What is “trade cheating”?: An examination of China and illegal dumping.
by Ohio Freedom
on December 14, 2016[ Crista Huff| December 13, 2016 |Goodfellow]
Promptly upon the December 11, 2016 expiration of certain World Trade Organization (WTO) Accession Protocols, China requested that the U.S. participate in WTO consultations. China is protesting being labeled a “non-market economy” (NME) by the U.S. The U.S. Commerce Department countered that expiration of the Accession Protocol does not automatically grant China market-economy status. If the consultations do not yield satisfactory results within 60 days, China can then formally proceed with a WTO dispute resolution process.
An NME usually operates with substantial government control of industry, and price-fixing. A government can afford to sell products at a loss, because it has vast financial resources to draw from. In a free market economy, a company is required to sink or swim on its own, without infusions of capital from the government.
When companies within free market economies compete against companies within NME’s that sell their products at below-market prices (a.k.a. illegal dumping), they are put at a serious disadvantage; not unlike when Olympic athletes are forced to compete against athletes who ingest illegal performance-enhancing drugs. In both cases, the playing field is not fair, and the legal practitioner has the odds stacked against them.
When Americans hear vague stories about “trade cheating” harming the economy, illegal dumping is just one of many such practices that directly result in American job loss and lower GDP.
When an American company loses market share due to dumping, there is no easy work-around without WTO intervention; no acceptable way to solve the problem that leads to continued profitable product sales. If the American company lowers its product prices to the level of the Chinese product prices, then the American company loses money. There is no benefit in selling products that deliver a net loss for a company. If the American company therefore stops selling the money-losing product, or continues to sell the product at a loss, there is less revenue and less profit at the company. When a company’s budget is cut, it therefore has to cut expenses, which invariably leads to worker layoffs, because salaries are a big expense. In more extreme situations, pricing on the American company’s entire product line can be undercut by foreign competition, driving the American company into bankruptcy. This situation is playing out right now within the American steel industry, where production fell 27% in 2015.
China is currently being investigated for its dumping practices; selling products in the U.S. at prices below fair market value. During the dispute resolution process, it makes a big difference if the defendant country is labeled a market economy or a non-market economy. NME’s are more likely to be involved in unfair trade practices, and therefore are treated less favorably during dispute resolution than are market economies. Specifically, the calculations used to determine fair pricing are more liberally applied to the benefit of the market-economy country than to the NME country. China is therefore protesting its NME label, with the goal of being labeled a market economy, and thereafter receiving lesser penalties over its dumping practices.
This week marks the 15th anniversary of China’s membership in the WTO.
NAFTA RENEGOTIATION – WHY WE MUST WITHDRAW!
August 27, 2017
by Armando Escalante - Bear Witness Central
The Globalists are currently active in efforts to conquer the United States. They are operating on three primary fronts. One front is by revolutionaries using violent means on the streets. Another is by revolutionaries in office at all levels using policy to change the laws to surrender national sovereignty to a World State. The third is by revolutionaries using media and the education system to sell the idea of a 21st Century Global America to the People and the youth.
The American People are about to be broad-sided by the NAFTA renegotiation. It is important for Americans to recognize that these negotiations are not meant to fix the problems that arose from NAFTA originally, but instead to further expand and strengthen NAFTA. The new NAFTA envisioned and the objectives proposed by Robert Lighthizer will ultimately supersede Constitutional authority and commit the United States’ economic, social and political mechanisms to International interests hostile to those of the United States. It is a surrender of power, authority and sovereignty to the United Nations since the governing authority of the mentioned mechanisms will be International Law. It also sets up the framework for a global currency, the silencing of free speech at many levels including avenues for persecution, the strengthening of sustainable development, compulsory family planning and population control, cross-border election fraud, unrestricted smuggling, loss of American jobs, mechanisms that would create bias against American-made products, destroy America’s energy sector, ban automobile driving, and more … all these governed strictly by international authority known to be hostile to American interests, with non-existent legal recourse under U.S. law. This is unacceptable and must be stopped. It is nothing more that a bone-fide North American Union, mirroring the European Union.
