The Pacific Trade Agreement is an Attack on Sovereignty

The Pacific Trade Agreement is an Attack on Sovereignty
by JBS President John F. McManus

In 1958, six European nations agreed to participate in what was then termed a “Common Market.” Fifteen years later, several additional countries in Europe joined and the relationship became known as the “European Community” (EC). In 1986, the EC expanded to 12 nations and the term “European Union” (EU) supplanted the previous label. Now the EU has become the dominant political and economic governing body for 28 formerly independent European nations.

More tools available at our action page (Image from

There were warnings about what was taking place. In 2003, Czech President Vaclav Klaus objected to the proposed EU Constitution. He stated: “This is crossing the Rubicon, after which there will be no more sovereign states in Europe.” He was ignored.

That same year, British authors Christopher Booker and Richard North released their important book “The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union.” They termed the EU “a slow-motion coup d’état.” Their book received the silent treatment.

In 2004, Mike Nattrass, a leader of Britain’s United Kingdom Independence Party, thundered, “The EU was sold to the British people as a trading agreement and turned into a political union which is changing our basic laws and traditions.”

And in 2007, former German President Roman Herzog lamented: “84 percent of the legal acts in Germany stemmed from [EU headquarters in] Brussels.” He concluded that his country should no longer be considered an independent nation.

In 2000, Mikhail Gorbachev, the ruler of the soon-to-be-abolished USSR, had raised a different type of red flag. While in Britain, he described the EU as “the new European Soviet.” Few took that revealing remark seriously.

It is now 2015. Led by President Obama, the United States has agreed to link arms in a trade agreement with 11 Pacific Rim nations. Labeled the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the proposal has been promoted as a beneficial trade agreement that will enhance U.S. trade, counter China’s exports, create jobs here at home, protect the environment, enforce human rights, and more. But a close examination of what is known about this pact (no copies have been made available, other than what has leaked out) reveals that it is far more than a mere trade pact. Instead, it should be viewed as the beginning of a process similar to the one employed to create the European Union.

Negotiations leading to completion of this pact have been conducted in secrecy, even to the point of refusing to provide members of Congress with copies. Congress is given 90 days to mull over passage or refusal but no amendments are allowed because Congress has already given the President authority to forbid congressional changes. Not only that, TPP negotiators want to keep portions of the document secret for at least four years even if Congress okays it. Why any member of Congress would agree to all of this is somewhat mind-boggling.

Mr. Obama won’t admit it, but TPP is deigned to be the beginning step in a political and economic union that will result in our doing to itself precisely what has been done to 28 nations in Europe.

Members of Congress, both House and Senate, must hear from voters about this. If TPP isn’t rejected, a huge chunk of our nation’s independence will have been traded away. If asked, Gorbachev might even refer to a ratified TPP as “the new Pacific Soviet.”

Contact Congress today in opposition to TPP! Be sure to also call as that carries a greater impact than an email (Senate: 202-224-3121, House of Representatives: 202-225-3121).

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at or on our Facebook page.

Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.

Government Worker Total Grows

Government Worker Total Grows
by JBS President John F. McManus

By almost two to one, government employees in the United States exceed those in the manufacturing sector. Numbers supplied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and reported by blogger Terence Jeffrey show that federal, state, and local governments employ 21.9 million versus 12.3 million employed in manufacturing. Is it any wonder that America is slowing down?

Manufacturing continues its downward spiral, which will be made even worse with Obama’s trade agreements (Photo by V4711 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons).

Wealth is productivity. A nation is wealthy whose people use the raw materials of the earth to produce goods. Government workers, frequently impeders of wealth producers, do not produce goods and do not create wealth.

BLS data shows that 1989 was the year when the number of government workers first exceeded the number making things. That year has been followed by steady growth in number working for government and a steady decline in the manufacturing field where the things Americans expect to use are made. Over the past 25 years, 4 million more have found jobs for government and 5.6 million have been forced out of manufacturing. Their manufacturing jobs went to Mexico, China, Bangladesh, and plenty of other nations whose wealth is increasing while the wealth of the United States is evaporating.

