Freedom First Society


The USMCA Scam (Part II)

On March 13, 2020, Canada ratified the USMCA, paving the way for it to go into effect as early as June.

Although one can compare the 2,000+ page USMCA agreement with the NAFTA text and draw conclusions, the most important insight recognizes that both these schemes were conceived by top Internationalists to implement “progressive regionalization.”  And therefore we should look at that agenda to see how they intended for NAFTA, and now its successor USMCA, to evolve.

As documented in our earlier post, “The USMCA Scam,” Internationalists have adopted “progressive regionalization” as an effective steppingstone to world tyranny. In that post, we provided several good windows to those plans, tying them to top Internationalists — David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the Internationalists’ Council on Foreign Relation’s (CFR) journal Foreign Affairs.

With this follow-up post, we draw attention to another good window to those plans — a Task Force Report, “Building a North American Community,” sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations.  The CFR published the Report in 2005.   (Also see the links at the end of this post.)

Note: The CFR takes pains to portray itself as taking no official foreign policy positions, and so the Task Force is called an Independent Task Force and the Council does not “officially” embrace the Task Force recommendations.  But those claims are deceiving.  No one really cares whether the Council “officially” endorses a policy developed by CFR members. The CFR’s work and the work of its exclusive membership betray the Council’s aims.

Indeed, the Foreword to the 2005 Report was written by Council of Foreign Relations President Richard Haass.  In the Acknowledgments, Haass is given credit for having “proposed this Task Force and supported it throughout.”  Also, participating in the Task Force were fellow Internationalists from Mexico and Canada.

In Freedom First Society’s 2012 book, Masters of Deception, we established the significance of the recommendations by the Task Force:

“Among the American members of the Task Force were Robert Pastor (CFR), Carla A. Hills (CFR director and later co-chair of CFR), James R. Jones (CFR), Gary C. Hufbauer (CFR and CFR VP 1997-98), and Jeffery J. Schott.  Hufbauer and Schott had authored a 1994 report of the Institute for International Economics (a CFR-aligned think tank) that proposed a Western Hemisphere Free Trade Area (a precursor name to the FTAA) following the pattern of the European Union.

“In May 2005, the CFR’s Independent Task Force issued its report, “Building a North American Community,” which included a proposal for a North American Security Perimeter.  On June 9, Task Force co-chair Robert Pastor appeared before a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to present the plan.

“Following Pastor’s testimony, CNN anchorman Lou Dobbs and CNN correspondent Christine Romans informed their viewers of the incredible scope of the game plan underway:

Romans: “The idea here is to make North America more like the European Union….”

Dobbs: “Americans must think that our political and academic elites have gone utterly mad at a time when three-and-a-half years, approaching four years after September 11, we still don’t have border security. And this group of elites is talking about not defending our borders, finally, but rather creating new ones. It’s astonishing.”

“A few months earlier, on March 23, 2005, President Bush held a special summit in Waco, Texas with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.   At Baylor University, the three heads of state called for a “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.”  Cabinet officials for the three nations were given 90 days to form a variety of working groups to come up with concrete proposals for implementing the Partnership.

“The cabinet ministers issued their joint report, which paralleled the CFR proposal, on June 27, 2005.  One month later to the day, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger F. Noriega testified before a House subcommittee, revealing what had been transpiring without congressional oversight: ‘Thus far, we have identified over 300 initiatives spread over twenty trilateral [meaning U.S., Canada, and Mexico] working groups on which the three countries will collaborate.’”

More on the Security Scam

The Report’s recommendations, including those ostensibly addressing security, focused heavily on hemispheric integration, which, as we will see, would undermine both our security and our prosperity.  For example: “Lay the groundwork for the free flow of people within North America.”

This recommendation conveniently ignored the influence of drug cartels in Mexico. Consider two recent stories:  “Relatives of massacred Americans say Mexico needs help,” (AP, 12-3-19), and “Mexican Narcos, More Brazen by the Day, Land Coke Plane on a Highway and Shoot a General,” (, 1-29-20).

