By Deanna Spingola
The abolition of nationalism and borders under the guise of free
trade has been the ultimate Illuminati objective since the late 1700s,
notably illustrated by Aaron H. Palmer who had a law office on Wall
Street in the first half of the 19th century. He catered to
individuals interested in transnational business and managed their
commerce and paperwork with the European bankers who advocated trade. By
February 1837 when the bankers and politicians shrunk the U.S. credit
market, Palmer already had a working relationship with N M Rothschild &
Sons, located in the City of London. Palmer supplied the Rothschilds
with an account of all the financial failures, as many as 280, in the
months just before the final crash.
[1]
The products of the labor of its citizens determine a nation’s
prosperity. A brisk manufacturing base is essential, augmented by the
service industry. Nationalists believe in reasonable tariffs that
protect the nation’s industry. Free trade is detrimental to a nation’s
wealth. So-called “conservatives,” those Republican “nationalists” who
claim to put the U.S. first have promoted and participated, along with
the Democrats, in the legislation of all of the nation’s free trade
agreements. One cannot claim to cherish both sovereignty and accept free
trade, through “multinational trade organizations and global financial
conglomerates.” Marx, whose ideas were later manipulated and used by the elite, advocated both
the income tax and free trade. In 1848, Marx said of free trade, “But,
in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the
free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and
pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the
extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social
revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I
vote in favor of free trade.”
[2] Free trade
functions to equalize
the masses while elevating the elite and their acquiescent political
devotees.
President Woodrow Wilson, advocating the elite’s agenda, promoted the
League of Nations as a global forum for the settlement of territorial
disputes by arbitration, along with the power of aggressive military
enforcement or through less aggressive sanctions and free global trade,
as elucidated in his Fourteen Points, “equality of trade” and “removal
... of all economic barriers.”
[3] On December 23, 1913, certain
members of Congress instituted the Federal Reserve, a vital step to the
ultimate globalization of currency. The elite established tax-free
foundations to escape the income tax trap they set for the rest of
American society. In October 1913, B'nai B'rith established the
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) possibly to counter criticism of many of
the individuals responsible for the Federal Reserve.
Proponents of the New World Order, the banker’s ultimate political
monopoly, want the world’s citizens to abandon political and cultural
nationalism in favor of internationalism. U.S. politicians, through
their machinations, have rejected (in our behalf) the nationalism once
espoused by Thomas Jefferson and others. Nations lose their
self-sufficiency and independence through external military action
and/or through the actions of corrupt political leaders. In the U.S.
these are often the prominent leaders of each political party who
dictate partisan policy which includes the decision to wage war.
Banker-funded warfare opens a nation to free trade. After warfare,
war-torn, devastated nations, no longer able to meet their own needs,
must depend on other nations to supply essential needs – food, clothing
and supplies to reconstruct the bombed-out infrastructure.
Swiss business journalist and author Gian Trepp said “War, a place where
moneymen can gather, because money is stronger than nationalism. Even
during the war the moneymen of different nations needed to keep in touch
because when the war stops, you have to rebuild and you need free
trade.”
[4] Globalists have vilified the word
“nationalist” in their battle to subtly convince us to accept world
governance, a goal they hope to impose by 2025, according to their most
recent 2010 publication,
Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture.
Our current economic woes began long before the elites installed Obama,
their current presidential puppet to further implement global
governance. By 1980, Dr. Mordechai E. Kreinin, Professor of Economics,
along with Michael G. Plummer, an economics professor at Johns Hopkins
University, evaluated the idea of North American economic integration.
Kreinin, still pushing internationalism through free trade,
compiled Building a Partnership,
the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, a series of papers
presented by like-minded academics during the September 1998 conference
at Michigan State University. He is the past president of the
International Trade and Finance Association and has advised the UN, the
State Department and the Commerce Department regarding trade relations.
In accordance with the exponents of internationalism, officials began
negotiating the NAFTA in 1986 when Reagan was president. NAFTA was
formally signed on December 17, 1992 under President George H.W. Bush,
Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos
Salinas. Bush had lost the November 1992 election and left the job of
getting congressional approval of the agreement to his successor, Bill
Clinton and his vice president, longtime elite internationalist, Albert
Gore.
On
Gore approached Republican House Minority Whip (1989–1995), Newt
Gingrich, just another internationalist still masquerading as a
constitutionalist. He promised he could extract 132 votes for NAFTA, a
treaty that author Ian Fletcher refers to as “a veritable case study in
failure.”