What does the Obama administration offer to address this problem? More entanglements called trade agreements that will, like NAFTA, result in more manufacturing jobs being lost here and gained elsewhere.

Jeffrey notes that, in 1941, there were 12.8 million workers in the manufacturing sector out of a population totaling 133.4 million – a ratio of 1 person in manufacturing for every 10.6 counted by the census. But in mid-2015, that ratio had shifted from 1 person making things for every 26 people in the nation. The goods Americans want and need are coming from elsewhere.

Nothing is being done to reverse the downward trend that gets worse year after year. If the U.S. doesn’t rebuild its manufacturing sector and shrink the number of government employees, the entire nation will suffer because the few who still produce goods will be taxed to keep the burgeoning rolls of government employees happy. And they will eventually cease producing.

We repeat: Wealth is productivity. Government workers, only some of whom are needed, don’t make things and many of them stand in the way of those want to be manufacturers.

Candidates for high office should take note of these simple facts before there are so many government employees, who are unlikely to vote for anyone wanting to reduce government employment numbers, that a continuance – or even a speeding up – of America’s downward spiral will be our fate.

For more on how money, banking, and the Federal Reserve affect our economy, view Dollars & $ense.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at or on our Facebook page.

Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.

Unemployment and Job Figures Aren’t Truthful

Unemployment and Job Figures Aren’t Truthful
by JBS President John F. McManus

The U.S. Department of Labor recently claimed that the number of unemployed workers in America has shrunk to 5.6 percent. And the same source claimed that 252,000 new jobs were created during the month of December and everyone should cheer the success of the Obama administration. Shouldn’t we all be delighted with these numbers?

The real unemployment rate is 11.2 percent, exactly twice the published figure (Image from Flickr by Sean MacEntee, some rights reserved).

But there are problems with these claims – big problems. Plenty of seasonal jobs are created during the end-of-the-year, pre-Christmas buying spree. They don’t last. Celebrating temporary seasonal job growth as though it were permanent is dishonest.

Secondly, the unemployment figure doesn’t count the many Americans who have ceased looking for work after months of trying to find a job. Nor does it count others who have part-time jobs instead of the full-time employment they formerly enjoyed and would surely prefer. The statisticians compiling the government’s figures don’t include all of these individuals. If they did, the real unemployment rate swells to 11.2 percent, exactly twice the published figure.

A nation’s economic vitality – including decent-paying jobs – depends on manufacturing. A nation whose people are making things is a nation where wealth is being created. But the number of manufacturers in our country continues to shrink. Everyone knows that the stores are full of imported goods made by others in faraway lands. So, too, are many other items made outside the U.S. when they were formerly manufactured by Americans.

America’s wealth-producers took a huge hit after enactment of the 1995 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In 1993, the U.S. had a $1.66 billion trade surplus with Mexico. After NAFTA, the surplus disappeared, replaced immediately by a $15.8 billion deficit that has grown to more than $60 billion per year. The jobs that Americans formerly held haven’t returned. Many more have ended up in China where the U.S. trade deficit has ballooned to more than $80 billion per year.

The Obama administration has customarily provided dishonest unemployment figures. But the President and his team are now seeking congressional passage of two additional NAFTA-like trade agreements, one with Pacific-rim nations and the other with the European Union. If these two pacts are approved by Congress, the already bad unemployment situation will grow even worse.

Follow these links to contact Congress and tell them to reject the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). And messages sent to elected officials ought to demand honesty from the bureaucrats who habitually paint the nation’s economic situation with rosy colors when honesty calls for quite the opposite.

Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.

Say No to Dangerous Trade Pacts

Say No to Dangerous Trade Pacts
by JBS President John F. McManus

A recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center sought the public’s attitude about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) intending to greatly link the U.S. with 12 Pacific nations and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that would deeply tie our nation with the bloc of nations known as the European Union. Both pacts will soon be considered by Congress. To say the least, the Center’s findings were mixed.

Two-thirds of those polled favored trade in general, while fewer than 25 percent believed that trade pacts created jobs and boosted wages. Yet, asked about the TPP and TTIP specifically, about half of the respondents expressed approval and half were skeptical.