The Report also ignored the work of followers of Fidel Castro in Mexico.  For decades, U.S. Internationalists had pushed socialism throughout Latin America, stifling Mexico’s development.  But Castro took the revolution a step further. It’s significant that Castro owed his rise to power to the influence of U.S. Insiders.

When Castro took over Cuba, there was a widely repeated caustic quip that he got his job through the New York Times.  Indeed, Herbert Matthews of the Times had lionized Castro as a modern day “Lincoln” to Americans, paving the way for the U.S. State Department to pull the rug from under then reigning Fulgencio Batista.  Our Ambassador to Cuba at the time, Earl E. T. Smith, reported the State Department actions in his book The Fourth Floor.

In 2005, Castro was widely admired among Mexican officials.  Yet Castro’s Cuba had helped the spread of terrorism worldwide.  In 1966, Castro hosted the Tricontinental Conference in Havana, to give representatives of 83 groups a global revolutionary strategy.  According to former CIA Deputy Director Ray Cline, at one time Castro would turn out about 1,500 Latin American terrorists a year. Alone, that makes the Task Force’s proposal for  a North American Security Perimeter ridiculous.

Attack on National Sovereignty

A primary, but hidden, purpose of the agreements masquerading as trade agreements was to build regional governments, starting with regional boards. These boards would carry out the Internationalist agenda of establishing authority above the U.S. Constitution and making nations subservient.

Of course, the Task Force report was not honest about what is really intended. Top Insider Zbigniev Brzezinski, architect with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission, described the strategy candidly at Gorbachev’s 1995 State of the World Forum.  (See our earlier post, “The USMCA Scam.”)

We remind our regular readers of some additional evidence showing that top Insiders seek to eliminate independent nations, turning them into mere providences of regional governments, which they will then control.  We quote here from Freedom First Society’s Masters of Deception:

“The Wall Street Journal
“The late Robert L. Bartley provides an excellent example of the controlled opposition.  Bartley served as the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal for 30 years (from 1972 to 2002).  Adopting the image of a conservative free-market Republican, Bartley would use the Journal to promote internationalism (NAFTA, WTO, the IMF and World Bank) to its mostly conservative readership.

“Bartley was invited to join the CFR in 1979.  He also showed up on the membership roles of the even more selective Trilateral Commission and attended the internationalist Bilderberg meetings.

“Bartley would cleverly argue the wisdom of sacrificing national sovereignty to the Journal’sreaders.  “I think the nation-state is finished,” Bartley once told Peter Brimelow, senior editor for Forbesmagazine and Bartley’s former colleague at the Journal. “I think [Kenichi] Ohmae is right,” Bartley continued.

“In “The Rise of the Region State,” an essay for the Spring 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs, Ohmae had written: “The nation state has become an unnatural, even dysfunctional, unit for organizing human activity and managing economic endeavor in a borderless world.” Apparently Brimelow had not recognized Bartley’s agenda:

“I was thunderstruck. I knew the devoted fans of the Wall Street Journal editorial, overwhelmingly conservative patriots, had no inkling of this. It would make a great Wall Street Journal front page story: Wall Street JournalEditor Revealed As Secret One-Worlder — Consternation Among Faithful — Is Pope Catholic?”

“In later years, Bartley would become even more open in his advocacy of internationalist goals:  In an editorial for July 2, 2001, entitled “Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?” Bartley wrote:

“Reformist Mexican President Vicente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper….

“Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies — a constitutional amendment: ‘There shall be open borders.’”

As we documented in our earlier post, “The USMCA Scam,” Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller both viewed NAFTA as much more than a trade agreement.

Here are several Task Force recommendations, ostensibly concerned with building a North American competitive trade bloc, that task regional boards with authority above national authority or remove congressional authority by regional agreement:

Establish a Seamless North American Market for Trade

  • Adopt a common external tariff.
  • Review those sectors of NAFTA that were excluded or those aspects that have not been fully implemented.
  • Establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution.
  • Establish a joint approach to unfair trade practices

Adopt a North American Approach to Regulation

  • Ensure rapid implementation of the North American regulatory action plan.