The following is an analysis of the “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation (July 17, 2017)” published by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), headed by Robert Lighthizer, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation” details in summary form the objectives sought in the renegotiations. The obscure components in the proposed objectives are revealed in the following analysis.
This examination is comprised of two parts. The first part are definitions. The second are a few excerpts of key agenda items from the “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation” with a brief analysis accompanying each of the mentioned! Not all objectives are analyzed even though a threat exists with all.
To begin, it is important to note that one of the main strategies of global social planners is to mask malevolent “intent” in all calls for solutions to world social, economic and political ills. They understand that “intent” is difficult to prove, and they hide behind the “prove it” argument which essentially becomes a weapon to silence anyone who dares point it out. One of the ways they hide it is through double-speak in the redefining of commonly understood terms. The good news is that these social planners have always, decades in advance, declared their intent in all of their social schemes in their own journals, writings and essays. These sources are valid, reliable and objective sources to use for the exposure of intent. The examination of the USTR publication rests on those declarations and the jargon that accompany them in masking the true agenda. For the sake of summary, only a fraction of these are mentioned. This analysis would become a volume if many were included. Many of the definitions are not masked, becoming a solid tool for validation.
As the social planners’ declarations and the social theory they stand on are compared to the list of objectives proposed by the “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation”, it becomes evident that there is no benevolent motive in favor of American interests but rather the undermining of those interests and continued erosion of America. In the USTR report’s cry, for the proposed NAFTA objectives to be implemented, international governance is required and called for!
It is also important to note that the stated goal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the common thread in all the digital and hard-copy documentation of all International Affairs organizations in the World, are to usher in Global Governance, with the United Nations as the political and legal authority (Global Government) for the enforcement of this Global Governance system. In the vast majority of the CFR’s writings, publications, essays and case studies, what is found is subversive thought embedded in ideology, policy proposals and analysis. In other words, subversion through the promotion of so-called cutting edge ideas like soft power, strategic patience, multi-culturalism, sustainability and the such – whether overt or covert – designed for the destruction of western culture and Americanism. That same strategy is used for the amalgamation of nations, hence the obsolescence of nation states. The ideas and methods they propose for accomplishing their goal are mostly esoteric, which are inevitably not easily understood by ordinary men or women, whether educated, or of limited education, whether of strong or depraved moral character. This has given social planner heads power and cover to further their agenda in the shadows and under the concealment of deception.
Furthermore, one of the key structures in Global Government is the regionalization of world territory into parts, such as the North American Union, the Pacific Union and others. NAFTA is the building block for the formal framework of the North American Union as envisioned by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in their 2005 report “Building A North American Community”, which blueprints the amalgamation of the three North American states. As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger put it in an article he wrote back in July 20, 1993, NAFTA “…is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system.” He also wrote in that same article regarding NAFTA that “It will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward the even larger vision of a free trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere.” 
David Rockefeller was instrumental in the building of this New World Order. In chapter 27 entitled “Proud Internationalist” of his book “Memoirs” published in 2003, he candidly states, “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
These are some of many, many statements made by social planners over many decades. Tyrannical Global Governance is the intended goal. As a note, David Rockefeller was chairman of the Council on Foreign Relation for 15 years from 1970 to 1985 and became honorary chairman for years to come until his death in 2017. the CFR is the very Council that has been undermining America since its inception. Following is why NAFTA should be abolished altogether.
+ + + ANALYSIS OF KEY OBJECTIVES + + +
The first three definitions clearly point to the supra-national nature of the these entities “by definition”. The definitions bring perspective to the objectives outlined in the “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation”.
“The North American Free Trade Agreement is an agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. It superseded the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada.”
“A trade bloc is a type of intergovernmental agreement, often part of a regional intergovernmental organization, where barriers to trade (tariffs and others) are reduced or eliminated among the participating states.”
“An intergovernmental organization or international governmental organization (IGO) is an organization composed primarily of sovereign states (referred to as member states), or of other intergovernmental organizations. Intergovernmental organizations are often called international organizations, [EM] although that term may also include international nongovernmental organization such as international nonprofit organizations or multinational corporations.
