CEO Arthur Thompson exposes the agenda of “free trade”


JBS CEO Arthur Thompson

Understanding the agenda behind “free trade” is the first step in learning why this type of trade needs to be avoided. In response to the current negotiations of “free trade” through the President Obama administration, Arthur Thompson, CEO of The John Birch Society, has written and published a book exposing the agenda of “free trade.”

“International Merger by Foreign Entanglements” details historic events that helped shape the European Union through trade agreements and how the same could happen to the U.S. Below is an excerpt from Chapter 1: “Nation is Forming Permanent Alliances.”

Nation Is Forming Permanent Alliances

In various pacts the U. S. government has entered into since the end of World War II, we have been witnessing entanglements that deliver power to international organizations through regional institutions, such as NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), and worldwide institutions, such as the United Nations. This is the consistent pattern that runs throughout all of our foreign dealings.

The titles on these pacts promote an idea that is very different from the actual contents of the packages, although there are hints of their contents from time to time even within the titles. And, all too often, negotiations are kept secret not only from the American people but from Congress as well. Repeatedly, elected officials see the agreements only a short time before they are asked to vote on them. Sometimes, they never see the documents. Rarely do they have enough time to thoroughly read and understand them.

Lack of Transparency

Over the last two or three decades, increasing reliance on secrecy has come to dominate the federal administration and the congressional leadership. This can be readily seen in proposed groundbreaking laws and treaties. Once enacted, secrecy remains a presence in the implementation of the various pacts.

In addition to secrecy, there exists a tactic that has been used on occasion to gain approval of controversial treaties. It involves moves by the Senate leadership, based on the ratification provision of Article II, Section 2 — “provided two thirds of the Senators present concur” (emphasis added), that the majority of the Senate would reject. We will give an example in Chapter Nine.

Let us state up front that we believe that a large majority of Americans would support genuine free trade between the businessmen of one country and those of another. But, the results of trade pacts are something far different from the promises given to the American people and Congress as reasons to support the agreements.

If trade between countries were truly free, there would be no need for hundreds or thousands of pages to spell out what it shall or shall not entail. Ask yourself if the following is the kind of agreement you could support: A single piece of paper signed by leaders of two or more countries stating that there will be no interference by the respective governments with the transactions between their businessmen. Except for cases where fraud or national security considerations exist, the government will have nothing to offer. It’s all very simple.

Some individuals will claim that the trade issue is so complex and so important that there is a need to spell out every minute detail. This is a smokescreen designed to discourage anyone from questioning what the mountains of paper say and mean. The agreement should not be complex and neither should the powers of a properly created government.

Keep in mind that our nation’s Constitution as the “supreme law of the land” governs the entire “complex” United States by spelling out what the federal government may do. And it was originally written on four sheets of paper!

Why then do negotiations for free trade agreements take years to complete? Studies made about these negotiations even take a great deal of time and money. And finally, why are the finalized agreements as thick as municipal telephone books?

Ask yourself some further questions: Have trade agreements negotiated in the past few decades actually added to America’s economic vitality? How many jobs and factories moved out of our country as a result of these pacts? Have any of these agreements benefited small and medium-sized businesses, the heart of the American economy? Or, have they mainly helped the multinational corporations whose leaders boast of their international loyalties and their lack of concern about the value of our nation’s independence?

If the answers to these questions are negative regarding our economy, then why do we continue to seek a remedy that has proven to fail? Is there a different motivation behind so-called free trade agreements? One of the reasons these negotiations take so long is that the people who represent the multinationals need a pact that helps them win in a competitive market. In short, they don’t want a level playing field. They have the ears of the leaders of various countries who also like the idea of government involvement and interference. In addition, they have an army of highly paid lobbyists who are in constant contact with negotiators and others connected with the process.

For more, purchase the full book at Visit our “Choose Freedom, Stop the Free Trade Agenda” action project page to learn how you can help preserve American liberty and freedom!


12 Comments on “CEO Arthur Thompson exposes the agenda of “free trade””

  1. Mickey White says:

    I do not see the book on the shop jbs www site.
    International Merger by Foreign Entanglements


  2. Jim Eckland says:

    I am not in favor of Free Trade and neither were America’s Founders !! Protectionism builds economies, and Free Trade Levels them. Take a look at what 200 years of Protectionism did for America’s economy. Now take a look at what 30 years of Free Trade is accomplishing. Now take a look what Happening to China since they are protecting their economy….Wake Up America and stop drinking the Free Trade Koolaid !!!


  3. Kyle says:

    I think people are missing the point on this one. The Founders did support free trade and at that time all it took for free trade was finding a buyer for whatever you were selling. There was no need for massive trade agreements. The issue in this case is that free trade agreements are no longer about free trade but political favors, government subsidies, and forming binding alliances without the consent of the people or the knowledge of congress. If you’re opposed to free trade in the sense of Austrian economics style free trade then you really need to wake up. Protectionism doesn’t build economies. It makes goods more expensive because it cuts out competition from cheaper alternatives. So many people worry that free trade will destroy America because jobs will move over seas well guess what… the jobs are moving over seas because our domestic policies no longer promote healthy economic growth. People like Jim have no clue what the hell they’re talking about.


    • Jim Eckland says:

      The system that America’s Founders set up was Free Trade Between States of The Union and Protectionist-Revenue-Tariffs between the USA and other nations. This is undeniable even Thomas Jefferson increased the tariff from 10% to 12.5% during his Presidency. Washington was a protectionist and so was Alexander Hamilton. I’ve had discussions with the “Idealist -Austrians”. and in the “Practical-Real-World” Free Trade doesn’t work. If it did China would be doing it and they are protecting. Search for the most competitively-priced goods and services within our own borders so that we can put our own people to work…maintain our national independence, and sovereignty.. Jim Eckland


  4. SEO says:

    I love to disseminate knowledge that I have accumulated through the yr to help enhance team functionality.


  5. Jim Eckland says:

    Art Thompson,

    What is your position on a “Flat Tariff-Revenue System” on all imported Goods and services. With the intention to phase out Income Tax and Protect our Nation’s Sovereignty and Economy???

    Jim Eckland


  6. SEO says:

    I have an enthusiastic synthetic vision pertaining to detail and can anticipate
    difficulties prior to these people happen.


  7. I have a confident analytical eyesight with regard to details and
    may foresee problems prior to they occur.


  8. […] current influx of illegal immigrants and the action our government is taking to accommodate them, stopping the free trade agenda, and much more. Count me as one in the camp of those who say the Redskins should be left to win or […]


  9. […] Washington and Thomas Jefferson urged avoiding involvement in foreign difficulties. Their advice is still the best course for our nation. But don’t expect Hillary Clinton to […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s