Stop the "Free Trade" Agenda -- Stop NAFTA, TPP, and TTIP - Get the Tools

[FrankRep]

http://www.jbs.org/images/action_projects/CF-STFTA.jpg (http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/stop-the-free-trade-agenda)


Stop the Free Trade Agenda (http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/stop-the-free-trade-agenda)

STOP FREE TRADE AGENDA is a major new action project of The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) with the purpose of preserving our personal freedoms and national independence by stopping congressional approval of any new multilateral free trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). A vote to approve the TPP agreement is expected in late 2013; a vote on the TTIP agreement is expected in 2015. The global power elites view multilateral free trade agreements as one of their main vehicles for establishing, step by step, socialistic regional governments controlled by themselves as steppingstones toward a socialistic global government under the United Nations.


https://sphotos-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1184784_237861829698629_502246097_n.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/TNA2917.pdf)

How the Free Trade Agenda Is Knocking Down America -- The New American (PDF) Special Report
http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/TNA2917.pdf


September 2, 2013


The Special Report includes the following articles:

- The "Free Trade" Agenda Threatens Our Rights (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/16341-the-free-trade-agenda-threatens-our-rights)
- Global Merger: Piece by Piece (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/16342-global-merger-piece-by-piece)
- The EU: Regionalization Trumps Sovereignty (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/16343-the-eu-regionalization-trumps-sovereignty)
- Trade Promises... and Trade Reality (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/16344-trade-promises-and-trade-reality)
- North American Union: From NAFTA to the NAU (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/16345-north-american-union-from-nafta-to-the-nau)
- Fast-track: Enabler of the "Free Trade" Agenda (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/16346-fast-track-enabler-of-the-free-trade-agenda)
- Regional Scheme for the Pacific Rim (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/16347-regional-scheme-for-the-pacific-rim)
- EU/U.S. — Transatlantic Convergence (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/16348-eu-u-s-transatlantic-convergence)
- Preserve Your Rights: Stop the "Free Trade" Agenda (http://www.jbs.org/home/preserve-your-rights-stop-the-free-trade-agenda)


Tools to STOP the "Free Trade" Agenda - Pamphlet, Reprints, CDs, TNA Special Issues
https://www.jbs.org/shop-jbs/stop-the-free-trade-agenda


Facebook:

Choose Freedom - STOP the Free Trade Agenda (https://www.facebook.com/StopTheFreeTradeAgenda)

[FrankRep]

Yes, Ron Paul Opposes "Free Trade" Agreements


Ron Paul: Oppose Free Trade Agreements (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFLRuMHAK_w)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFLRuMHAK_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFLRuMHAK_w

Ron Paul says Free Trade Agreements erode National sovereignty, destroy jobs, and only serves the special interests. So-called "Free Trade" is Government-managed trade.



Henry Kissinger: NAFTA, the Architecture for the New World Order (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKKwZl1BTxk)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKKwZl1BTxk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKKwZl1BTxk

Henry Kissinger: NAFTA -- it will represent the most creative step towards a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the cold war. The revolution sweeping the Western hemisphere points to an international order based on cooperation. It is this revolution that is at stake in the ratification of NAFTA. What congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement, but the Architecture of a new international system - Los Angeles Times, 1993

[Brett85]

Are they opposed to bilateral trade agreements or just multilateral ones?

[Southron]

It is hard to deny the number of jobs lost since all these agreements were passed.

[FrankRep]

Are they opposed to bilateral trade agreements or just multilateral ones?
"Free Trade" Agreements -- bilateral or multilateral -- are still "government-manage trades," as Ron Paul puts it. The JBS and Ron Paul would oppose them.

[Brett85]

"Free Trade" Agreements -- bilateral or multilateral -- are still "government-manage trades," as Ron Paul puts it. The JBS and Ron Paul would oppose them.

But the trade is still managed even before the "free trade" agreements. The free trade agreements just mean that you go from government managed trade with high tariffs to government managed trade with low or no tariffs. It's not like the "free trade" agreements cause government regulation of trade that didn't exist before.

[FrankRep]

But the trade is still managed even before the "free trade" agreements. The free trade agreements just mean that you go from government managed trade with high tariffs to government managed trade with low or no tariffs. It's not like the "free trade" agreements cause government regulation of trade that didn't exist before.

Ron Paul has the right idea that so-called "Free Trade" is not "free" and has little to do with "trade."

"Free Trade" Agreements are not just about free trade, they lay the groundwork for super-national governmental structures. One famous example "Free Trade" agreement was the European Coal and Steel Community, which turned into the European Union.


Henry Kissinger sees the bigger picture:


NAFTA -- it will represent the most creative step towards a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the cold war. The revolution sweeping the Western hemisphere points to an international order based on cooperation. It is this revolution that is at stake in the ratification of NAFTA. What congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement, but the Architecture of a new international system
- Henry Kissinger, Los Angeles Times, 1993

[jmdrake]

But the trade is still managed even before the "free trade" agreements. The free trade agreements just mean that you go from government managed trade with high tariffs to government managed trade with low or no tariffs. It's not like the "free trade" agreements cause government regulation of trade that didn't exist before.

Congress cedes sovereignty in so called "free trade" agreements. Really they are destroying this country. They only benefit the multinationals, never the people. We need internal free trade.

