The Globalists are currently active in efforts to conquer the United States. They are operating on three primary fronts. One front is by revolutionaries using violent means on the streets. Another is by revolutionaries in office at all levels using policy to change the laws to surrender national sovereignty to a World State. The third is by revolutionaries using media and the education system to sell the idea of a 21st Century Global America to the People and the youth.
The American People are about to be broad-sided by the NAFTA renegotiation. It is important for Americans to recognize that these negotiations are not meant to fix the problems that arose from NAFTA originally, but instead to further expand and strengthen NAFTA. The new NAFTA, proposed by Robert Lighthizer, will ultimately supersede Constitutional authority and commit the United States’ economic, social and political mechanisms to international interests, hostile to those of the United States. It is a surrender of power, authority and sovereignty to the United Nations since the governing authority of the mentioned mechanisms will be International Law. It also sets up the framework for a global currency, the silencing of free speech at many levels including avenues for persecution, the strengthening of sustainable development, compulsory family planning and population control, cross-border election fraud, unrestricted smuggling, loss of American jobs, mechanisms that would create bias against American-made products, destroy America’s energy sector, ban automobile driving, and more … all these governed strictly by international authority known to be hostile to American interests, with non-existent legal recourse under U.S. law. This is unacceptable and must be stopped. It is nothing more than a bone-fide North American Union, mirroring the European Union.
Here is a subtitle
The following is an analysis of the “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation (July 17, 2017)” published by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), headed by Robert Lighthizer, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation” details in summary form the objectives sought in the renegotiations. The obscure components in the proposed objectives are revealed in the following analysis.
This examination is comprised of two parts. The first part are definitions. The second are a few
excerpts of key agenda items from the “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation” with a
brief analysis accompanying each of the mentioned! Not all objectives are analyzed even though a
threat exists with all.
To begin, it is important to note that one of the main strategies of global social planners is to mask
malevolent “intent” in all calls for solutions to world social, economic and political ills. They
understand that “intent” is difficult to prove, and they hide behind the “prove it” argument which
essentially becomes a weapon to silence anyone who dares point it out. One of the ways they hide it is
through double-speak in the redefining of commonly understood terms. The good news is that these
social planners have always, decades in advance, declared their intent in all of their social schemes in
their own journals, writings and essays. These sources are valid, reliable and objective sources to use
for the exposure of intent. The examination of the USTR publication rests on those declarations and the
jargon that accompany them in masking the true agenda. For the sake of summary, only a fraction of
these are mentioned. This analysis would become a volume if many were included. Many of the
definitions are not masked, becoming a solid tool for validation.
As the social planners’ declarations and the social theory they stand on are compared to the list of
objectives proposed by the “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation”, it becomes evident
that there is no benevolent motive in favor of American interests but rather the undermining of those
interests and continued erosion of America. In the USTR report’s cry, for the proposed NAFTA
objectives to be implemented, international governance is required and called for!
It is also important to note that the stated goal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the
common thread in all the digital and hard-copy documentation of all International Affairs organizations
in the World, are to usher in Global Governance, with the United Nations as the political and legal
authority (Global Government) for the enforcement of this Global Governance system. In the vast
majority of the CFR’s writings, publications, essays and case studies, what is found is subversive
thought embedded in ideology, policy proposals and analysis. In other words, subversion through the
promotion of so-called cutting edge ideas like soft power, strategic patience, multi-culturalism,
sustainability and the such – whether overt or covert – designed for the destruction of western culture
and Americanism. That same strategy is used for the amalgamation of nations, hence the obsolescence
of nation states. The ideas and methods they propose for accomplishing their goal are mostly esoteric,
which are inevitably not easily understood by ordinary men or women, whether educated, or of limited
education, whether of strong or depraved moral character. This has given social planner heads power
and cover to further their agenda in the shadows and under the concealment of deception.
