By David Treece
Trade partnerships are frequently discussed on the nightly news, and at the outset they generally sound reasonable. Sound wisdom from America’s first president, George Washington, is lost on modern-day politicians. In Washington’s 1796 farewell address he said, “Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?”
The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is being talked about quite a bit right now, and presidential candidates are using it as a platform to demonstrate that they are for something that sounds good to the unknowing. The U.S. Trade Representative website states, “The United States is negotiating the TPP with 11 other like-minded countries (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam).”
Some of these countries are Islamic absolute monarchies like Brunei Darussalam. Some are communist, socialist single party states like Vietnam. Some are clearly corrupt like Mexico. And the BRICS countries that are becoming superpowers and showing military supremeness like Russia are not included in the TPP. It seems that the TPP clearly draws the lines on which countries are allies in a World War kind of way.
Countries began negotiating the treaty in haste around 2008 right when the world slid into the greatest recession since the Great Depression. President Obama desperately wants the agreement completed by the end of his tenure to ensure another notch on his supposed legacy.
It should be noted that trade agreements always have benign names and we are always told that they will enable greater trade and commerce, but the devil is in the details and we would be wise to take a deeper look at what we are told.
Can America actually have free trade with countries that do not have similar national ideologies? No, because their definitions of what is and is not permissible will differ from ours. Therefore entering agreements with countries that we do not share common morals with is inherently problematic. Our Founders understood this.
In Washington’s address he continued to say, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them... Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
The statesmen who began the American experiment understood that the United States cannot have free trade with countries that do not adhere to American principles of liberty and freedom amongst others.
In Dr. Lewis E. Lloyd’s 1955 book, “Tariffs: the Case for Protection,” he outlines that in order for countries to have free trade:
- Taxes must be comparable.
- A single monetary system must be in use.
- There must be uniform business laws.
- Similar business ethics must prevail.
- There must be uniform wage rates.
- Maximum labor mobility must exist across borders.
- There must be freedom from the threat of war.
- All of the above must be enforced by a world government.
The last is exactly why our Founders warned us against foreign entanglements.
We can look back to globalist George H.W. Bush calling for a new world order in 1990 when he said, "[The war in Iraq is] a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times... a New World Order can emerge." Out of crisis, grabs for freedom and liberty always happen. We need only to look at September 11th to see the exponential growth of government that came from it. For example, the Department of Homeland Security that serves little to no purpose in keeping America safe was created. The only purpose the organization serves is to create a civilian police force similar to the old KGB. Republicans need not chastise Obama when he has only assumed the mantle of government growth and debt that his predecessor began in haste. It was only natural for Obama to continue the ruling class expansion.
Americans are consistently sold the line that we need to enter alliances with foreign countries because they will open up new trade opportunities, but like most things a deeper look at what is being said is necessary. As Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” When we pledge our alliances to foreign governments, do you think this could have implications that most Americans do not realize? Lord Acton’s thought can be taken a step further to say that the more power the government has the more likely it is to abuse that power.
We do not hold the belief that we should not trade with other countries. Rather, like Thomas Jefferson said in 1799, “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.”
In 1801, Jefferson took his explanation a step further when we said, “I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government [to be] peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none....”
Clearly the Founders understood that we should not be so dependent on other countries that it ultimately causes America’s demise.
However, nefarious (intentionally or otherwise) people have been calling for a “global economy,” and people with a similar philosophy have been conspiring to nullify the Founders’ intent since at least World War II.
The most notorious trade agreement that has impacted the most people in the Carolinas is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The names of the pacts always sound positive, but the contents of the agreements are normally always a secret. Legislators repeatedly have very little time to review agreements before voting on them. This is happening right now with the TPP.
NAFTA was signed into law in 1994. The new world order promoting organization, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), has said the following concerning NAFTA: “[It] has fallen short of generating the jobs and the deeper regional economic integration its advocates promised decades ago. Trade relations have broadened substantially, and U.S. manufacturers created supply chains across North America that have made companies more globally competitive.” The CFR statement goes on to say that patches to NAFTA have been delayed due negotiations over Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and TPP. The CFR is behind many trade agreements and its fingerprints are consistently on attempts to bring sovereign economies to their knees in an attempt to create a one world global economy. Further, the CFR is telling us that the TPP is going to be NAFTA on steroids.
Let’s be clear, NAFTA is the reason the Carolinas and many other manufacturing areas lost mills like Cannon Mills. Areas like Kannapolis, NC, used to be robust, but now many areas in K-Town closely resemble ghettos. These places were once thriving manufacturing areas. The CFR also said, “Trade relations have broadened substantially, and U.S. manufacturers created supply chains across North America that have made companies more globally competitive.” Creating a lower-cost product does not help people in Kannapolis and the Carolinas have jobs. Washington fat cats know the price of everything but the value of nothing. Having a job is invaluable.
In June of 2015, Congress gave President Obama “fast track authority” to negotiate trade agreements with other countries, and the authority demands that Congress have an up or down vote on it. The deals cannot be filibustered. This power was needed so that Obama can complete negotiations over the TPP. Of course establishment Republicans teamed up with Obama to get this through Congress and added numerous pork items to the fast track authority legislation to get Democrats to cooperate, and since the bill was passed the actual TPP vote will only need fifty votes.
Union-backed liberals have opposed the president on the fast track authority and TPP because they understand that the implications will be similar to NAFTA. Robert Weissman, the president of the liberal organization Public Citizen, said, “When the inexcusable and anti-democratic veil of secrecy surrounding the TPP is finally lifted and the American people see what is actually in the agreement, they are going to force their representatives in Washington to vote that deal down.”
Alex Jones interviewed Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report, a site that aggregates news across the Internet, this month. In the interview Drudge stated that a Supreme Court judge told him that the Court has the votes to declare sites like his in violation of copyright infringement. Essentially he was saying that linking to any news site or other articles online (as has been done in this piece) would be illegal. Remember, Congress could not get the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) passed, so what better way to shut down alternative media and blogs and newsletters like this one down than to put it in a secret legislative document, the TPP? The Internet, an unregulated platform, must be controlled so the new world order can progress. In the minds of dictators the Internet is like the Wild West, out of control and needing containment.
Wikileaks leaked part of the super-secret TPP agreement. A part that stood out to me was, “Each Member [of the TPP] has the right to determine what constitutes a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency, it being understood that public health crises...” Now pair that with the line in Washington’s farewell address that said, “We may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.” What better way is there for politicians in America to sell involvement in the TPP to the American public than through a twisted sense of patriotism? I digress from the point, but I found this interesting to point out.
You may be wondering, “Who actually benefits from trade agreements?” International corporations and international banks are clearly the winners in these deals. This disadvantages the worker and average small business in America. You cannot be for small business and be for trade agreements at the same time, because the two are at odds. The government data about unemployment that we shared HERE last week are clear indicators that American workers are suffering as a result of our jobs disappearing.
Agreements like this demonstrate why the TreeceCo philosophy of retirement planning and saving is essential. The way TreeceCo helps its clients protect their retirement savings will not be impacted by the rogue stock market. While we are not in a position to directly impact whether America entangles herself in these agreements, we can take the reins of our personal finances and prepare ourselves financially for the tumultuous consequences that agreements like the TPP are certain to cause.