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

John blueoval at 1SMARTISP.NET
Mon Aug 22 08:54:32 MDT 2005


You're right.....my apologies!

John Q.



On Sun Aug 21 00:07:49 PDT 2005, John B Hammes Sr 
<economic56 at EARTHLINK.NET> wrote:

> 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