Furthermore, one of the key structures in Global Government is the regionalization of world territory
into parts, such as the North American Union, the Pacific Union and others. NAFTA is the building
block for the formal framework of the North American Union as envisioned by the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) in their 2005 report “Building A North American Community”, which blueprints the
amalgamation of the three North American states. As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger put it
in an article he wrote back in July 20, 1993, NAFTA “…is not a conventional trade agreement, but the
architecture of a new international system.” He also wrote in that same article regarding NAFTA that
“It will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries
since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward the even larger vision of a free trade zone for
the entire Western Hemisphere.” [11]
David Rockefeller was instrumental in the building of this New World Order. In chapter 27 entitled
“Proud Internationalist” of his book “Memoirs” published in 2003, he candidly states, “For more than
a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon
well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the
inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even
believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States,
characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world
to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the
charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
These are some of many, many statements made by social planners over many decades. Tyrannical
Global Governance is the intended goal. As a note, David Rockefeller was chairman of the Council on
Foreign Relation for 15 years from 1970 to 1985 and became honorary chairman for years to come
until his death in 2017. the CFR is the very Council that has been undermining America since its
inception. Following is why NAFTA should be abolished altogether.
Analysis of Key Objectives
Definitions
The first three definitions clearly point to the supra-national nature of the these entities “by definition”.
The definitions bring perspective to the objectives outlined in the “Summary of Objectives for the
NAFTA Renegotiation”.
NAFTA
“The North American Free Trade Agreement is an agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and the
United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on
January 1, 1994. It superseded the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and
Canada.”
(source: Wikipedia)
TRADE BLOC:
“A trade bloc is a type of intergovernmental agreement, often part of a regional intergovernmental
organization, where barriers to trade (tariffs and others) are reduced or eliminated among the
participating states.”
(Source: Wikipedia)
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION:
“An intergovernmental organization or international governmental organization (IGO) is an
organization composed primarily of sovereign states (referred to as member states), or of other
intergovernmental organizations. Intergovernmental organizations are often called international
organizations, [EM] although that term may also include international nongovernmental organization
such as international nonprofit organizations or multinational corporations.
Intergovernmental organizations are an important aspect of public international law [EM]. IGOs are
established by treaty that acts as a charter creating the group. Treaties are formed when lawful
representatives (governments) of several states go through a ratification process, providing the IGO
with an international [EM] legal personality.”
(Source: Wikipedia)
A main consequence of a trade bloc is the inevitable loss of sovereignty, since “a trade bloc,
particularly when it is coupled with a political union, is likely to lead to at least a partial loss of
sovereignty for its participants.”
(Source: Wikipedia)
DISCRIMINATION
According to the United Nations, discrimination is defined as follows:
“The principles of equality and non-discrimination are part of the foundation of the rule of law. As
Member States noted in the Declaration of the High-Level Meeting on the Rule of Law, ‘all persons,
institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable [EM] to just,
fair, and equitable laws and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law’
(para. 2). They also dedicated themselves to respect the equal rights of all without distinction as to
race, sex, language or religion (para. 3).
The International human rights legal framework contains international instruments to combat specific
forms of discrimination, including discrimination against indigenous peoples, migrants, minorities,
people with disabilities, discrimination against women, racial and religious discrimination, or
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
(Source: United Nation – Equality and the Rule of Law section
https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/thematic-areas/human-rights/equality-and-non-discrimination/)
Criticism, Christian world-view and free speech that is NOT aligned with this definition are considered
discrimination under International Law. Individuals and organizations can be subject to civil penalties
by so-called injured parties, fines or even criminal prosecution, as seen happening in different parts of
the world today. Consequently, subjecting American interests to International Law is dangerous.
THE RULE OF LAW
According the United Nations, “The Secretary-General has described the rule of law as ‘a principle of
governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself,
are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently
adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It
requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before
the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers,
participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal
transparency.’ The concept of the rule of law is embedded in the Charter of the United Nations.”
