is highly irregular.
The European Model
A truly fascinating study of the European Union’s 50 year progression into a supra-national entity reveals that a European “Free Trade Agenda” was at the heart of the entire process. Rumor has it, that the TTIP, The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment partnership seeks direct economic ties between the US and the EU. Why tie our anchor to that sinking ship? The answer is… The “Free Trade Agenda” is not about free trade. The free trade agenda is a cornerstone program for the creation of a new world order. The transformation of America is indeed happening; and it is happening all too quickly!
How is it that free trade requires partnerships? The very use of the word partnership should be a telling signal to Americans that this type of legislation is more about building an International Framework for World Government than establishing “Free Trade”. By the way, is there any guarantee that “free” trade is “fair” trade? A whole host of new questions can be raised once that sentiment is considered.
If you would like to investigate these issues in detail and live in the Philadelphia area, a meeting is being held on April 9, 2014. See the flyer below and pass it around. Share it with your friends and family. The future of our economy and our ability to self-govern is at stake.
Education Resources: Extensive Coverage by The New American Magazine
- Trans Atlantic Danger (TNA Article)
- Secretly Trading Away Our Independence (TNA Article)
- United States of Europe (TNA Prediction)
- CFR Applauds “Sovereignty Subversion” (TNA Article)
- Obama et al push EU-US Merger (TNA Article)
- Download Free Magazine Issue (Download File)
- Obama places US-EU Merger on the Front Burner (Video)
- Download Free Trade Booklet (Download)
Action Resources: You Are The Resistance !!!
- NEW: Educational Tools (pamphlets, reprints, etc) at ShopJBS.org
- Free Trade Promises & Reality (download brochure)
- Real Price of Free Trade (download brochure)
- Not-So-Free Trade (download brochure)
- Help Keep America (download brochure)
- Quick Federal Letter – Send a letter Opposing Free Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)
- Quick Federal Letter – Send a letter Opposing The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)
- Quick Federal Letter – Send a letter Opposing Transatlantic Tade & Investment Partnership (TTIP)
- Quick State Letter – Send a letter Opposing Free Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)
*** RESERVE A SEAT NOW ***
Other Locations Too ! See the Tour Map below.
*** RESERVE A SEAT NOW ***
The Constitution Under Attack **** GET YOUR FREE MAGAZINE ****
Alert! A rather insidious assault on the Constitution has been in progress for many years now in the form of a continual erosion of the rights of the people, the ignoring of checks and balances, the creation of extra-constitutional branches of government and the defiant redefinition of the document itself.
Yet now, as perhaps never before seen, there is a two-fold attack on the United States Constitution which is being perpetrated by both “Conservative” and “Liberal” interests simultaneously under the auspices of Domestic and Foreign Policy. While both political factions tend to oppose one another in these two areas, the solution each faction promotes would ultimately “fundamentally change” America.
A Treasonous Foreign Policy
The Obama Administration is in the process of hammering out two new “Free Trade” agreements in backroom negotiations. The two treaties are the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The TPP would establish a partnership in which the United States would join with Pacific rim nations in a regional super-governmental structure in which US domestic law would be brought into conformity with that of the other block members. The TTIP would accomplish much the same with nations in the Atlantic region, namely, the European Union nations. Enforcement of the harmonizing of law amongst these blocks of nations would require new international agencies. One can easily see, that the creation of these new agencies by our Congress would move the responsibility of law making out of the hands of our elected representatives to agency members not directly affected by the will of the voting public. In other words, the people of our nation will have lost its ability to affect legislation in these areas. Furthermore, dispute resolution would necessarily need to be handled in tribunals which represent the interests of the partnerships as a whole. Therefore, American businesses will be subject to the will of non-American or super-national panels without recourse to the national legislature.