Increase Labor Mobility Within North America

Pushing Collectivism and Worse

We conclude our look at the 2005 Report by highlighting one more set of Task Force recommendations:

Support a North American Education Program

  • Create a major scholarship fund for undergraduates and graduate students to study in the other North American countries and to learn the region’s three languages.
  • Develop a network of centers for North American studies.
  • Promote Internet-based learning from North America.
  • Develop teacher exchange and training programs for elementary and secondary school teachers.
  • Develop “sister school” and student exchange programs.

Here we see the Task Force further undermining the principles of freedom by selling anti-American collectivist ideology — the concept that government is the source of human progress.  Clearly, this concept fuels the real Insider goal of world tyranny.

Unconstitutional federal control of U.S. education already seeks to radicalize our youth and indoctrinate them with revolutionary “political correctness.”  Imagine the impact of programs that accommodate Communists and hardened socialists.

Related FFS Posts

We conclude with some convenient links to related FFS posts:


The USMCA Scam

The USMCA is the largest, fairest, most balanced, and modern trade agreement ever achieved.  There’s never been anything like it…. This is a colossal victory for our farmers, ranchers, energy workers, factory workers, and American workers in all 50 states…. [Emphasis added.] — President Trump, 1-29-20,

Mexico has already ratified the latest version of the pact, which includes changes demanded by House Democrats…. Canada’s parliament is expected to ratify the agreement within weeks, which would allow the agreement to go into force in the next few months. —1-29-20, Wall Street Journal

The USMCA is a massive Internationalist power grab using trade as the cover.  It is designed to submit the U.S. to increasing regional government, leading to tyrannical world government.  However, in talking about the USMCA, the President and the Establishment media focus all their attention on the agreement’s cover — trade and jobs.  But the USMCA is not all about trade and jobs.

The USMCA, and NAFTA before it, were designed by Internationalists as a ploy to lead to regional government, following the deceptions they used to trap the nations of Europe in the EU.  Let’s look at some of the evidence, beginning with NAFTA and the EU.  Then we’ll look at how the USMCA takes the betrayal even further (see “And Now, the USMCA,” below).

Foreign Affairs magazine
NAFTA was negotiated by the George H.W. Bush administration and signed in 1993.  President Bush had been a director of the world-government promoting Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and was undoubtedly working to implement Internationalist goals.  Two years earlier, the Fall 1991 issue of the CFR’s magazine Foreign Affairs revealed that Insiders were well aware that NAFTA was intended to follow in the EU’s footsteps:

The creation of trinational dispute-resolution mechanisms and rule-making bodies on border and environmental issues may also be embryonic forms of more comprehensive structures.  After all, international organizations and agreements like GATT and NAFTA by definition minimize assertions of sovereignty in favor of a joint rule-making authority….

      Zbigniew Brzezinski

Top Insider Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor and architect with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission, explained the regionalism strategy at Gorbachev’s 1995 State of the World Forum:

We cannot leap into world government in one quick step…. In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.

Of course, these regional governments are naturally “more cooperative units,” because the CFR Insiders set them up as their babies.

The CFR planners — experts in psychology — long ago recognized the advantage of the regionalization approach over persuading all nations to accept a world master authority in one fell swoop.   That advantage was the natural tendency to regard nearby nations as family when pitted (particularly economically) against distant nations on other continents.

Even so, nations are reluctant to merge with their neighbors.  To accomplish their goal, the Insiders had to move in steps (“progressive regionalization” in Brzezinski’s words), while vehemently denying the destination of those steps.  In Europe, they would offer elaborate pretexts to camouflage their intentions — until the nations of Europe were caught in the trap.

CFR Insiders Acknowledge Goal
Both David Rockefeller (former CFR chairman) and CFR heavyweight Henry Kissinger lobbied openly in the nation’s press for NAFTA.   But they tipped their hand by announcing that much more was involved than just lowering trade barriers.

In a 1993 column that appeared in the July 18 Los Angeles Times, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared:

[NAFTA] 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 an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere…. [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system.

A few months later, David Rockefeller championed the agreement in the Wall Street Journal: “Everything is in place — after 500 years — to build a true ‘new world’ in the Western Hemisphere,” Rockefeller enthused, adding “I don’t think that ‘criminal’ would be too strong a word to describe … rejecting NAFTA.”