Facts are more important than the attitudes of the public, however, especially when the public has little awareness about the loss of jobs because of previous trade pacts. Most Americans know that jobs have indeed been lost but few know that a 20-year-old trade pact largely led to the losses. The 1995 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) paved the way for saying good-bye to approximately 5 million jobs. It also established judicial tribunals whose rulings now supersede decisions handed down by American courts, a development that has shocked even some of NAFTA’s previous supporters. A hard look at both TPP and TTIP shows that they threaten to worsen both of these problems.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is an admitted socialist. Yet he is cautioning colleagues about the TPP because he sees in it a great deal more than just tariffs on goods. The liberal Washington Post correctly claims that the agreement deals with “a broad range of regulatory and legal issues,” that can impact foreign policy and even domestic lawmaking. Sanders rightly insists that TPP “is much more than a free trade agreement.” If he understands this, other senators and congressmen can see it as well. But most think only in terms of increased trade, which is what the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stress. Numerous labor unions, environmental groups, and global health organizations have also registered opposition because the pact deals with matters of concern to them.

A further complicating factor regarding these pacts is President Obama’s desire to be awarded “fast-track authority” for speedy approval of both. Such a grant of power would bar Congress from debating and amending the pacts, allowing only a “Yes” or “No” vote on each. Sanders reminds colleagues that the Constitution grants Congress sole authority “to regulate commerce with foreign nations,” not the Executive branch.

The Socialist from Vermont might be dead wrong on some issues but he’s correct in this instance. And the high and mighty so-called capitalists at the Business Roundtable and Chamber of Commerce are wrong. Congress should never cede its constitutional prerogatives by granting “fast-track authority” to the President. And both the job-threatening and foreign-entangling TPP and TTIP should be rejected. Let Congress know today!


Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.

Say No to the North American Union

Say No to the North American Union
by JBS President John F. McManus

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) won congressional approval in late 1993. Signed by then-President Clinton, the pact, has contributed to one million manufacturing jobs lost and many hundreds of closed factories.

But the loss of jobs and factories hasn’t been the only casualty. When NAFTA was being considered, both Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller, two eager proponents of eventual world government, made clear in their published statements that the pact was only a stepping stone toward the larger goal of uniting Canada, the United States, and Mexico into a North American Union (NAU). And creation of a formal NAU would be a step toward the “new world order” that each desires. Effective work by The John Birch Society and some allies prevented realization of the plan to sacrifice national independence in favor of the NAU.

But the enemies of national independence never sleep. At a recent gathering of the Texas-Chihuahua-New Mexico Regional Economic Competitiveness Forum held in El Paso, Texas, Congressmen Beto O’Rourke, Joaquin Castro and Henry Cuellar – all Democrats from Texas – stated their hopes to create more ties with Mexico. And Congressman Bill Owens (D-N.Y.) who represents a district bordering Canada added his hope that a similar expansion of ties can be made with Canada.

Mr. Cuellar pointed to energy production in the three North American countries. He wants to “put Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. [into a relationship] that will be the new Middle East of the world.” Energy production, of course, can continue and grow without sacrificing the independence of each of the countries. Simply stated, there is no need to give up national sovereignty in order to produce energy.

A report about the El Paso meeting provided by Newspaper Tree stated: “But with regional economies and markets across the planet becoming increasingly competitive in a globalizing and urbanizing world, the notion of building upon a stronger North America in a post-NAFTA hemisphere was clearly on the lawmakers’ minds.”

The American people must be made aware that the NAFTA pact, as costly as it was regarding jobs, also contained in its 1,700 pages numerous additional entanglements such as NAFTA judicial panels whose decisions supersede the rulings of our nation’s state and federal courts. There can be little doubt that the intention of the globalists includes having a newly created North American Union crush independence here in the same manner that it has been crushed for 28 European nations by the European Union. Members of Congress must be told by constituents that keeping our nation away from entanglements such as the proposed NAU is imperative.