[5] Congressional bribery just
for NAFTA, known as “pork barrel promises” totaled $50 billion, paid by
the U.S. taxpayers. NAFTA cost the Democrats control of the House and
Senate in 1994. Gingrich then became Speaker of the House in 1995.
Voters automatically punish the party in power for the treasonous acts
committed under their jurisdiction when in fact, congressional members
of both parties act in concert. By 1997, due to NAFTA, U.S. job losses
amounted to about 394,835, mostly women, Blacks and Hispanics. The
figure increased to 600,000 by
Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gotari had endorsed the NAFTA
concept in 1990, making it a political possibility. The Mexican public
was the treaty’s most formidable obstacle as it had a history of
distancing itself from its northern neighbor. U.S. labor unions were
very vocal about their opposition and their intent to retaliate against
all legislators who voted for the
North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA). The House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17,
1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. Those who supported the treaty included
132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. It passed the Senate by a vote of
61-38. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into
effect on January 1, 1994.
[7]
NAFTA added Mexico to the
prior treaty, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, signed in
1988. NAFTA eliminated tariffs and the majority of non-tariff
prohibitions between the three countries. Additionally, investors in the
three countries were to enjoy the same treatment as domestic investors.
[8]
NAFTA, promoted as a strategy to reduce US trade deficits, actually
increased those deficits. In 1993, we had a $1.6 billion surplus in our
trade with Mexico but by 2007, we had a $74.8 billion deficit. In 1994
we had an $8.1 billion yearly deficit with Canada, probably due to our
oil importation despite our own adequate oil supply. NAFTA cost 525,000
US jobs between 1994 and 2002. Some figures state the total of jobs lost
at 766,000, primarily among the non-college-educated population – the
producers in the manufacturing segment. Mexico, as a US trading partner,
is too poor, to be an export market for American goods.
[9]
Pat Buchanan, referring to NAFTA, wrote, “Two years after NAFTA, the
predictions of its opponents had all come true. The U.S. trade surplus
with Mexico had vanished; a trade deficit of $15 billion had opened up.
Trucks heading north out of Mexico were hauling more and more
manufactured goods, while those going south carried machinery and
equipment for the new factories going up, pointing to endless and
deepening U.S. trade deficits. By 1997, 3,300 maquiladora factories were
operating, employing 800,000 Mexican workers in jobs that not long ago
would have gone to Americans.”
[10]
Over 80% of the American population opposed NAFTA. Despite massive
objections against Trade Agreements, both Democrats and Republicans
habitually cater to the banks and corporations. George H. W. Bush (CFR,
TC) and George W. Bush personally promoted NAFTA. It weakened U.S. and
Canadian environmental laws and increased the misery in Mexico and
ultimately, in addition to faulty currency policies and manipulations,
contributed to the crash of the peso, further impoverishing the regular
citizens.
[11]
Promoters sold NAFTA, trade with Mexico, by promising new job creation
in the U.S. Yet, research studies and historical examples in other
countries provided adequate information and experience to discourage any
kind of free trade with two inequitable countries. Labor-intensive
manufacturers, encouraged by NAFTA, relocated to Mexico where Mexican
nationals were willing to work for less. To get it passed, the Mexican
government spent millions on lobbyists and public relations.
U.S. capital, about $70 billion, went south with American jobs. New
companies emerged in Mexico, along with debt in the form of interest for
loans. There are about 90,000,000 people in Mexico, out of which 200,000
people control the entire wealth of the nation – thirty-two families.
Unfortunately, Mexico, along with many other third world countries,
became victims of the economic hit men. John Perkins recently revealed
their tactics in his Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Mexico
was generating about $30 billion a year towards paying the debt service
or interest on its international banking cabal loans. Yet the actual
cost amounted to $40-45 billion per year. Alan Greenspan, then chairman
of the privately owned Federal Reserve increased the interest rates in
late 1994 which deliberately “devastated the Mexican Economy.”
[12] In December 1994, Mexico
devalued the peso by about 40%.
[13] Congress immediately approved a
$40 billion taxpayer-funded loan despite debt-burdened Mexico’s
inability to repay it. That loan was merely a transfer from our pockets
into the international bankers’ coffers. The recent bailouts and Obama’s
stimulus package, disguised as assistance to the populace, is a huge
transference of wealth – again from the taxpayer’s pockets into the
banker’s pockets.