The Marshall Plan
At the end of World War II, Congress approved the European Recovery Program (ERP) — a program of massive aid to Europe, popularly known as the Marshall Plan.  The Marshall Plan was actually developed by a CFR study group — headed by Charles M. Spofford with David Rockefeller as secretary.

In general, American Insiders have used foreign aid to saddle recipient nations with socialist policies and governments. The ERP certainly followed that pattern. But in Europe the aid was also used to promote European unification.

The most prominent public figure in this plan was millionaire-socialist Jean Monnet, who would earn the title “Father of Europe” for his “leadership” in the drive to build a united Europe.  Monnet would subsequently acknowledge that Marshall funds were “used with the intention of encouraging European unity.”  (See Chapter 7 “Progressive Regionalization” in Masters of Deception.)

A glimpse into the EU perfidy came to light in 2000 with the release of documents associated with Britain’s 1970 application to join the Common Market.   British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North (a former research director for an agency of the European Parliament) summarized the revelations in their excellent 2003 book, The Great Deception: A Secret History of the European Union.

“For 40 years,” says Booker, “British politicians have consistently tried to portray it [the Common Market and EU] to their fellow-citizens as little more than an economic arrangement: a kind of free-trading area primarily concerned with creating jobs and prosperity, which incidentally can help preserve the peace.”

Although the architects of the Common Market denied that political union was the object of economic union, the historical record reveals that from the beginning their intention was to create a European socialist superstate.  At the 1948 Congress of Europe, chaired by Winston Churchill, Jean Monnet pushed through a resolution stating: “The creation of a United Europe must be regarded as an essential step towards the creation of a United World.”

NAFTA’s Chapter 11
The implementation bill for NAFTA (H.R. 3450) created a minimum of 33 new international commissions, committees, secretariats and sub-groups to oversee future North American trade.  Chapter 11 of the agreement seems to have drawn the most attention.  An article for the April 18, 2004 New York Times tells what was later discovered about NAFTA. Here are some excerpts:

“This is the biggest threat to United States judicial independence that no one has heard of and even fewer people understand,” said John D. Echeverria, a law professor at Georgetown University….

The availability of this additional layer of review, above even the United States Supreme Court, is a significant development, legal scholars said.

“It’s basically been under the radar screen,” Peter Spiro, a law professor at Hofstra University, said. “But it points to a fundamental reorientation of our constitutional system. You have an international tribunal essentially reviewing American court judgments.”…

The part of Nafta that created the tribunals, known as Chapter 11, received no consideration when it was passed in 1993.

And Now, the USMCA
Let’s keep in mind that the individual who negotiated the USMCA for President Trump was his chosen U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and he was supported by many of the same people who developed NAFTA.

Some of the betrayal and deception is even apparent in a careful reading of Establishment sources.  For example, according to the January 29th Wall Street Journal:

Not-So-New Nafta
At its core, USMCA is an amended, rebranded version of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which took effect in 1994, along with some newer provisions that the Obama administration had negotiated in a Pacific trade pact that Mr. Trump exited. Both USMCA and Nafta essentially guarantee duty-free trade and economic integration in North America. [Emphasis added.]

However, with respect to the hidden power grab that threatens American independence and freedom, the massive 2,082-page USMCA accomplishes several advances over NAFTA:

• The USMCA establishes a North American Competitiveness Committee (Chapter 26): “With a view to promoting further economic integration among the Parties and enhancing the competitiveness of North American exports, the Parties hereby establish a North American Competitiveness Committee….” [Emphasis added.]

But economic integration is intended as a steppingstone to political union.   Establishment historian Carroll Quigley affirmed that intention with respect to the 1957 signing of the treaties that created the European Economic Community (EEC or Common Market):  “The EEC Treaty, with 572 articles over almost 400 pages … looked forward to eventual political union in Europe, and sought economic integration as an essential step on the way.” — Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time, p. 1285.