It is difficult to discuss exact details of these treaties at this time because the negotiations are closed to Congress and the American people. The secrecy in which these negotiations are being conducted is foreboding. I suppose we have to pass the “Partnerships” to find out what is in them. What we do know is that they are being treated as if they are treaties and we are reminded that Treaty Law supersedes the Constitution. Despite the fact that there is ample evidence to show that treaties are invalid when they attempt to alter the Constitution, much damage has already been done in this manner through NAFTA and the WTO while our domestic courts have ignored these abuses. See the free magazine link below which details what we know at this time.
A Dangerous Domestic Agenda
Meanwhile, in an attempt to arrest the abuses of a run-away federal leviathan in Washington, our “Conservative” leaders are dreaming up new ways to destroy our Constitution. The latest fad is that of the Liberty Amendments being promoted by Mark Levin. This movement is quite insidious and rather ingenious. While the various problems discussed by Mr. Levin are real, genuine concerns, the poison is in the solution. A Constitutional Convention call could accomplish all of the planks of the “Liberal Left” at once, even if it were called by “Conservatives” for the exact opposite intentions. Please understand, I am not opposed to the intentions, the reasoning, or the correction of real abuses. I oppose the method of solution and here is why.
In the United States of America, the sovereign will of the people is the basis for all government. We are reminded in the Declaration of Independence that “…Men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights… That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
The methods established within the Constitution to invoke this abolition or altering of the government is the Article V process. One such method is via a Constitutional Convention commonly called a Con-Con. There is a reason this method is not normally used.
Once this process is invoked and delegates are appointed, they would operate with the sovereign power of the people. This raw power must operate outside the confines of the governmental form which they seek to alter or abolish and there is no authority on earth which can restrain it. We are told that the amendments they would seek to establish would require ratification by the existing state governments. Is that a guarantee? No. Theoretically, the existing ratification process could be altered or abolished during this process. We have the historical precedent of the 1787 Constitutional Convention to prove that fact.
When the original 1787 Convention was called, the body was under instruction to alter the Articles of Confederation and the ratification process was specified to require unanimous consent of the 13 state legislatures. Rather than alter the existing document as instructed, they wrote an entirely new document. Read the document they gave us:
“The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”
What happened to the unanimous consent requirement?
So, I caution my fellow countrymen. Do not be so gullible as to accept these assurances. There are no assurances. Ask yourself a simple question. In a country in which its leaders refuse to obey the contract of government, what makes our “Conservative” leadership believe that new amendments will be obeyed? The solution to America’s woes ultimately come down to the American people having the will to enforce the Constitution as it is written and as it is intended. That need will still exist regardless of how many amendments we pass.
Preserve The Constitution
The primary goal of all Americans must be to preserve the Constitution. For as long as this document stands as a bulwark against dictatorship, we have recourse to it. We have the ability to enforce it. If we allow either the “Left” to Supersede it via dangerous regional partnerships or the “Right” to alter it through convention, all bets are off. So, all men of good will need the Constitution. Our course of action is simple: Defend it and enforce it!
- How The Free Trade Agenda is Knocking down America (Full New American Magazine vol 29 no 17)
- America’s Voice Now Youtube Program November 2013 Part 1
- America’s Voice Now Youtube Program October 2013 Part 2
- America’s Voice Now Youtube Program October 2013
- America’s Voice Now Youtube Program August 2013
- Preserve Your Rights – Stop the “Free Trade” Agenda
- The “Free Trade” Agenda Threatens Our Rights
- Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity Calling for Con-Con
- Mark Levin’s Dangerous Constitutional Convention Proposal
- More About Levin’s Dangerous Con-Con Proposal
- Wrap-up Regarding Levin’s Dangerous Con-Con Proposal
- Not-So-Free Trade (Printable Brochure) Great Mailing Stuffer
- Real Price of Free Trade (Printable Brochure) Great Mailing Stuffer
- Free Trade Promises and Reality (Printable Brochure) Great Mailing Stuffer
Secure On-line Ordering:
Double Jeopardy in Jeopardy
Regardless of how you interpret the not-guilty verdict in the Zimmerman trial, all Americans should be concerned about the Federal Government launching a civil hate-crimes case against George Zimmerman. The Constitution provides protection against “Double Jeopardy”. It is in the best interest of all Americans to make sure our rights in this regard are protected. Even if it means allowing an injustice to prevail, it is critical that the federal government not be allowed to drag a defendant though repetitive trials. If Zimmerman can be indicted twice for the same crime, where does it end? Theoretically, he could be charged every time someone were to come forward with “new evidence” and he would have to live out his days in fear of a government indictment for an issue already resolved by a jury of his peers. Now, forget we are talking about George Zimmerman. Put yourself into his shoes, because once the precedent is set, we will all be subject to similar prosecutorial irregularities. Let’s review the major milestones of the case and then summarize the threat to our Constitution.