Intergovernmental organizations are an important aspect of public international law [EM]. IGOs are established by treaty that acts as a charter creating the group. Treaties are formed when lawful representatives (governments) of several states go through a ratification process, providing the IGO with an international [EM] legal personality.”
A main consequence of a trade bloc is the inevitable loss of sovereignty, since “a trade bloc, particularly when it is coupled with a political union, is likely to lead to at least a partial loss of sovereignty for its participants.”
According to the United Nations, discrimination is defined as follows:
“The principles of equality and non-discrimination are part of the foundation of the rule of law. As Member States noted in the Declaration of the High-Level Meeting on the Rule of Law, ‘all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable [EM] to just, fair, and equitable laws and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law’ (para. 2). They also dedicated themselves to respect the equal rights of all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion (para. 3).
The International human rights legal framework contains international instruments to combat specific forms of discrimination, including discrimination against indigenous peoples, migrants, minorities, people with disabilities, discrimination against women, racial and religious discrimination, or discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
(Source: United Nation – Equality and the Rule of Law section https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/thematic-areas/human-rights/equality-and-non-discrimination/)
Criticism, Christian world-view and free speech that is NOT aligned with this definition are considered discrimination under International Law. Individuals and organizations can be subject to civil penalties by so-called injured parties, fines or even criminal prosecution, as seen happening in different parts of the world today. Consequently, subjecting American interests to International Law is dangerous.
THE RULE OF LAW
According the United Nations, “The Secretary-General has described the rule of law as ‘a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.’ The concept of the rule of law is embedded in the Charter of the United Nations.”
The concept of the Rule of Law embedded in the Charter of the United Nations, is not the same as the rule of law based on Natural Law under the U.S. Constitution! The UN’s definition is what is applicable in NAFTA. Hence, NAFTA would come under international jurisdiction, superseding U.S. jurisdiction.
Document Name: Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation (July 17, 2017)
Robert Lighthizer: Head of Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)
NAFTA Renegotiation Notice (dated May 18, 2017) was sent to: Chuck Schumer, Orin Hatch, Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi
+ + + UNDERSTANDING THE KEY POINTS IN THE ENVISIONED NAFTA. + + +
The following are quotes from different parts of the “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation”. The bolded text with one dash (–) are the title headings of the particular section examined. The indented and italicized quotes preceded by dashes (- – – – -) and followed by page number, are the actual quotes from the report. They are followed by analysis.
– Customs, Trade Facilitation, and Rules of Origin:
– Customs and Trade Facilitation:
– – – – – “Provide for automation of import, export, and transit processes, including through supply chain integration; reduced import, export, and transit forms, documents, and formalities; enhanced harmonization of customs data requirements; and advance rulings regarding the treatment that will be provided to a good at the time of importation.” (page 5)
According to the WTO, the Rules of Origin are used among other things to, “to determine whether imported products shall receive most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment or preferential treatment;” . For many years, under many different justifications, foreign products have received preferential treatment over American products. There is no mention of American products being favored in this section. Considering the Anti-American sentiment that is currently being festered in America and abroad in the participating NAFTA nations, the likelihood of receiving it is in all probability remote.
In addition, this proposed objective “shifts legal jurisdiction” for oversight and remedy to international authority, “by definition”, since NAFTA is a trade bloc. This means in practice that “American” supply chain integration, import, export, and transit forms, documents, customs data requirements, etc., will all be governed under International Law!!!
Furthermore, without the human element in these areas of automation, reduced documentation and formalities as proposed, much criminality and security lapses can go undetected, especially under the jurisdiction of international authority, which is unfavorable to American interests. Automation has also displaced the working class historically and continues to even today. The goal of automation is not productivity, it is sustainability . Sustainability has a much deeper meaning than is generally understood when the works and activities of its architects are explored !
– Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT):
– – – – – “Include strong provisions on transparency and public consultation that require the NAFTA countries to publish drafts of technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures, allow stakeholders in other countries to provide comments on those drafts, and require authorities to address significant issues raised by stakeholders and explain how the final measure achieves the stated objectives.” (page 6)
In other words, “stakeholders” and their experts are granted an avenue to make determinations assuring that America and the other member states stay on the path toward Globalization.