• The USMCA creates a new Free Trade Commission (Chapter 30), which supervise 16 committees to manage agriculture, transportation, financial services, telecommunications, intellectual property rights, and more.

Article 30.6 says: “1. The Commission shall establish and oversee a Secretariat comprising national Sections…. Each Party shall:  1 (a) establish and maintain a permanent office of its Section and be responsible for its operation and costs… 4(d) as the Commission may direct: 1(i) support the work of other committees and groups established under this Agreement….” [Emphasis added.]

The Free Trade Commission can make changes to the agreement without the consent of Congress!

• The USMCA has a total of 34 chapters.NAFTA had only 22 chapters. The USMCA added new chapters to address issues such as labor (Chapter 23) and the environment (Chapter 24).

• After negotiating his first USMCA agreement, Lighthizer negotiated further changes to bring liberals and Big Labor on board. During the House and Senate debates, liberals repeatedly boasted that the changes they achieved would help ensure that Mexico obeyed the rules, particularly rules regarding labor and the environment.

But they were careful not to mention, whose rules would be enforced and who would control the enforcers.  The rules will be Internationalist rules, such as edicts by the WTO, the Left-wing ILO, and UN conventions, and regional bodies subservient to the Internationalists will enforce the rules.

For example, during the December House debates over ratification, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) boasted:

This USMCA agreement before us is a vast improvement over the first version shown to us by President Trump and his team. We worked together, and it now includes critically important changes offered by Democratic members in order to ensure that its enforcement mechanisms are stronger, that it protects American workers…. I am glad that our House Democratic working group was able to secure new provisions to ensure that America’s trading partners uphold the rights of workers to unionize and bargain collectively. And I am glad that this agreement includes strong, rapid-response enforcement mechanisms that will allow us to block imports produced in facilities where these commitments are violated.  [Emphasis added.]

Au contraire, Mr Hoyer.  American workers need protection from the socialists in our government and the Establishment elite who are working to steal our freedom and destroy American middle-class opportunity.  Low-wage foreign workers do not threaten American prosperity. Instead, middle-class opportunity has been undermined by the U.S. government’s carrots [e.g., the Export-Import bank] and sticks [taxes and regulatory burden] that have caused American capital — heavy industry and manufacturing — to move to socialist and Communist countries.

Representative Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, further amplified Hoyer’s claims:

When we assumed the majority this year, we were asked to consider a  renegotiated NAFTA that had structural flaws in a key number of areas: enforcement, labor rights, environment, and access to medicines…. During these past 25 years, we have seen the shortcomings of the original agreement, much of which comes down to a lack of enforcement, in my view.   House Democrats, working with Ambassador Lighthizer, fixed many of those issues. The improvements to the USMCA that we negotiated finally make the agreement enforceable by preventing a country from being able  to block the formation of a dispute settlement panel….

On the rules, we strengthened certain provisions and addressed obstacles to enforcement in many others. On monitoring, for the first time we have created a proactive monitoring regime for labor obligations in a trade agreement. The implementing bill establishes an Interagency Labor Committee that will actively monitor Mexico’s compliance, and report back to Congress.

On enforcement, we negotiated a historic mechanism never included in a trade agreement before. As a result of Democratic efforts, we will now have a facility-specific, rapid-response mechanism to address violations of key labor obligations.

We have made great improvements to environmental provisions. The  USMCA will now include the highest environmental standards of any trade agreement in history and will include a new customs verification agreement to enhance enforcement.   [Emphasis added.]

But the USMCA’s environmental standards are not designed to prevent man-made climate catastrophe.  Instead, those environmental standards are intended to help government, particularly unaccountable international government, control people.

Consider, for example, the claims of Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-Oregon), a member of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Trade Working Group:

The renegotiated USMCA strengthens labor rules so that it will be  easier to prove violations. It includes robust monitoring systems and strong enforcement tools, including people on the ground in Mexico to monitor compliance….

This final agreement also makes important advancements to protect our environment. It improves environmental rules, puts them in the text of the agreement, provides a path to reducing hydrofluorocarbon emissions… makes it easier to prove environmental violations….