(source: https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/what-is-the-rule-of-law/)
The concept of the Rule of Law embedded in the Charter of the United Nations, is not the same as the
rule of law based on Natural Law under the U.S. Constitution! The UN’s definition is what is applicable
in NAFTA. Hence, NAFTA would come under international jurisdiction, superseding U.S. jurisdiction.
Relevant Information:
Document Name: Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation (July 17, 2017)
Robert Lighthizer: Head of Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)
NAFTA Renegotiation Notice (dated May 18, 2017) was sent to: Chuck Schumer, Orin Hatch, Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi
Understanding the Key Points in the Envisioned NAFTA.
The following are quotes from different parts of the “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA
Renegotiation”. The underlined are the title headings of the particular section examined. The indented
and italicized quotes preceded by dashes (- – – – -) and followed by page number, are the actual quotes
from the report. They are followed by analysis.
Customs, Trade Facilitation, and Rules of Origin:
Customs and Trade Facilitation:
– – – – – “Provide for automation of import, export, and transit processes, including through supply
chain integration; reduced import, export, and transit forms, documents, and formalities; enhanced
harmonization of customs data requirements; and advance rulings regarding the treatment that will be
provided to a good at the time of importation.” (page 5)
According to the WTO, the Rules of Origin are used among other things to, “to determine whether
imported products shall receive most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment or preferential treatment;” [1].
For many years, under many different justifications, foreign products have received preferential
treatment over American products. There is no mention of American products being favored in this
section. Considering the Anti-American sentiment that is currently being festered in America and
abroad in the participating NAFTA nations, the likelihood of receiving it is in all probability remote.
In addition, this proposed objective “shifts legal jurisdiction” for oversight and remedy to international
authority, “by definition”, since NAFTA is a trade bloc. This means in practice that “American” supply
chain integration, import, export, and transit forms, documents, customs data requirements, etc., will
all be governed under International Law!!!
Furthermore, without the human element in these areas of automation, reduced documentation and
formalities as proposed, much criminality and security lapses can go undetected, especially under the
jurisdiction of international authority, which is unfavorable to American interests. Automation has also
displaced the working class historically and continues to even today[2]. The goal of automation is not
productivity, it is sustainability [3]. Sustainability has a much deeper meaning than is generally
understood when the works and activities of its architects are explored [4]!
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT):
– – – – – “Include strong provisions on transparency and public consultation that require the NAFTA
countries to publish drafts of technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures, allow
stakeholders in other countries to provide comments on those drafts, and require authorities to address
significant issues raised by stakeholders and explain how the final measure achieves the stated
objectives.” (page 6)
In other words, “stakeholders” and their experts are granted an avenue to make determinations assuring
that America and the other member states stay on the path toward Globalization.
The United Nations defines stakeholders as follows:
“Institutional Stakeholders
Apart from the United Nations proper, the major institutional stakeholders are the World Bank (WB),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO), UNCTAD and UNDP. ”
UNCTAD is the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and the UNDP is the United
Nations Development Programme which handles all the Sustainable Development efforts. So it is clear
that the UN and these institutions are the “stakeholders”. NAFTA, for example, is to give “strong
provisions” to the Wold Bank, IMF and others so they could monitor “issues”, make recommendations
(manipulate things) and measure effectiveness in achieving their “stated objectives”.
Trade in Services, Including Telecommunications and Financial Services:
Trade in Services:
– – – – – “Specialized sectoral disciplines, including rules to help level the playing field for U.S. delivery
services suppliers in the NAFTA countries; and…” (page 7-8)
Help level the playing field is a Marxist term to mean redistribution of wealth. “Specialized sectoral
disciplines”… in other words, by force! In order to level any playing field, wages must be reduced to
the lowest common denominator. When American wages are measured against other participating
nations’ wages such as Mexico – which are at poverty levels by U.S.A. standards, it then becomes
obvious that the only direction American wages would go is down. The labor force of mainstream
delivery service providers such as UPS, DHL and FEDEX are respectably paid at this time and are a
strong working class sector earning livable wages to support families. If they lose their jobs this would
create conditions favorable to social “fermentation”, since many of these labor forces are unionized.