Summary of the Altercation
George Zimmerman, a 28 year old Hispanic neighborhood watch coordinator within a gated community in Sanford Florida, had an altercation with Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old black high school student who was residing within that community. The altercation occurred on February 26, 2012 and ultimately resulted in a lethal use of force. Mr. Zimmerman discharged his weapon amidst the struggle which had ensued and Trayvon Martin was mortally wounded.
On March 12, 2012, Police Chief Bill Lee turned the investigation over to the State Attorney’s office for review. He stated that Zimmerman had alleged self-defense and that unless probable cause could be shown to dispute that statement, the state had no cause for arrest. On March 13, 2012, Chris Serino, the lead investigator, filed a capias request, recommending that the State charge Zimmerman with negligent manslaughter, although he was doubtful that sufficient evidence existed to prosecute. Apparently both law enforcement officer’s opinion was confirmed by the State Attorney’s Office as they did not file any charges at that time.
By-Passing the Grand Jury
On March 20, 2012, State Attorney, Norm Wolfinger declared his intention to convene a grand-jury on April 10th to investigate and decide if an indictment should be handed down. Simultaneously, the Justice Department opened a Civil Rights investigation. Meanwhile, Governor Rick Scott, asked the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to investigate. On, March 22, 2012, Governor Rick Scott assigned State Attorney Angela Corey to the case. She promptly decided that her office would decide whether or not to press charges stating, “I always lean towards moving forward without needing the grand jury in a case like this, I foresee us being able to make a decision, and move on it on our own.” On April 11th, George Zimmerman was charged with 2nd degree murder. On July 13, 2013, the jury found the defendant not guilty.
According to CNN’s, State of the Union, broadcast last week, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are pushing for federal action. Ben Jealous, President of the NAACP, is pushing for US Attorney General Eric Holder to pursue a hate crimes charge against Mr. Zimmerman.
A Triple Threat To All Americans
What are the police powers of the Federal Government? Let us look into the Constitution:
Article I Section 8 paragraph 6
The Congress shall have the power… To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States.
The Congress shall have the power… To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations.
Article 3 section 3
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
In summary, all laws that seek to create federal crime out of certain behavior not associated with counterfeiting, piracy or Treason are unconstitutional. The “law of nations” refers to laws governing the acceptable treatment of one nation regarding another so that clause would not apply to the actions of the civilian population. Even the impeachment power of the Federal Government holds no criminal authority. Impeachment is simply a governmental procedure for removing a member from government. Any criminal proceedings associated with an impeachment are handled by the appropriate authorities, and are sometimes but not necessarily a federal criminal case. Therefore, it is an abuse of power for the federal government to classify a whole host of new federal crimes including hate crimes. These suggested laws should be considered at the State level.
Threat #1: There is no justification for the Federal Government to assume original jurisdiction with regard to an act of violence committed by one citizen against another within the boundaries of a state.
Threat #2: In the Trayvon Martin case, an indictment of a grand jury was never handed down.
Threat #3: Even so, a trial was held and a jury of peers rendered a verdict. From a legal perspective, the case is settled and any subsequent indictment based upon the same offense would violate the protection against double jeopardy. The 5th Amendment applies …
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury … nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.