[Brett85]

Congress cedes sovereignty in so called "free trade" agreements. Really they are destroying this country. They only benefit the multinationals, never the people. We need internal free trade.

The problem is that unregulated free trade between countries with no tariffs on imports or exports doesn't really seem to be an option. Voting against these managed trade deals that lower tariffs really doesn't bring us any closer to having a system have unregulated free trade with foreign countries. I think just about everyone here believes that the ideal is to have trade between countries with no tariffs on imports or exports and no government regulation of trade. But, some people believe that government managed trade with lower tariffs is still better than government managed trade with higher tariffs. I would say that the bilateral trade agreements are at least a step in the right direction. Rand Paul and Justin Amash both voted for all of those. The multilateral trade agreements might go too far and be worse than the bilateral agreements.

[FrankRep]

President Obama Wants TPP Finished by End of 2013 (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/13756-president-obama-wants-tpp-finished-by-end-of-2013)


27 November 2012 | During his trip to southeast Asia, President Obama attended a summit in Cambodia prodding leaders to finish TPP negotiations by the end of 2013.


The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) should be priority #1 to stop for Liberty Activists. Obama wants this done by the end the 2013.

Lets throw a monkey wrench in Obama's plans.

[Brett85]

How will Rand vote on the TPP? He's voted in favor of all of the "free trade agreements" so far.

[FrankRep]

How will Rand vote on the TPP? He's voted in favor of all of the "free trade agreements" so far.

Yes, that is disappointing, especially since Ron Paul has actively attacked "free trade agreements" for so many years. That's been my one big criticism of Rand Paul -- he doesn't understand the danger of "Free Trade agreements."

[Working Poor]

It seems a little too late. I don't think it is possible to wake up enough people to do anything about this. The people think the government is going to create jobs lol.

[eduardo89]

NAFTA is good.

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul: "CAFTA means more government! Like the UN, NAFTA, and the WTO, it represents another stone in the foundation of a global government system."



More Government, Less Free Trade (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/06/ron-paul/more-government-less-free-trade/)


Ron Paul | LewRockwell.com
June 7, 2005


CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade

The Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA, will be the source of intense political debate in Washington this summer. The House of Representatives will vote on CAFTA ratification in June, while the Senate likely will vote in July.

I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.

It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty. When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple. I can assure you firsthand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union. Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year.

The tax bill in question is just the tip of the iceberg. The quasi-judicial regime created under CAFTA will have the same power to coerce our cowardly legislature into changing American laws in the future. Labor and environmental rules are inherently associated with trade laws, and we can be sure that CAFTA will provide yet another avenue for globalists to impose the Kyoto Accord and similar agreements on the American people. CAFTA also imposes the International Labor Organization’s manifesto, which could have been written by Karl Marx, on American business. I encourage every conservative and libertarian who supports CAFTA to read the ILO declaration and consider whether they still believe the treaty will make America more free.

CAFTA means more government! Like the UN, NAFTA, and the WTO, it represents another stone in the foundation of a global government system. Most Americans already understand they are governed by largely unaccountable forces in Washington, yet now they face having their domestic laws influenced by bureaucrats in Brussels, Zurich, or Mexico City.

CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body. It is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty, and we don’t need it to benefit from international trade.

[Brett85]

So CAFTA, NAFTA and other similar agreements are actually "treaties" that require 2/3rds support in order to pass, while the bilateral trade agreements that Rand voted for are merely trade agreements between two countries that only require a majority vote? Is that correct?

[FrankRep]

So CAFTA, NAFTA and other similar agreements are actually "treaties" that require 2/3rds support in order to pass, while the bilateral trade agreements that Rand voted for are merely trade agreements between two countries that only require a majority vote? Is that correct?

I'd have to research the differences between the bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements later, but this thread is focusing on NAFTA, TPP, and the TTIP -- which are multilateral.

- North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
- Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
- Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

[Brett85]

I think I probably agree with you in regards to the multilateral agreements. Rand and Amash both voted for a few bilateral trade agreements on the basis that those agreements were better for businesses than the status quo. But I think Rand's position is that he supports bilateral trade agreements but opposes multilateral trade agreements. I may have to research the issue more and the difference between bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, but I think Rand's position on this issue may be correct.

[Brett85]

It sounds like Rand is at least opposed to "fast tracking" this bill.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/rand-paul-warns-of-obama-fast-track-to-global-trade-zone/

[FrankRep]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/k2/items/cache/cf6bea98f9b01c2b06ebfcfa07a169c6_M.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/16344-trade-promises-and-trade-reality)



The promoters of the misnamed Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) claim that these agreements will create jobs and prosperity. The reality is very different, as the NAFTA makes clear.


Trade Promises ... and Trade Reality (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/16344-trade-promises-and-trade-reality)


The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
29 August 2013

[FrankRep]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/k2/items/cache/badeb4c6ba3179f37812b36f312c04c1_M.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/16480-monsanto-and-walmart-influence-secret-tpp-negotiations)



Giant corporations participate in the secret TPP negotiations set to continue later this month in Washington.


Monsanto and Walmart Influence Secret TPP Negotiations (http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/16480-monsanto-and-walmart-influence-secret-tpp-negotiations)


The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
06 September 2013