The United Nations defines stakeholders as follows:
Apart from the United Nations proper, the major institutional stakeholders are the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO), UNCTAD and UNDP. ”
UNCTAD is the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and the UNDP is the United Nations Development Programme which handles all the Sustainable Development efforts. So it is clear that the UN and these institutions are the “stakeholders”. NAFTA, for example, is to give “strong provisions” to the Wold Bank, IMF and others so they could monitor “issues”, make recommendations (manipulate things) and measure effectiveness in achieving their “stated objectives”.
– Trade in Services, Including Telecommunications and Financial Services:
– Trade in Services:
– – – – – “Specialized sectoral disciplines, including rules to help level the playing field for U.S. delivery services suppliers in the NAFTA countries; and…” (page 7-8)
Help level the playing field is a Marxist term to mean redistribution of wealth. “Specialized sectoral disciplines”… in other words, by force! In order to level any playing field, wages must be reduced to the lowest common denominator. When American wages are measured against other participating nations’ wages such as Mexico – which are at poverty levels by U.S.A. standards, it then becomes obvious that the only direction American wages would go is down. The labor force of mainstream delivery service providers such as UPS, DHL and FEDEX are respectably paid at this time and are a strong working class sector earning livable wages to support families. If they lose their jobs this would create conditions favorable to social “fermentation”, since many of these labor forces are unionized.
– Financial Services:
– – – – – “Ensure that the NAFTA countries refrain from imposing measures in the financial services sector that restrict cross-border data flows or that require the use or installation of local computing facilities.” (page 8)
In other words, the lifting of restrictions for the financial services sector to streamline data flows of a common trans-national, North American currency as if were within borders. There is no need for unrestricted “cross-border” financial data flows with national currencies. It is important to note that the United Nations, the IMF and World Bank have been calling for a global currency. There also have been efforts in the past to create a North American currency similar to the Euro.
– Digital Trade in Goods and Services and Cross-Border Data Flows:
– – – – – “Secure commitments not to impose customs duties on digital products (e.g., software, music, video, e-books). (page 8)
– – – – – Ensure non-discriminatory treatment of digital products transmitted electronically and guarantee that these products will not face government-sanctioned discrimination based on the nationality or territory in which the product is produced.” (page 8)
Mechanisms to control digital imports and dumping are arrested. Also, international digital pornography and internationalist propaganda media such as Russia Today and the such benefit because it creates a protective barrier around them. Government sanctioned discrimination means that governments will not be allowed to speak against or pass any laws restricting, banning or regulating any pornographic, immoral, treasonous digital content and the such. It safeguards for example the pornography and propaganda industry with no American legal authority to stop or curb it since legal jurisdiction in this provision would also shift to international authority under International Law if implemented.
– – – – – “Establish rules to prevent governments from mandating the disclosure of computer source code.” (page 9)
This lays the groundwork for electronic election fraud since all voting machines are electronic today! Criminal election tampering will not be able to be properly investigated anymore without the ability for forensic experts to review voter machine source code. The ability to skew elections in other countries has been a powerful tool historically for globalists! It will now be available for them in America. Also, tech giants would be shielded from investigation, particularly when criminal activity in computer programming is involved in the squelching of conservative voices in search results, which is already happening. There would be no legal remedy in the U.S.A. for victims of anti free speech criminality because legal jurisdiction in this matter shifts again to international authority if this provision is implemented. International authorities, including the United Nations, have a long history of banning conservative free speech. Human rights are “granted” rights by human institutions, such as the United Nations, as opposed to “Unalienable Rights which are granted to all men by their Creator”. Unalienable Rights supersede all human institutions, including the United Nations, since Unalienable Rights are divinely granted! The United States Constitution “protects” God given rights. International authority grants human rights but does not protect Unalienable Rights. Unalienable Rights are not recognized under International Law. Here lies the difference between Constitutional authority based on the Declaration of Independence versus the Declaration of Human Rights, from which all International Law rests.