According to Ian Fletcher,
“The U.S. should seek strategic, not unconditional integration
with the rest of the world economy. Economic openness, like most things
in life, is valuable up to a point – but not beyond it. Fairly open
trade, most of the time, is justified. Absolutely free trade, 100
percent of the time, is an extremist position and is not.” Free trade is
certainly not inevitable. A former British colony, the U.S., for
decades, protected their manufacturing base through protectionist
tariffs. The regulation of commerce was included in the Constitution,
Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress “to regulate commerce with
foreign nations,” a mandate that is in the best interests of the nation
and its people.
[16] Nation states are
economically essential and relevant as most people, according to
Fletcher, live in the country in which they were born. Consequently,
their “economic fortunes depend upon the wage and consumption levels
within that one society.” When trade laws, to benefit large firms, alter
the economic nationalism of a nation, it impacts every resident.
[17]
Free trade, as currently practiced with chronic US deficits and a
plethora of cheap imports, can actually “seduce” a population into
“decadent consumption.” People have abandoned the tradition of saving
and frugal living. Business owners often fail to reinvest profits and
instead depend on bank loans. Seemingly, individuals in their personal
or business circumstances prefer to mortgage their futures in order to
obtain immediate gratification. Fletcher claims that Americans are
addicted to debt as evidenced by the incidence of consumer credit.
America’s combined household and government debt totals 243% of GDP as
opposed to China where the government discourages personal debt. At
least 500 million Chinese people have a cell phone but only one million
Chinese residents have a credit card.
[18] China is the world’s
largest mobile telephone market.
[19] I visited China in 2007 and was
amazed at its thriving economy, the huge building projects throughout
the country, and the presence of large US-based corporations, like
Motorola, in Beijing.
Robert B. Zoellick (CFR, TC, Bilderberg, PNAC), current President of the
World Bank, as Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural
Affairs (1991-1992) helped seal the NAFTA accord with Mexico. He was
also instrumental in launching the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
forum. He was a U.S. Trade Representative (2001-2005) who attempted to
fast track the Free Trade of Americas Agreement (FTAA) and negotiated
the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in May 2004. He advised
George W. Bush on foreign policy during the 2000 campaign as part of a
group led by Condoleezza Rice called The Vulcans. Bush nominated
Zoellick to replace Paul Wolfowitz (PNAC) as the new World Bank
president.
[20]
Residents flee when their nation’s economy fails, or when it is
devastated by war. Illegals in the U.S. increased from three million in
the 1990s to eleven million with about 55% or six million individuals
from Mexico. This resulted from Mexico’s economic crisis in conjunction
with George W. Bush’s so-called “guest-worker” program, possibly
associated with his secretive meeting in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005
with then Mexican President Vicente Fox and then Canadian Prime Minister
Paul Martin. They met to discuss the formation of the North American
Community which is, by default, a done deal. The U.S. government has
been deliberately ineffective in protecting the southern border in order
to create a destabilizing cultural and economic crisis in the U.S.
NAFTA Vote by Party and City, Suburb and Rural Location:
[21]
Anti NAFTA
Pro NAFTA
City
67.4%
32.6%
Suburb
59.6%
40.4%
Rural
52.2%
47.8%
Republicans
City
22.2%
77.8%
Suburb
26.4%
73.6%
Rural
21.4%
78.6%
Some of the same treasonous scoundrels that voted for NAFTA are
currently appearing on the privately owned media busily blaming the
current administration for not fixing the economy, a direct result of
NAFTA. Some of those neo-cons include Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Tom
DeLay, Dick Durbin, Jeffrey Flake, Thomas Foley, John Kasich, Dick
Armey, Dennis Hastert, and on the left, Nancy Pelosi. She, as Speaker of
the House, pushed through the disastrous healthcare bill in the same
manner. These politicians count on the fact that the US public has
forgotten who voted on NAFTA and what it did. They are now blaming the
bulk of the country’s economic woes on others, such as people who
shouldn’t have borrowed money to buy homes (now in
foreclosure)
and a number of other issues – never on the fact that they imposed a
treaty on the US that was deliberately designed to de-industrialize the
country and cause an economic catastrophe. Neo-con Republicans continue
to maintain that NAFTA was a good policy, but for who?