For more on the agenda behind free trade agreements, read “International Merger by Foreign Entanglements” by JBS CEO Arthur Thompson. Check out a review of it here.

Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.

Another Way To Police the World

Another Way To Police the World
by JBS President John F. McManus

On Sunday, July 27th, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appeared on the CBS “Face the Nation” program and said something the American people wanted to hear. She then promptly contradicted her own pronouncement.

After agreeing that “the world is a mess,” and that its current travails are less important to most Americans, she registered her opinion that the people in our nation don’t want the U.S. “to be the world’s policemen.” Amen to that! But Albright, who probably would never have come even close to expressing that conclusion when she was holding her high office (during the final years of the Clinton presidency, 1997-2001), followed her sound assessment of the thinking of most Americans by completely reversing it. She said, “What has to happen is we need to really work harder on partnerships.”

Partnerships? Wouldn’t partnerships with other nations involve us in whatever squabble any one of them might find themselves? George Washington urged that our nation “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Thomas Jefferson cautioned against “entangling alliances.” John Quincy Adams stated that America’s policy should not have us roaming the earth “seeking monsters to destroy.” But Madeleine Albright wants our nation to tighten relationships with other countries via “partnerships” which are the very opposite of the wise counsel given by America’s early leaders.

In 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson led the charge that persuaded Congress to approve creation of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Originally linking the United States and Canada with 14 European nations, the treaty has been expanded in recent years to include a total of 28 nations – with others clamoring to sign up. NATO’s 14 brief articles include this whopper: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all….” Not only that, the treaty makes note of the fact that the organization derives its authority to exist from the Charter of the United Nations that requires all of the alliance’s actions to be duly reported to the world body.

The on-going conflict in Afghanistan is a NATO project. Whatever happens or fails to happen there is NATO’s call, and the current leader of NATO is Denmark’s Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The alliance’s Military Commander is General Knud Bartles, also from Denmark. Talk about a “far cry” from the thinking of America’s early leaders.

Albright pointed to the Ukraine crisis without noting that the U.S. is already involved through supplying weaponry to that nation’s government. And Ukraine’s officials have already expressed interest in joining NATO. They obviously want U.S. committed to being their defender.

What do treaties like NATO produce? It’s worth noting that the U.S. Constitution’s required congressional declaration of war before militarily entering a conflict got bypassed in the Vietnam struggle. The U.S. involvement there obtained its authorization from a NATO duplicate called SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization). What our forces did or were prevented from doing in that costly struggle was determined by SEATO.

The favored policy of America should be “non-intervention.” It’s not isolationism; it’s good sense.

A final curious note must be mentioned here. Albright’s choice of the word “partnership” likely was deliberate. U.S. leaders are promoting passage of economic partnerships with the European Union (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership TTIP) and Asian/Pacific nations (Trans-Pacific Partnership TPP). Just as NAFTA unnecessarily involved our nation in many ways with Canada and Mexico, these new “partnerships” would entangle the U.S. with many more nations economically and politically while diluting sovereignty even further. Passage of both should be blocked. But be forewarned: The word “partnership” is the current coverup for treaty, alliance, or free trade agreement. And Madeleine Albright, who really favors more entanglements, surely knows why she chose it.



Much Ado About Nothing (of Real Importance)

Much Ado About Nothing (of Real Importance)
by JBS President John F. McManus

Youngsters by the thousands have crossed into the United States in a new wave, invading our nation. They are being given food, shelter, and medical treatment courtesy of the American taxpayer. The federal government, supposedly the guardian and policeman of the border, has actually stimulated the massive crossing and is actually encouraging more to come with the generosity given to those already here.

In Iraq, the country that the U.S. tore apart because of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and false claims that its leaders had ties to Al Qaeda plus complicity in the 9/11 attack, is now being besieged by a new wave of militant Islamists. Those who continue to advocate U.S. policing of the world want our forces to reenter the country, flex a few muscles, kill a few more, and undoubtedly add to the already achieved list of U.S. casualties.

The U.S. government continues to deepen the nation’s indebtedness while scorn gets heaped upon any attempt or even any advocacy of cutting spending for numerous completely unconstitutional programs (e.g. foreign aid, housing, education, medicine, etc.).