We did, however, include a clause that creates a path for adding additional environmental and conservation agreements in the future. I will continue to do all I can to pass and implement bold policies to combat climate change.  [Emphasis added.]

• The original NAFTA implementation was only narrowly passed by the House of Representatives (234 to 200). And in the following decades NAFTA lost much of its original support. But the USMCA was approved by huge bipartisan majorities (385 to 41 in the House).  And this time, the agreement even had the support of Big Labor. With such broad support, the agreement’s architects hope to win American acceptance for the authority of the new bodies created by the USMCA. The few dissenters were primarily Leftist Democrats and socialist Bernie Sanders who wanted even more enforcement in the USMCA.

In Conclusion
The USMCA is not at its root concerned about promoting healthy trade.  It is about establishing unaccountable Internationalist government force (intervention) and paving the way to eventual political union.  Both the House and Senate overwhelming supported the USMCA scam (see, for example, our analysis of the December 19th House vote, Roll Call 701).

This alone should be evidence that our freedom calls for major changes in Congress.  But that won’t happen as long as most opinion molders rely for their news on corrupted media sources embracing the Internationalist agenda. So please, share this wake-up call widely.

The “New NAFTA” Power Grab

Following an agreement with Canada, President Trump claimed victory in the negotiations to replace NAFTA:

The president said it fulfills his campaign pledge to replace NAFTA, which he called “perhaps the worst trade deal ever made,” and claimed it will transform the U.S. back into a “manufacturing powerhouse.”

“Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA and today we have kept that promise,” he said during a news conference, calling it “truly historic news for our nation and indeed the world.”  — The Hill, 10-1-18

The reality, however, is greatly different. NAFTA was much more than a “trade deal.”  And so is its proposed replacement — “The United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement” (USMCA).

Progressive Regionalization
Both are merely disguised as “trade pacts.”  Their real purpose is to evolve into an Internationalist-controlled regional government, à la the European Union.  And eventually into an Internationalist-controlled world government, while hiding that objective from the American people.

In their excellent 2003 book, The Great Deception: A Secret History of the European Union, British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North (a former research director for an agency of the European Parliament) described how the British people were deceived into joining the European Union:

[Prime Minister Edward] Heath’s own bid to join the Common Market began what for the British people was to be the greatest deception of all….  Heath persistently misrepresented Britain’s membership of the Common Market as no more than a trading issue….

Only 30 years later would it come to light from the Foreign Office’s confidential papers just how conscious were its officials of the extent to which Britain was about to surrender its powers of self-government.  None of this was publicly admitted at the time, although the author of the FCO’s internal memorandum on “Sovereignty” justified the concealment by suggesting that the British people would not notice what was happening until the end of the century, by which time it would be too late to protest because the process would have become irreversible.

Edward Heath was not alone, even among British politicians, in perpetrating the deception.  “For 40 years,” says Booker, “British politicians have consistently tried to portray it [the Common Market and EU] to their fellow-citizens as little more than an economic arrangement: a kind of free-trading area primarily concerned with creating jobs and prosperity, which incidentally can help preserve the peace.”

Both the late David Rockefeller (former chairman of the Internationalists’ Council on Foreign Relations [CFR]) and CFR heavyweight Henry Kissinger (whom President Trump now calls his “friend”) lobbied in the nation’s press for NAFTA. Both candidly supported NAFTA as a steppingstone to something larger.  In a 1993 column that appeared in the July 18 Los Angeles Times, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared:

It [NAFTA] 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 an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere…. [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system.

A few months later, David Rockefeller championed the agreement in the Wall Street Journal: “Everything is in place — after 500 years — to build a true ‘new world’ in the Western Hemisphere,” Rockefeller enthused, adding “I don’t think that ‘criminal’ would be too strong a word to describe … rejecting NAFTA.”   (See our earlier post:  “Renegotiate NAFTA? — No Way! Get US out!”)

“Free Trade” Deception
As with NAFTA, the new agreement establishes a regional bureaucracy to “manage” trade in minute detail. The total number of pages for the treaty, its annexes, and side letters amounts to more than 1,800 pages.