– Intellectual Property:
– – – – – “Prevent or eliminate discrimination with respect to matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance, use, and enforcement of intellectual property rights.” (page 9)
In other words, any effort to boycott or speak against technologies, including journalism or the voicing of moral concerns and implications on any given product resulting from that technology, would face suppression of speech under the guise of discrimination. Intellectual rights would be protected under the United Nations’ anti-discrimination laws according to “their” definition of discrimination. Because this provision call for “prevention and “elimination” of discrimination, the threat of legal action and prosecution against of so-called offenders are conceivable. Examples would be trans-human technologies and products, including robotic systems and technologies designed for morally questionable purposes, or purposes in which Constitutionality is questionable.
– – – – – “Ensure standards of protection and enforcement that keep pace with technological developments, and in particular ensure that rightholders have the legal and technological means to control the use of their works through the Internet and other global communication media, and to prevent the unauthorized use of their works.” (page 9)
– – – – – “Provide strong standards enforcement of intellectual property rights, including by requiring accessible, expeditious, and effective civil, administrative, and criminal enforcement mechanisms.” (page 10)
Any use of the mentioned technology to exercise free speech potentially faces “quick” indictment for unauthorized use. Users become open prey to civil or even criminal charges by groups or authorities who are threatened by free speech, since prosecutorial authority and power would shift to International Law (see definitions section), “bypassing” the First Amendment altogether. There are currently no legal mechanisms in the US Constitution to silence free speech since it is an Unalienable right “protected” by the First Amendment! This NAFTA provision would create one. Churches, Liberty groups, Breitbart and Infowars for example would be at high risk!
– – – – – “Respect the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, adopted by the World Trade Organization at the Fourth Ministerial Conference at Doha, Qatar on November 14, 2001, and to ensure that trade agreements foster innovation and promote access to medicines.” (page 10)
This institutionalizes in North America the legal mechanism for protecting intellectual rights for producers of “medicines for all” and their associated technology and propaganda as outlined in the TRIPS Agreement and DOHA Declaration. “The Doha declaration is a WTO statement that clarifies the scope of TRIPS, stating for example that TRIPS can and should be interpreted in light of the goal ‘to promote access to medicines for all.’”  … balancing intellectual property rights with “social and economic” welfare. Because this is a United Nations effort, much of their extensively documented solutions for social ills are primarily Malthusian, including so-called medicines and technologies designed for population management, such as compulsory abortion and sterilization, which is a top priority for the United Nations. Also, this provision would protect all producers from any exposure attempts surrounding this agenda, AND shifts jurisdiction toward international authority!
– – – – – “Commit each Party to provide levels of transparency, participation, and accountability in the development of regulations and other government decisions that are comparable to those under U.S. law with respect to federal statutes and regulations. In particular, seek commitments:
– – – – – To promptly publish laws, regulations, administrative rulings of general application, and other procedures that affect trade and investment;
– – – – – To provide adequate opportunities for stakeholder comment on measures before they are adopted and finalized; and
– – – – – To provide a sufficient period of time between final publication of measures and their entry into force.
– – – – – Seek standards to ensure that government regulatory reimbursement regimes are transparent, provide procedural fairness, are non-discriminatory, and provide full market access for United States products.” (page 10)
Noted is the word administrative rulings and again the term “non-discriminatory”. The transparency element is proposed so member states do not step on each other when laws and regulations are created! Also, it proposes the creation of synchronous statutes and regulation for release of information, stakeholder monitoring/review, and access for U.S. products. However, these U.S. products mentioned are not necessarily “American”. Some foreign automobiles brands for example are U.S. products but not “American”! There are no protection provisions for unfair trade practices, only market access. “American” products can still be unwelcomed.
– State-Owned and Controlled Enterprise:
– – – – – “Ensure that strong subsidy disciplines apply to SOEs, beyond the disciplines set out in the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). ”
Strong subsidy disciplines (punishment) applying to SOEs? Are SOEs the future economy? (See Trade Remedies below).
– Trade Remedies
– – – – – “Eliminate the Chapter 19 dispute settlement mechanism. ” (page 14)
Chapter 19 deals with principal dispute settlement mechanisms. In other words, if there is a dispute, the parties refer to Chapter 19 for relief. The current means of settlement/relief is “domestic courts” of participating nations. Eliminating this chapter would default to International Courts under International Law for dispute resolution by “definition”. This proposed NAFTA objective does not offer or propose any new or alternate dispute mechanism.