But instead of dealing properly and constitutionally with the above problems and many more, attention is focused on the name of the Washington Redskins. Described as a “racial slur” that is offensive to some, the “Redskin” part of the name is the target although one wag suggested that the “Washington” portion of the team’s name is more loathed by many Americans because of the deficiencies and outrages consistently being emanating from the nation’s capital. According to RedState columnist Eric Erickson, school teams on several Indian reservations proudly call themselves the “Redskins.” It’s clearly not offensive to them and, if so, why is there a growing demand for ditching the name?

On June 18th, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled that use of the term is “disparaging” to many American Indians. Some Indians agree. But this federal bureaucratic decision doesn’t force the hand of team owner Dan Snyder to make any change. He has adamantly informed all that there will be no change. Even so, he has appealed the ruling. Meanwhile, U.S. Representative Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) outspokenly called for the Redskins to ditch their name. And other liberals, including the likes of TV sports announcer Bob Costas, have ginned up the cry for altering the name.

Several years ago, a North Dakota university caught the wrath of the nation’s busybodies because its teams had for years been known as the “Fighting Sioux.” Sioux spokesmen came to the school’s defense telling all who would listen that they liked the name, were even proud of it, and hoped it would remain. It didn’t. A similar campaign targeted Florida State University whose teams are known as the Seminoles. But Seminole support for the name has so far kept change from occurring there.

If the Redskins cave in, what of the Atlanta Braves whose fans wave their arms in tomahawk fashion and chant an Indian war hoop during games? Isn’t that displaying a form of racism and maybe even a love for reinstituting war? What of the Cleveland Indians? Think for a moment about the Pittsburgh Pirates and their audacity in adoption of the name of criminals who killed and pillaged for centuries?

It’s well past the time that all Americans ought to focus more on real problems. News headlines should be focusing on foreign policy and the U.S. involvement in the Middle East, the 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 lose on the football field, not having to satisfy a minority that thinks a mere molehill is a huge mountain.

Destroying Wealth and Curtailing Freedom: Time to Reclaim America

Destroying Wealth and Curtailing Freedom: Time to Reclaim America
by JBS President John F. McManus

How often have you heard someone claim, “America is a wealthy nation”? Such a declaration is usually followed by demands that our nation solve the entire world’s problems, bail out a host of other nations whose leaders are known miscreants, and even police the world while the hidden beneficiary of lost American blood and treasure turns out to be the United Nations.

The insistence that America is wealthy omits both a definition of “wealth” and any correct awareness of how the American people succeeded where so many others haven’t. So let’s correct these deficiencies by first insisting that America became wealthy, not because of what government did but because of what government was prevented from doing by the limitations on it imposed in the U.S. Constitution. Also, add the system that has states in peaceful competition to be the best state, the one where people would want to raise a family, create a business, and produce wealth. There you have the two extremely beneficial foundations propelling America to become the envy of mankind.

Next, let’s offer wealth’s definition. It doesn’t consist of a pile of documents (stocks, bonds, titles of ownership, etc.). Wealth results from productivity, the taking of the raw materials of the earth and fashioning them into goods. This means creation of wealth relies on manufacturing, farming, and mining. Whatever impedes these tasks impedes the nation’s wealth.

Both of these foundations of America’s unparalleled success are under severe attack. The national government, supposedly restrained by the Constitution to “few and defined” powers according to James Madison, now constrains wealth production with an array of costly, unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations, edicts, and dictates. Then, of course, there are taxes to pay for the growing bureaucracy and the foreign adventures. All of this has led to what is called “outsourcing” that sees closed factories and loss of jobs. How many jobs have disappeared? Since the passage of NAFTA in 1994, estimates vary from one million (cited by the Public Citizen organization) to five million (attributed to the Congressional Research Service). And increasingly, the general public has been steered toward a belief that the remaining producers of wealth are thieves, enslavers of workers, and mere money-grubbing cretins.