At first, the proposal might seem more honest without “free trade” in the name — less doublespeak. Not so. Article 1.1 of the agreement, titled “Establishment of a Free Trade Area” states:

The Parties, consistent with Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and Article V of the GATS, hereby establish a free trade area.

And the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative website ( lists the USMCA as a Free Trade Agreement.

And so, the agreement still postures as something that “free trade conservatives” would support.  But there is little “free” in a regional bureaucracy that would manage trade.  And, as with the old NAFTA, the USMCA is an unconstitutional alienation of U.S. sovereignty.  Its Free Trade Commission, for example, can modify the agreement without the approval of Congress.

Internationalist Support for USMCA
Just as Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller both championed NAFTA, so Richard N. Haass, the current President of the Council on Foreign Relations, endorses the proposed USMCA.  In an October 2 tweet, Haass stated:

USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks.  Whatever…if @real Donald Trump and the Congress are now prepared to embrace a pro-trade agenda, it is all to the good.  Ideally, US participation in TPP by another name would be next; failing that, a US-Japan FTA would be second best.

And what else would we expect from an agreement negotiated by Robert Lighthizer? The U.S. Trade Representative (left) is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which has long championed Internationalist-run world government.  When tapped by Trump, Lighthizer was a partner at a CFR corporate-member law firm.

The USMCA agreement clearly supports the Internationalist agenda.  The text demands compliance with rules of the World Trade Organization, the International Labor Organization (ILO) (now a specialized agency of the UN system), and other international agreements, some never ratified by the U.S., such as the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty.

As just one example of the Internationalist ties, Article 23.2 states: “The Parties affirm their obligations as members of the ILO, including those stated in the ILO Declaration on Rights at Work and the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008).”  (See here for full text of the agreement.)

Trump supporters should ask themselves why Trump is supporting this subversion. Is he really being taken in by his advisors or has he been on board with the Insider agenda all along?

Before the USMCA can take effect, Congress must pass an implementing bill, which could be addressed in the Lame Duck session after the November midterm elections.  If Congress approves the USMCA, not only will the U.S. move another step toward totalitarian world government, but the approval will also neutralize much of the needed future opposition from conservatives and conservative lawmakers, as it will be regarded as the product of an “outsider,” conservative president.

Recommended action:  1) Urge your representative and senators to oppose implementation of the USMCA; 2) Alert others to this deceptive attack on our independence as a nation by sharing this post widely.


Lou Dobbs Pumps Trump

 “Does it ever seem to you that President Trump has done more than any president in modern history in just 16 months? Yep, me too.  He’s not only done more in that short time than any president since FDR, but he’s also rolled back almost all of his predecessor’s two-term, so-called legacy legislation, executive orders, and regulations.  16 months [of Trump] … and 8 years of Obama is just about gone.” — Lou Dobbs, Fox Business Network video clip, June 1, 2018

What a stretch of the facts!  But the problem here is not Dobb’s blatantly unjustified assessment.   The problem is that Lou Dobbs betrays his conservative audience with his assurance that everything is moving nicely under the current president — so just sit back and watch the president perform.

Before we examine the betrayal issue, however, let’s take a look at Dobb’s claim.  Among his examples of Obama administration rollbacks, Dobbs lists “executive orders and regulations.”   He seems to be referring to the disapproval by Congress of several administrative rules issued by the outgoing Obama administration in its waning days — hardly a major roll back of eight years of Obama.

But how about other key areas?  Let’s take a brief look at the lack of progress in three — the Culture War, energy independence, and “trade” — that contradicts Dobb’s claim.

The “Culture War”

Revolutionary forces have waged a Culture War in America for decades — a ubiquitous assault upon America’s moral, spiritual, and cultural underpinnings.  They have drawn support from the writings of Italian Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, who argued that the road to power in the developed countries was “to capture the culture.”  Gramsci focused particularly on undermining what George Washington regarded as necessary for the support of a free society — religion and morality.   And President Obama certainly picked up the Gramscian torch:

“Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced an end to the military’s longstanding ban on openly transgender service members on Thursday, fulfilling a key piece of the Obama administration’s historic legacy on LGBT rights.” — NBC News. June 30, 2016

The Obama administration’s decision to force our military to cope with multiple aspired non-biological genders was a clear subversion of military effectiveness and morale.  And so, President Trump’s March 2018 order was popular in conservative quarters:

“President Trump released an order Friday night banning most transgender troops from serving in the military except under ‘limited circumstances,’ following up on his calls last year to ban transgender individuals from serving.” — CBS News, March 24, 2018

However, the President’s order was quickly blocked by several court challenges, and four federal courts quickly ruled against the ban. The matter is now working its way through the courts.