Financial Services:
– – – – – “Ensure that the NAFTA countries refrain from imposing measures in the financial services
sector that restrict cross-border data flows or that require the use or installation of local computing
facilities.” (page 8)
In other words, the lifting of restrictions for the financial services sector to streamline data flows of a
common trans-national, North American currency as if were within borders. There is no need for
unrestricted “cross-border” financial data flows with national currencies. It is important to note that the
United Nations, the IMF and World Bank have been calling for a global currency. There also have been
efforts in the past to create a North American currency similar to the Euro.
Digital Trade in Goods and Services and Cross-Border Data Flows:
– – – – – “Secure commitments not to impose customs duties on digital products (e.g., software, music,
video, e-books). (page 8)
– – – – – Ensure non-discriminatory treatment of digital products transmitted electronically and
guarantee that these products will not face government-sanctioned discrimination based on the
nationality or territory in which the product is produced.” (page 8)
Mechanisms to control digital imports and dumping are arrested. Also, international digital
pornography and internationalist propaganda media such as Russia Today and the such benefit because
it creates a protective barrier around them. Government sanctioned discrimination means that
governments will not be allowed to speak against or pass any laws restricting, banning or regulating
any pornographic, immoral, treasonous digital content and the such. It safeguards for example the
pornography and propaganda industry with no American legal authority to stop or curb it since legal
jurisdiction in this provision would also shift to international authority under International Law if
implemented.
[further down]
– – – – – “Establish rules to prevent governments from mandating the disclosure of computer source
code.” (page 9)
This lays the groundwork for electronic election fraud since all voting machines are electronic today!
Criminal election tampering will not be able to be properly investigated anymore without the ability for
forensic experts to review voter machine source code. The ability to skew elections in other countries
has been a powerful tool historically for globalists! It will now be available for them in America. Also,
tech giants would be shielded from investigation, particularly when criminal activity in computer
programming is involved in the squelching of conservative voices in search results, which is already
happening. There would be no legal remedy in the U.S.A. for victims of anti free speech criminality
because legal jurisdiction in this matter shifts again to international authority if this provision is
implemented. International authorities, including the United Nations, have a long history of banning
conservative free speech. Human rights are “granted” rights by human institutions, such as the United
Nations, as opposed to “Unalienable Rights which are granted to all men by their Creator”. Unalienable
Rights supersede all human institutions, including the United Nations, since Unalienable Rights are
divinely granted! The United States Constitution “protects” God given rights. International authority
grants human rights but does not protect Unalienable Rights. Unalienable Rights are not recognized
under International Law. Here lies the difference between Constitutional authority based on the
Declaration of Independence versus the Declaration of Human Rights, from which all International
Law rests.
Intellectual Property:
– – – – – “Prevent or eliminate discrimination with respect to matters affecting the availability,
acquisition, scope, maintenance, use, and enforcement of intellectual property rights.” (page 9)
In other words, any effort to boycott or speak against technologies, including journalism or the voicing
of moral concerns and implications on any given product resulting from that technology, would face
suppression of speech under the guise of discrimination. Intellectual rights would be protected under
the United Nations’ anti-discrimination laws according to “their” definition of discrimination. Because
this provision call for “prevention and “elimination” of discrimination, the threat of legal action and
prosecution against of so-called offenders are conceivable. Examples would be trans-human
technologies and products, including robotic systems and technologies designed for morally
questionable purposes, or purposes in which Constitutionality is questionable.
– – – – – “Ensure standards of protection and enforcement that keep pace with technological
developments, and in particular ensure that rightholders have the legal and technological means to
control the use of their works through the Internet and other global communication media, and to
prevent the unauthorized use of their works.” (page 9)
– – – – – “Provide strong standards enforcement of intellectual property rights, including by requiring
accessible, expeditious, and effective civil, administrative, and criminal enforcement mechanisms.”