– – – – – “Exclude state-owned enterprises as part of the domestic industry in AD/CVD proceedings. ” (page 15)
State-owned enterprises (such as Pemex) would be excluded from accountability in AD (anti-dumping)/CVD (countervailing duties) proceedings!! “Dumping” occurs when foreign manufacturers sell goods in the United States less than fair value, causing injury to the U.S. industry. Dumping means that an exporter is setting prices at such a low point, that they are intentionally losing money in order to harm the domestic producers of the importing country. Countervailing duties seek to counteract artificially low prices that are a result of subsidies. Governments often offer all sorts of subsidies on exports in the form of tax breaks and credits. Because of these subsidies, exporters are able to offer lower prices than domestic producers in the importing country. Countervailing duties level the playing field and negate the advantage that exporters get from subsidies.
– Government Procurement:
– – – – – “Exclude sub-federal coverage (state and local governments) from the commitments being negotiated. Keep in place domestic preferential purchasing programs such as:” (page 16)
In other words, local and state governments are not included in the envisioned “planned” economy. This provision, if implemented, calls into question the relevance of state governments in this particular international system. It puts them in a position to become merely administrative bodies of a global system in the future.
Everything in this section is tyrannical, including making environmental provisions a “core” element, strong and enforceable, and to include a maintained “senior level” Environmental Committee!
– Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises:
– – – – – “Secure commitment by NAFTA countries to provide information resources to help small businesses navigate FTA requirements for exporting to the NAFTA markets. ” (page 16)
No mention for providing opportunity for them, just information to navigate through FTA export requirements.
– – – – – “Cooperate on SME issues of mutual interest. ” (page 16)
As hard left community organizer Ernesto Cortez, Jr states, “We organize people not just around issues, but around their values.” In other words, organize around SME’s values.
– – – – – “Establish an SME Committee to ensure that the needs of SMEs are considered as the Agreement is implemented in order for SMEs to benefit from new commercial opportunities.” (page 16)
The word “considered” is non-committal. The needs are to be considered but not necessarily “taken into account” … Also, anytime something new is built, whether it be a structure or an objective, there is always peripheral support elements which are necessary in the building process. Once such structure or objective is completed, those support elements, which helped build it, become unnecessary. So they go away. SMEs would enjoy economic benefit in the short term, but the economic benefit is really for the supra-national corporations in the long term. A good example of this process is the rise of ISPs in the 1990’s tech boom. These ISPs (Internet Service Providers) were primarily owned by SMEs since they were the ones given the opportunity to enter the marketplace. They were instrumental in the expansion of hosting services and domain management and enjoyed short term benefits until the large corporations, with massive regulatory provision one their side, began to either buy out the small ISPs or compete unfairly against them. This contributed to the demise of the majority of small independent ISPs. A few exist today because the majority went out of business due to international dumping, and expensive regulatory requirements under the guise of security and other factors. They were not able to compete against such low prices provided by international firms or giant U.S. ISPs.
In essence, small and medium sized, “independent” businesses are targeted for extinction.
SME is defined by The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, a United Nations Subsidiary as,
“Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are non-subsidiary, independent firms which employ fewer than a given number of employees. This number varies across countries. The most frequent upper limit designating an SME is 250 employees, as in the European Union. However, some countries set the limit at 200 employees, while the United States considers SMEs to include firms with fewer than 500 employees.”
– – – – – “Preserve and strengthen investment, market access, and state-owned enterprise disciplines benefiting energy production and transmission and support North American energy security and independence, while promoting continuing energy market-opening reforms.” (page 16)
In other words, state control of energy and the reduction of oil and gas energy use by a large percentage. The IPCC is demanding that fossil fuel use be phased out by the year 2100, as reported by the BBC , which the United Nations is in full support of.
With regards to energy security:
“The modern world relies on a vast energy supply to fuel everything from transportation to communication, to security and health delivery systems. Perhaps most alarmingly, peak oil expert Michael Ruppert has claimed that for every calorie of food produced in the industrial world, ten calories of oil and gas energy are invested in the forms of fertilizer, pesticide, packaging, transportation, and running farm equipment. Energy plays an important role in the national security of any given country as a fuel to power the economic engine.”
