FTAA: It's About Surrendering Independence, Not Free Trade

John B Hammes Sr economic56 at EARTHLINK.NET
Sun Aug 21 01:07:49 MDT 2005


Jeez, John. You could have just posted the web addresses on those last two!
They were a little long, don't you think?  Remember that a rule was made
that we don't post a bunch of stuff copied from other websites?  We're just
supposed to post the web address on those.

John Hammes

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John" <blueoval at 1SMARTISP.NET>
To: <RUSHTALK at athena.csdco.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 9:33 PM
Subject: Fwd: FTAA: It's About Surrendering Independence, Not Free Trade


Howdy, everyone,

As disappointed as I am about CAFTA, it is important
for all of us to focus on defeating its successor, the
FTAA, which will end our national independence in a
process that will unfold over time.


Some Background: What NAFTA Really Did

Proponents like to point out that our exports to
Canada and Mexico have gone up under NAFTA; however,
so has our trade deficit at the same time.  In 1993 it
was $16.6 billion; now it's $62.8 billion and still on
the increase.  On the Mexico side, imports coming from
there have increased significantly because we have
been sending manufacturing jobs there at the same time
we take in Mexico's unskilled workers-millions of
them.

"NAFTA has displaced American workers and devastated
entire towns," noted
the Christian Science Monitor in a story on NAFTA's
tenth anniversary.
"[Its effects are] evident from the job-training
centers in southern Texas to
the 'NAFTA ghost towns' of North Carolina, with their
shuttered textile plants."

Even if NAFTA had been good for our economy, it would
still be the first part of a long-term plan (The next
two steps are CAFTA and the FTAA) to submerge our
national independence under a so-called "regional"
government of the Americas, which will end our ability
to govern ourselves, our freedom, and our economic
prosperity.  If these next two steps are realized, we
will be only one final step away from the total end of
our sovereignty and it will be next to impossible to
prevent that step from taking place.


What CAFTA and the FTAA Will Do

U. S. Senator Bob Bennett, Republican from Utah,
recently told a constituent that he ".would not
support any agreement that I felt undermined the
sovereignty of the United States" However, in the same
letter, he immediately contradicted himself when he
said "The FTAA will contain provisions that
participating countries are required to observe."
Next he flip-flopped and said: "in my view they do not
challenge the overall sovereignty of the United States
as the final draft of the FTAA should also include a
clause that
would allow the U.S. to unilaterally withdraw if U.S.
interests are not being met."
Overall sovereignty?  Should we not have perfect
sovereignty?  Total sovereignty?
Obviously there will be a loss of soereignty, and
Bennett's
letter does not reveal the half of it.
Read the draft FTAA agreement at:
http://www.ftaa-alca.org/FTAADraft03/Index_e.asp

It is also interesting to note that the U.S.
government has never withdrawn from an international
body once entered, no matter how anti-U. S. it behaves
or how corrupt it becomes. These bodies include the
United Nations (UN), the World Bank, and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF).

European citizens bamboozled into entering the
European Union (EU) when it was called the "European
Common Market" later learned that it had been intended
all along to merge the once-independent nations of
Europe under one government, which is now stamping out
many of their rights.  If the U. S. passed FTAA, our
government would be committing itself to act in the
best interests of the hemisphere instead of our own
national interests.

Finally, we need to remember that FTAA, once approved,
is a process,  as opposed to a treaty with strict
terminology and limitations on power written into it.
The extent of everything that will eventually take
place under FTAA is not written into the agreement.
As Tom Gow, Vice-President of the John Birch Society,
points out: "Not everything is revealed in the
agreements, and if the FTAA is approved, the
envisioned power grab (like the EU) will unfold over
time."


Higher Standard of Living?