(page 10)
Any use of the mentioned technology to exercise free speech potentially faces “quick” indictment for
unauthorized use. Users become open prey to civil or even criminal charges by groups or authorities
who are threatened by free speech, since prosecutorial authority and power would shift to International
Law (see definitions section), “bypassing” the First Amendment altogether. There are currently no legal
mechanisms in the US Constitution to silence free speech since it is an Unalienable right “protected” by
the First Amendment! This NAFTA provision would create one. Churches, Liberty groups, Breitbart
and Infowars for example would be at high risk!
– – – – – “Respect the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, adopted by the World
Trade Organization at the Fourth Ministerial Conference at Doha, Qatar on November 14, 2001, and
to ensure that trade agreements foster innovation and promote access to medicines.” (page 10)
This institutionalizes in North America the legal mechanism for protecting intellectual rights for
producers of “medicines for all” and their associated technology and propaganda as outlined in the
TRIPS Agreement and DOHA Declaration. “The Doha declaration is a WTO statement that clarifies
the scope of TRIPS, stating for example that TRIPS can and should be interpreted in light of the goal
‘to promote access to medicines for all.’” [5] … balancing intellectual property rights with “social and
economic” welfare. Because this is a United Nations effort, much of their extensively documented
solutions for social ills are primarily Malthusian, including so-called medicines and technologies
designed for population management, such as compulsory abortion and sterilization, which is a top
priority for the United Nations. Also, this provision would protect all producers from any exposure
attempts surrounding this agenda, AND shifts jurisdiction toward international authority!
Transparency:
– – – – – “Commit each Party to provide levels of transparency, participation, and accountability in the
development of regulations and other government decisions that are comparable to those under U.S.
law with respect to federal statutes and regulations. In particular, seek commitments:
– – – – – To promptly publish laws, regulations, administrative rulings of general application, and other
procedures that affect trade and investment;
– – – – – To provide adequate opportunities for stakeholder comment on measures before they are
adopted and finalized; and
– – – – – To provide a sufficient period of time between final publication of measures and their entry into
force.
– – – – – Seek standards to ensure that government regulatory reimbursement regimes are transparent,
provide procedural fairness, are non-discriminatory, and provide full market access for United States
products.” (page 10)
Noted is the word administrative rulings and again the term “non-discriminatory”. The transparency
element is proposed so member states do not step on each other when laws and regulations are created!
Also, it proposes the creation of synchronous statutes and regulation for release of information,
stakeholder monitoring/review, and access for U.S. products. However, these U.S. products mentioned
are not necessarily “American”. Some foreign automobiles brands for example are U.S. products but
not “American”! There are no protection provisions for unfair trade practices, only market access.
“American” products can still be unwelcomed.
State-Owned and Controlled Enterprise:
– – – – – “Ensure that strong subsidy disciplines apply to SOEs, beyond the disciplines set out in the
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement).”
Strong subsidy disciplines (punishment) applying to SOEs? Are SOEs the future economy? (See Trade
Remedies below).
Trade Remedies
– – – – “Eliminate the Chapter 19 dispute settlement mechanism. ” (page 14)
Chapter 19 deals with principal dispute settlement mechanisms. In other words, if there is a dispute, the
parties refer to Chapter 19 for relief. The current means of settlement/relief is “domestic courts” of
participating nations. Eliminating this chapter would default to International Courts under International
Law for dispute resolution by “definition”. This proposed NAFTA objective does not offer or propose
any new or alternate dispute mechanism.
– – – – – “Exclude state-owned enterprises as part of the domestic industry in AD/CVD proceedings.”
(page 15)
State-owned enterprises (such as Pemex) would be excluded from accountability in AD
(anti-dumping)/CVD (countervailing duties) proceedings!! “Dumping” occurs when foreign
manufacturers sell goods in the United States less than fair value, causing injury to the U.S. industry.