This will translate into the banning of cars by 2040  and compulsory public transportation including high speed rails, self driving cars and the banning of driver’s licenses  as Time Magazine reported in their March 7, 2016 edition.
– General Provisions:
– – – – – “Include general exceptions that allow for the protection of legitimate U.S. domestic objectives, including the protection of health or safety and essential security, among others.” (page 17)
– – – – – “Through an appropriate mechanism, ensure that the NAFTA countries avoid manipulating exchange rates in order to prevent effective balance of payments adjustment or to gain an unfair competitive advantage.” (page 17)
The appropriate mechanism is a common currency, like the Euro, or a single World currency as John Maynard Keynes called for. The IMF and others mirror that call today. 
+ + + CONCLUSION + + +
In analyzing the “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation (July 17, 2017)” it becomes clear NAFTA is dangerous to American interests. All NAFTA policy is only for the benefit of the established elite institutions (i.e. stakeholders). It is really the building of the infrastructure of this World Governance region. It’s the stakeholders who will fully control this region’s economic, social and political system. The North American Union would belong to the stakeholders. Participating nations have no say. In essence it is a form of peaceful non-violent conquest. It will eventually dissolve national sovereignty. The trade practices Americans will be abiding by in this trade bloc will completely bypass all national laws. The ordinary people will have no idea that the laws they depend on to protect them will not only become irrelevant, they are not designed for them. Any opportunity small businesses believe they may have for import/export trade is non existent. There is a difference between import/export trade and international free trade. Import/export trade is legitimate. International free trade is a con. Trade laws should be left to each nation’s discretion, not to international governments or trade treaty. We must heed the warning from Founding Father George Washington who stated in his farewell address,
“35 – Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.”
(source: George Washington’s Farewell Address – paragraph 35)
Baneful definition: harmful or destructive to someone or something.
We are dangerously close to a complete and utter global tyranny which is being implemented on the ground by our own elected politicians, who follow marching orders from the social planners. These politicians follow either a pattern of naivety or are for whatever reason complicit. In either case, they sell We the People out to global interests. Do We the People want Liberty or Tyranny?
Call your Representative in your District and tell him/her to vote NO ON ALL NAFTA re-negotiation resolutions or bills and call on them to WITHDRAW THE UNITED STATES FROM NAFTA ALTOGETHER!
Research and analysis by Armando Escalante
North Florida Director, Bear Witness Central
For speaking engagements, please contact Armando at, www.bwcentral.org/contact_us
Please reference this article.
see also: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-playing-field/200902/the-five-year-ban-because-billion-less-people-is-great-place-start)
5: (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement)
6: (source: BBC – http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29855884)
7: (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_security)
8: (source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/25/new-diesel-petrol-cars-banned-uk-roads-2040-government-unveils/
9: (source: http://time.com/magazine/us/4236955/march-7th-2016-vol-187-no-8-u-s/)
10: (source – “International Monatary Fund 1945 – 1965” Publication published 1981 – pp. 20, section (a)
see also: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7168919 )
11: (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1993/07/20/nafta-clintons-defining-task/0e985ef7-94f1-4470-a85f-67d260daadb6/?utm_term=.d236d3ef66a4)
Thursday, 20 July 2017
NAFTA Renegotiation Objectives Would Diminish U.S. Sovereignty
Written by Steve Byas
During his successful bid for the White House, President Donald Trump gave hope to many Americans that he was going to — as he put it himself — “put America First” when it came to trade deals, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Trump called NAFTA “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country.”
This week, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer released the renegotiation objectives for a new NAFTA deal, and a close look at those objectives raises many concerns from Americans about U.S. business and jobs, and most critically, American national sovereignty.
The first renegotiation meetings are scheduled for August 16-20 in Washington, D.C.
In the introduction to the “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation” released this week, we read, “Since the deal came into force in 1994, trade deficits have exploded, thousands of factories have closed, and millions of Americans have found themselves stranded, no longer able to utilize the skills for which they had been trained … In June 2016, then-candidate Donald J. Trump made a promise to the American people: he would renegotiate NAFTA or take us out of the agreement.”