According to Congressman Todd Akin, Republican from
Missouri, the FTAA is "an essential element of an
export-led development strategy"  However, what he
doesn't tell you is that when he uses the word
"development" he is talking about the development of
impoverished (through Marxist despots) Latin-American
countries.  Akin and other FTAA proponents make the
assumption that the agreement will help these
countries economically; however, this assumes those
countries will be importing goods as opposed to
exporting them.  Besides the NAFTA Countries and
Brazil, the other 30 countries set to be members of
FTAA account for only 10% of the entire GDP of the
hemisphere.
So what "key" markets (as FTAA supporters say) exist
in these 30 impoverished countries?   If we lower
barriers to U.S. exports, what can they possibly
afford to buy from us?  A healthy economy results from
producing things as opposed to consuming them.

This contradicts one of the biggest claims of FTAA
proponents, as I mention elsewhere in this article,
who love to say that FTAA would help our economy by
increasing exports to Central and South America.


Would FTAA Create Jobs?

Even some of FTAA's U. S. supporters concede that FTAA
will hurt U. S. jobs.
Senator George Allen, Republican from Virginia,
supports "programs to help train workers for new jobs,
look for new employment, and provide extended
unemployment for those who are in training" because
they were outsourced via "international competition.".
Allen also has introduced the "Homestead Protection
Act", which would provide "low-interest loans for home
mortgage assistance to workers who lose their jobs
because of trade".  But FTAA would create a few
jobs-in the massive international trade-regulating
bureaucracy called for in the agreement.

It is important to repeat that.  The FTAA agreement
calls for a bureaucracy to regulate international
trade, as opposed to liberating it from government
interference.
To give you an idea of what FTAA proponents have
planned, let's look at NAFTA.  It created numerous
committees, panels, councils, tribunals, and other
regulatory bodies.  These were created to merge the
economies of three countries-the U.S., Mexico, and
Canada.  FTAA would cover 34 countries.  Early
estimates are that the FTAA bureaucracy would create
around 27,000 jobs wherever it is located.


Do FTAA Opponents Reject Free Trade?

No, they don't.  Genuine free trade is a mutually
beneficial exchange between a buyer and a seller.
FTAA does not create that.  Instead, would regulate
trade between 34 nations under a huge unelected
bureaucracy.   So how can something as socialist as
the international regulation of trade by unelected
bureaucrats and the end of national sovereignty seem
conservative?
The deceptively misnamed FTAA has garnered knee-jerk
opposition from leftists who, (without investigating
it) think it actually would advance the cause of
genuine free trade, which they oppose.  Additionally,
by misnaming it a "free trade" agreement, the global
elitists that back FTAA have been able to get the
extreme left to agitate for provisions on the
environment and worker's rights, making the
Bush-supported FTAA seem conservative by comparison.
Something else that makes Bush's FTAA seem
conservative is that Marxist Dictators Hugo Chavez and
Fidel Castro also support FTAA-style integration of
the hemisphere-just a much more socialist version.
On December 14, 2004, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro
signed a document proposing something called "ALBA",
which is a Spanish acronym for "Bolivarian Alternative
of the Americas", which would, according to the two
Marxist dictators, realize "the dream of Bolivar and
Marti of a single Latin America, united in justice."

Since the world government schemers behind FTAA
manipulate public opinion along Marxian dialectical
lines, ALBA is being presented by them to make FTAA
look conservative.

At another spot on the ideological spectrum,
conservatives who didn't investigate it thoroughly are
having a knee-jerk reaction by supporting FTAA,
assuming by its title and backing by so-called U.S.
conservatives such as Bush, that FTAA promotes genuine
free trade.  FTAA's main backers know it needs the
support of misinformed conservatives to get it through
congress.


Is FTAA about being competitive?

FTAA proponents love to say that since Europe has
joined into one superstate and "regional" bloc (the
EU), its economic power is growing and we will be
overmatched in the area of international economics
unless we form a superstate/bloc of our own.  However,
that argument implies that the EU is not a "free
trade" zone, but an industry-government cartel.   If
the EU were really engaging in free trade, it would be
open to our exports whether or not we belong to a
regional bloc.