Dumping means that an exporter is setting prices at such a low point, that they are intentionally losing
money in order to harm the domestic producers of the importing country. Countervailing duties seek
to counteract artificially low prices that are a result of subsidies. Governments often offer all sorts
of subsidies on exports in the form of tax breaks and credits. Because of these subsidies, exporters are
able to offer lower prices than domestic producers in the importing country. Countervailing duties level
the playing field and negate the advantage that exporters get from subsidies.
Government Procurement
– – – – – “Exclude sub-federal coverage (state and local governments) from the commitments being
negotiated. Keep in place domestic preferential purchasing programs such as:” (page 16)
In other words, local and state governments are not included in the envisioned “planned” economy.
This provision, if implemented, calls into question the relevance of state governments in this particular
international system. It puts them in a position to become merely administrative bodies of a global
system in the future.
Environment
Everything in this section is tyrannical, including making environmental provisions a “core” element,
strong and enforceable, and to include a maintained “senior level” Environmental Committee!
Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises:
– – – – – “Secure commitment by NAFTA countries to provide information resources to help small
businesses navigate FTA requirements for exporting to the NAFTA markets. ” (page 16)
No mention for providing opportunity for them, just information to navigate through FTA export
requirements.
– – – – “Cooperate on SME issues of mutual interest. ” (page 16)
As hard left community organizer Ernesto Cortez, Jr states, “We organize people not just around
issues, but around their values.” In other words, organize around SME’s values.
– – – – – “Establish an SME Committee to ensure that the needs of SMEs are considered as the
Agreement is implemented in order for SMEs to benefit from new commercial opportunities.” (page 16)
The word “considered” is non-committal. The needs are to be considered but not necessarily “taken
into account” … Also, anytime something new is built, whether it be a structure or an objective, there is
always peripheral support elements which are necessary in the building process. Once such structure or
objective is completed, those support elements, which helped build it, become unnecessary. So they go
away. SMEs would enjoy economic benefit in the short term, but the economic benefit is really for the
supra-national corporations in the long term. A good example of this process is the rise of ISPs in the
1990’s tech boom. These ISPs (Internet Service Providers) were primarily owned by SMEs since they
were the ones given the opportunity to enter the marketplace. They were instrumental in the expansion
of hosting services and domain management and enjoyed short term benefits until the large
corporations, with massive regulatory provision one their side, began to either buy out the small ISPs or
compete unfairly against them. This contributed to the demise of the majority of small independent
ISPs. A few exist today because the majority went out of business due to international dumping, and
expensive regulatory requirements under the guise of security and other factors. They were not able to
compete against such low prices provided by international firms or giant U.S. ISPs.
In essence, small and medium sized, “independent” businesses are targeted for extinction.
SME is defined by The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, a United
Nations Subsidiary as,
“Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are non-subsidiary, independent firms which employ
fewer than a given number of employees. This number varies across countries. The most frequent upper
limit designating an SME is 250 employees, as in the European Union. However, some countries set the
limit at 200 employees, while the United States considers SMEs to include firms with fewer than 500
employees.”
Energy:
– – – – – “Preserve and strengthen investment, market access, and state-owned enterprise disciplines
benefiting energy production and transmission and support North American energy security and
independence, while promoting continuing energy market-opening reforms.” (page 16)
In other words, state control of energy and the reduction of oil and gas energy use by a large
percentage. The IPCC is demanding that fossil fuel use be phased out by the year 2100, as reported by
the BBC [6], which the United Nations is in full support of.
With regards to energy security:
“The modern world relies on a vast energy supply to fuel everything from transportation to
communication, to security and health delivery systems. Perhaps most alarmingly, peak oil expert
Michael Ruppert has claimed that for every calorie of food produced in the industrial world, ten
calories of oil and gas energy are invested in the forms of fertilizer, pesticide, packaging,
transportation, and running farm equipment. Energy plays an important role in the national security of
any given country as a fuel to power the economic engine.”[7]
This will translate into the banning of cars by 2040 [8] and compulsory public transportation including
high speed rails, self driving cars and the banning of driver’s licenses [9] as Time Magazine reported in
their March 7, 2016 edition.