In March 2010 Rep. Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat, lead a small
group of twenty-eight lawmakers who introduced legislation that would
require President Obama to relinquish our participation in NAFTA, the
16-year trade agreement that began the de-industrialization of America,
a process that has created the current joblessness (10 to 12%) and the
economic fallout. The National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, organizations that represent the elite, have always
supported NAFTA. If Taylor’s legislation passes, Obama would have to
give Canada and Mexico six months’ notice of the U.S. intentions to
vacate the pact.
[22]
In his campaign speeches Obama opposed NAFTA but now is in the process
of negotiating with officials in South Korea, Panama and Colombia to
implement trade pacts with those countries. In March 2010, U.S.
officials also began trade negotiations with Australia, New Zealand,
Singapore, Chile, Peru, Vietnam and Brunei in what would be the
Asia-Pacific regional free-trade agreement. Members of the House of
Representatives are supposed to vote before the end of the year whether
the U.S. is to retain their membership in the World Trade Organization.
[23]
Ian Fletcher says, “Free trade is inexorably bleeding our economy and
preventing it from returning to true health. Nobody in the Obama
administration wants to talk about the economics of free trade, because
as soon as one seriously scrutinizes this doctrine, one begins to
discover that free trade may be the biggest myth in American economics.”
[24]
[1]
There is no Need for Anyone to go to [2] On the Question of Free Trade, Karl Marx, an address before the Democratic Association of Brusels, January 9, 1848, http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/marx_freetrade.html
[3]
Rockefeller Internationalism by Will Banyan, Part 1, Nexus
Magazine Volume 10 - Number 3, (April-May 2003)
[4]
Hitler’s Secret Bankers, the Myth of Swiss Neutrality During the
Holocaust by Adam LeBor, Birch Lane Press, New York, 1997, p. 73
[5]
Free Trade Doesn’t Work, What Should Replace It and Why by Ian
Fletcher, U.S. Business & Industry Council, Washington, DC,
2010, pp. 158-159
[6]
Al Gore: A User’s Manual by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St.
Clair, Verso 2000, pp. 160-171
[7]
Organized Labor’s Campaign Contributions after the NAFTA Vote:
Rhetoric or Retribution? by Gretchen Anne Phillips and Edward
Tower, p. 3
[8]
NAFTA, GATT Uruguay Round, and Fast Track 1998: a Brief
Legislative History, Institute for International Economics,
www.iie.com,
p. 1
[9]
Free Trade Doesn’t Work, What Should Replace It and Why by Ian
Fletcher, U.S. Business & Industry Council, Washington, DC,
2010, pp. 158-159
[10]
The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice
Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy by
Patrick J. Buchanan, Little, Brown, New York, p. 269
[11]
Al Gore: A User’s Manual by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St.
Clair, Verso 2000, pp. 160-171 [12] Texas and Mexico, immediate impact of the Mexican Crisis by Ben Boothe, Fort Worth, Texas, Ben Boothe and Associates, http://bootheglobalperspectives.com/
[13]
NAFTA and the Peso Collapse, Not Just a Coincidence by Robert A.
Blecker, Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper,
http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/1997_bp_nafta.pdf
[14]
Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, Center for Research on
Globalization, Montreal, Quebec, 2007, pp. 216-247
[15]
Ibid, p. 217
[16]
Free Trade Doesn’t Work, What Should Replace It and Why by Ian
Fletcher, U.S. Business & Industry Council, Washington, DC,
2010, pp. 20-21. This is a book that everyone interested in
so-called free trade should read.
[17]
Free Trade Doesn’t Work, What Should Replace It and Why by Ian
Fletcher, U.S. Business & Industry Council, Washington, DC,
2010, pp. 23-24, 25
[18]
Ibid, pp. 48-49
[19]
Motorola's Cell-Phone Stumble in China, Telecom August 28, 2008,
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_36/b4098056926227.htm
[20]
Robert Zoellick, http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1397
[21]
Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper, Washington, DC,
Political Arithmetic of the NAFTA Vote by Lawrence Mishel and
Ruy A. Teixeira, p. 12,
http://epi.3cdn.net/3d995382f3252362c7_ydm6bxl4u.pdf
[22]
Reuters, A small group of U.S. lawmakers unveiled legislation on
Thursday to withdraw from the North American Free Trade
Agreement in the latest sign of congressional disillusionment
with free-trade deals,
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6233MS20100304
[23]
Ibid
[24]
Free Trade Doesn’t Work, What Should Replace It and Why by Ian
Fletcher,
http://www.freetradedoesntwork.com/
|