Faced with that binary choice, it is not surprising that globalists chose renegotiation.
“The new NAFTA must continue to break down barriers to American exports,” the introduction continues. “This includes the elimination of unfair subsidies, market-distorting practices by state-owned enterprises, and burdensome restrictions on intellectual property.... Most importantly, the new NAFTA will promote a market system that functions more efficiently, leading to reciprocal and balanced trade among the parties.”
Sadly, nothing is said about protecting the national sovereignty of the United States.
Perhaps the closest the summary of objectives comes to addressing the sovereignty question is in the section about “Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS).” In this section, it is asserted that it will be made “clear that each country can set for itself the level of protection it believes to be appropriate to protect food safety, and plant and animal health in a manner consistent with its international obligations.” On first glance, this appears to acknowledge that each nation is “sovereign” in making the decisions it believes it needs to make in regard to the level of protection for “food safety,” but it then contradicts that very statement by asserting it needs to do so “consistent with its international obligations.”
In other words, this would obligate the United States to following “international obligations,” which would supersede decisions made independently by the United States government, through its constitutional processes.
In the section on “Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT),” the objective is even more explicit in subordinating the parties, including the United States, to international obligations. The first objective in this section would “Require NAFTA countries to apply decisions and recommendations adopted by the WTO [World Trade Organization] TBT Committee that apply, inter alia, to standards, conformity, assessment, transparency, and other areas.” (Inter alia is a Latin phrase meaning “and other things,” and in this context, would mean that the United States, Canada, and Mexico would be further obligated to follow economic regulations of the WTO.) Again, this is a further limitation on American national sovereignty.
References to following the sovereignty-restricting rules of the WTO permeate the listing of objectives.
While multilateral trade agreements generally are presented as somehow based on the concept of “free enterprise,” they are actually better examples of government-managed trade, and NAFTA as it is presently constituted, and under these objectives, would continue to give power to government (in this case, a multinational government) to regulate private enterprise.
For example, the objectives would “Require NAFTA countries to have laws governing acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.” A true conservative free market advocate would not even consider government price controls (as in the case of minimum wages), knowing that they lead to market distortions. With minimum wages, for example, it leads to a surplus of labor and presents a barrier to the work force for many low-skilled and inexperienced workers. Why should this be part of a new NAFTA agreement, if its purpose had anything to do with free markets?
The globalist philosophy in these objectives is very clear, as it states that a new NAFTA will “establish rules that will ensure that NAFTA countries do not fail to effectively enforce their labor laws implementing internationally recognized core labor standards and acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health laws.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, if you understand that OSHA in the United States is a prime example of government control of private business, why would you want international “standards” placed on the backs of business?
Globalism is a concept that is ubiquitous in the objectives. Under “Environment,” this philosophy is evident: “Require NAFTA countries to adopt and maintain measures implementing their obligations under select Multilateral Environment Agreements (MEAS).”
Larry Greenley, director of missions for The John Birch Society, parent organization of The New American, issued the following statement today regarding USTR Robert Lighthizer's "Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation":
Beware when you read anything from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) about the NAFTA renegotiations. The USTR will portray these negotiations as all about trade and jobs; however, what’s really at stake is our national independence and personal freedom. For example, the USTR’s “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation” appears to be all about “maintaining and improving market access for American agriculture, manufacturing, and services,” when it is actually all about creating a supranational level of government, commonly referred to as the North American Union, which would administer and enforce the myriad rules contained in the “new NAFTA” agreement. This is the kind of deception that was used to transform the European Common Market from a free-trade bloc into a supranational European Union presiding over 28 formerly independent European nations.
In short, rather than renegotiate NAFTA, a classic example of multinational government-controlled trade, it would be better to simply scrap the agreement altogether. The John Birch Society is urging its members and all other citizens concerned about the loss of America’s independence to contact the White House and Congress and “tell them no renegotiation, just Get US Out! of NAFTA.”
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, explainedEdited by Timothy B. Lee
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a pending trade agreement among countries bordering the Pacific Ocean, including the United States, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, and Chile.