General Provisions:
– – – – – “Include general exceptions that allow for the protection of legitimate U.S. domestic
objectives, including the protection of health or safety and essential security, among others.” (page 17)
Currency:
– – – – – “Through an appropriate mechanism, ensure that the NAFTA countries avoid manipulating
exchange rates in order to prevent effective balance of payments adjustment or to gain an unfair
competitive advantage.” (page 17)
The appropriate mechanism is a common currency, like the Euro, or a single World currency as John
Maynard Keynes called for. The IMF and others mirror that call today. [10]
Conclusion
In analyzing the “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation (July 17, 2017)” it becomes
clear NAFTA is dangerous to American interests. All NAFTA policy is only for the benefit of the
established elite institutions (i.e. stakeholders). It is really the building of the infrastructure of this
World Governance region. It’s the stakeholders who will fully control this region’s economic, social and
political system . The N orth A merican U nion would belong to the stakeholders. Participating nations
have no say. In essence it is a form of peaceful non-violent conquest. It will eventually dissolve
national sovereignty. The trade practices Americans will be abiding by in this trade bloc will
completely bypass all national laws. The ordinary people will have no idea that the laws they depend
on to protect them will not only become irrelevant, they are not designed for them. Any opportunity
small businesses believe they may have for import/export trade is non existent. There is a difference
between import/export trade and international free trade. Import/export trade is legitimate. International
free trade is a con. Trade laws should be left to each nation’s discretion, not to international
governments or trade treaty. We must heed the warning from Founding Father George Washington who
stated in his farewell address,
“35 – Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the
jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign
influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.”
(source: George Washington’s Farewell Address – paragraph 35)
Baneful definition: harmful or destructive to someone or something.
We are dangerously close to a complete and utter global tyranny which is being implemented on the
ground by our own elected politicians, who follow marching orders from the social planners. These
politicians follow either a pattern of naivety or are for whatever reason complicit. In either case, they
sell We the People out to global interests. Do We the People want Liberty or Tyranny?
Call your Representative in your District and tell him/her to vote NO ON
ALL NAFTA re-negotiation resolutions or bills and call on them to
WITHDRAW THE UNITED STATES FROM NAFTA ALTOGETHER!
Research and analysis by Armando Escalante
North Florida Director, Bear Witness Central
For speaking engagements, please contact Armando at, www.bwcentral.org/contact_us
Please reference this article.
Footnotes:
1. (source: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/roi_e/roi_info_e.htm)
2. (source: http://www.mining.com/a-lot-more-automation-a-lot-less-humans-to-hit-the-mining-industry/)
3. (source: https://www.automationworld.com/improving-sustainability-automation-and-controls
see also: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/968825_Soltau_Automation%20and%20artificial
%20intelligence%20-%20what%20could%20it%20mean%20for%20sustainable%20development.pdf
see also:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-playing-field/200902/the-five-year-ban-because-billion-less-people-is-great-pla
ce-start)
4: http://bwcentral.org/2016/01/sustainable-development-101-what-the-average-american-needs-to-know/)
5. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement)
6. (source: BBC – http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29855884)
7. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_security)
8. (source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/25/new-diesel-petrol-cars-banned-uk-roads-2040-government-unveils/
see also:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-25/u-k-to-ban-diesel-and-petrol-cars-from-2040-daily-telegraph)
9. (source: http://time.com/magazine/us/4236955/march-7th-2016-vol-187-no-8-u-s/)
10. (source – “International Monatary Fund 1945 – 1965” Publication published 1981 – pp. 20, section (a)
see also: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7168919 )
11. (source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1993/07/20/nafta-clintons-defining-task/0e985ef7-94f1-4470-a85f-67d26
0daadb6/?utm_term=.d236d3ef66a4)
(c) 2017 Armando Escalante – All rights reserved.