The competitiveness argument falls apart when you see
the motivation:  internationalists supporting FTAA
want Americans to think in terms of "regional"
economic competitiveness, instead of national economic
competitiveness.  Economist Jorge Gonzalez of Trinity
University, a supporter of NAFTA (the first
installment of FTAA), made this clear. "We've
basically taken two economies with vastly different
resources [e.g. the U.S. and Mexico] and integrated
them. That helps the whole region become more
competitive."  The "competitiveness" argument is a
stealth attack on U. S. Sovereignty.


FTAA Will Open New Markets for American exporters,
Right?

This is one of the biggest lies.  Besides the NAFTA
Countries and Brazil, the other 30 countries set to be
members of FTAA account for only 10% of the entire GDP
of the Americas.  So, as I said above, what "key"
markets (as FTAA supporters say) exist in these 30
impoverished countries?   If we lower barriers to U.S.
exports, what can they possibly afford to buy from us?

The truth about FTAA lies in looking at what happened
under NAFTA: we will lose more jobs, more of our
manufacturing capacity, and, most importantly, more of
our ability to self-govern (sovereignty).


Don't believe FTAA is dead

Who are FTAA's main backers?  They are interesting
people to research:  David Rockefeller, Henry
Kissinger, George Soros, Alan Greenspan, Mack McLarty,
C. Fred Bergsten, Robert Zoellick, Robert Bartley,
Peter Hakim, Zbignew Brezinski, Kenichi Ohmae, and
Roberto Mangaberia Unger.  You can read more about
them here:
http://www.stoptheftaa.org/gallery/index.html
They missed the January 2005 deadline to complete
negotiations for the proposed FTAA.  So is it a dead
issue?  Unfortunately, not by a long shot.  The
Globalists behind FTAA have a history of reviving
these sort of agreements everybody thought were dead.
Consider the tyrannical Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST),
which was negotiated in the 1970s, rejected by
President Reagan in the 80s, sat dormant through the
90s thanks to Senator Jesse Helms, but is now about to
be voted on.  Or the Global Trade Organization (GTO),
proposed in 1946.  Intended to be the enforcement body
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),
U.S. globalists tried to get it passed twice but were
not successful until 1994-48 years later-when their
nearly-identical WTO (World Trade Organization) was
passed by a lame-duck session of Congress.

Would the globalist power elites behind FTAA wait
another 50 years?  Unfortunately, they will if they
have to, so these agreements must always be opposed by
Americans who value their national independence.  It
is important to understand that the globalists are
following a long-term strategy of constructing a world
government made out of so called "regional" trade
blocs-and their persistence is legendary.

The Globalist crowd is trying to get FTAA rammed
through Congress at the end of 2005. However,according
to Gow: "if we can quickly generate more heat, the
pro-FTAA forces could decide to postpone congressional
action on the "hemispheric integration" pact until
2007 to avoid congressional debate during the
heightened congressional-accountability period just
before the 2006 elections."


You can find contact information for your Senators and

Representatives at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov .
Faxes and phone calls are most effective.
There is also a treasure trove of help for stopping
the FTAA at www.stoptheftaa.org.

Finally, Gow points out that: "We also must apply
informed pressure on Congress by building solid,
informed constituent clout. Clout, not reason, is the
primary language of politicians. Unfortunately, too
many congressmen are schooled that their primary
accountability is to their party leaders, whom they
believe can control their careers. These party leaders
are in turn under the sway of the Power Elite whose
objective is to consolidate power in a world
government.
Building and applying the necessary clout to expose
and overcome this top-down conspiracy is only possible
through organization. By far the best way to build
grassroots opposition and stop the FTAA is to become
active in a local chapter of The John Birch Society.
During the CAFTA battle, JBS chapters were the focal
point of inspiring determined action to pressure
Congress to vote no. [JBS already has the structure in
place as opposed to to other organizations]
The closeness of the CAFTA battle shows that the
battle to defeat the FTAA is winnable."


Sincerely,
Scott Darby

Scott Darby
Darby700 at yahoo.com
Stop the FTAA--the end of our national independence
www.stoptheftaa.org



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list