Any honest surveyor of these developments has to conclude that NAFTA (the pact involving Canada, Mexico and the U.S.) has been a disaster for our country. So what have our leaders proposed? Even larger and surely more harmful trade agreements, one with the 28 formerly independent nations now entangled in the European Union (the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP) and the other with a dozen Pacific nations (the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP). If Congress approves these pacts, expect even more outsourcing, job losses, and declining wealth production. Click here to communicate this to Congress.

Is this sheer stupidity? It is madness? Or is it sinister planning? Since our leaders are neither stupid nor deranged, the undeniable results should be credited with wanting to see America’s decline. Why? To build a world government more commonly known as the New World Order.

No world government can exist if once-free nations aren’t similarly brought to heel and once-free people become forced downward economically. Nothing else makes sense.

America still has its Constitution. And Americans, despite government interference in so many ways, are still producing some wealth. But the goose that laid the golden egg has been scheduled for the guillotine. Will still free Americans resist and reclaim their hard-won legacy? That’s the big question.

The John Birch Society provides such an outlet for concerned Americans to organize, educate, and reclaim its founding principles. Join today to get started!

North American Leaders Meeting Today to Discuss Job-Killing Trade Agreement

North American Leaders Meeting Today to Discuss Job-Killing Trade Agreement
by JBS President John F. McManus

President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Harper, and Mexico’s President Pena Nieto met in Toluca, Mexico, on February 20. The most they could agree upon was the need to protect Monarch butterflies whose winter habitat happens to be losing its milkweed food source. But each of the three “amigos” (they enjoy using the term) wants to sink the three countries into the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement involving twelve Pacific-rim nations – all the way from North America to Chile, Australia, Japan, and elsewhere.

President Barack Obama delivers remarks alongside President Enrique Peña Nieto and Prime Minister Stephen Harper to North American business, civil society, and education leaders during the North American Leaders’ Summit in Toluca, Mexico, Feb. 19, 2014 (official White House photo by Amanda Lucidon, some rights reserved).

Hoping to build on the 20-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the three leaders continued to claim that NAFTA was a huge success. Mr. Obama could have pointed instead to the loss of thousands of jobs, the creation of legal tribunals whose decisions trump U.S. law, even a more widely open border for illegal immigrants to stream into the U.S. But these consequences of NAFTA were never mentioned. One can only conclude that similar results will impact America if the TPP negotiations are completed and approved by Congress.

Right now, President Obama is seeking “fast track authority” that allows him to bypass congressional intervention on the way to an up or down TPP vote by Congress with no amendments. He told reporters at the meeting in Mexico, “We’ll get this passed if it’s a good agreement,” and he has already indicated that, for him, it is good. If Congress concurs, they will have ceded more of their constitutional authority to the ever-growing power of the Executive Branch.

Asked by his fellow amigos about progress toward enactment of TPP, Obama acknowledged twin difficulties, first with gaining fast-track authority and then with hammering out details that include immigration legislation, labor rules, and environmental regulations. He thereby confirmed that this newly desired trade pact deals with far more than just trade.

Customarily reliable congressional Democrats including Senate leader Harry Reid have expressed reluctance to approve the president’s fast-track request. But trusting Harry Reid to do what’s right for America is a risky proposition. Other members of Congress are voicing objections to the pact because of the results of NAFTA. They seem likely to turn thumbs down not only on TPP but also on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European Union scheduled for consideration in 2015.

America doesn’t need more “free trade” agreements that are never free and have lots more than trade in their hundreds of pages. Members of Congress can stop plans to plunge our country into such pacts and thereby avoid more job losses, more dilution of sovereignty, and more unneeded illegal immigration. History shows that supposed “free trade” agreements means economic union. And economic union is regularly followed by political union – as the 28 nations now caught in the European Union have discovered. They were told that they were joining a mere trade group that would enhance commerce. But they have discovered that they no longer control their own destiny.

Congress can stop these entanglements. It’s an election year when members listen more intently to constituents. Stopping TPP and TTIP should be the goal.

Learn more about how you can help by visiting Choose Freedom–Stop the Free Trade Agenda.

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!