Indeed, much of the public perception regarding President Trump’s accomplishments is due to the Left’s reaction to his threats or orders (such as his order temporarily banning Syrian refugees).  But Trump generally allowed his orders to be blocked by radical courts or neutered.  We are reminded of Andrew Jackson’s famous alleged response to a 1832 decision of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

That’s the story, in a nutshell, of the ongoing Culture War.  Although it was the Supreme Court, not the Obama administration, that legitimized same-sex marriage, President Obama and a sympathetic Establishment media supported an agenda that undermined public resistance to the decision.  And President Trump has accepted the decision as okay.

The inroads of the Culture War are still in place, and the war is still raging unchallenged, with the public being hammered into submission.  Indeed, that war will continue until the public is informed as to its real aim — to make freedom unsustainable — and the sponsors of the groups promoting the clever, but phony pretext of tolerance are exposed for their real agenda.

Energy Independence

As another example of lack of progress, where is the substance from Trump’s announced “intention” to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords, which were signed by President Obama?  The earliest the U.S. withdrawal might take place  would be November 2020, (unless, as Trump demands, the U.S. could get more favorable terms)?

In the meantime, we have not seen any progress toward putting the U.S. on the road to energy independence.  For example, where are the new nuclear power plants being built to increase U.S. reliance on nuclear power (as of 2015, France generated 40 percent of its electricity with this American technology, now blocked from use in the U.S.)?  Or when will American companies be allowed to tap our vast reserves of shale oil?

A more fundamental weakness is the failure of the Trump administration to enlighten the public, even with tweets, as to the agenda and fundamental deception of the environmental movement.  In particular, the administration is not telling the public that high-level Insiders have promoted the fiction of catastrophic man-made climate change as a pretext for a power grab.  And the battle for sufficient energy at an affordable cost cannot be won without the support of an informed public.


Or how about the misplaced focus in the president’s plan to renegotiate NAFTA to get a better deal?  NAFTA is a deceptive Internationalist attack on the freedom and independence of the United States.  It is designed to imitate the similar deception of the European Common Market, which led to the European Union.  NAFTA is much more than a trade agreement.  And the U.S. needs leadership to get us out of the trap.  “Fair trade” is not the issue.  (See our web post, “Renegotiate NAFTA? No Way! — Get US out!”)

“This President Is a Marvel”

Much of President Trump’s real accomplishment has been to energize the Left while putting many conservatives to sleep. Both Lou Dobbs and Fox News are major forces helping to achieve the latter.  They are promoting the great American swindle that a president is supposed to run our nation and that the job of a responsible public is merely to choose every four years between the GOP and Democratic contenders, as vetted by the Establishment.

In a portion of his three-minute video commentary, Dobbs “marvel[s] at President Trump’s abundant, even endless energy,” and lists the following examples:

  • Trump made two flights to give speeches;
  • he signed the “Right to Try Act”;
  • he pardoned the late Jack Johnson and Dinesh D’Souza;
  • he might soon pardon Martha Stewart.

“And now he’s slapping tariffs on Mexico and Canada because they won’t negotiate on NAFTA and the European Union because, well, just because they deserve it.

“Negotiating to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and undeterred by the massive odds against success, an unlikely success, admittedly, but one that would cause the world to catch its breath — just the kind of odds that President Trump has overcome in his extraordinary life.”

If we were seeking to pump Trump, we could easily list more credible actions.  For example, we were surprised that Dobbs didn’t mention the tax cut or President Trump’s court appointees.

Instead, Dobbs mentions that Trump signed the “The Right to Try Act.”  The Senate passed the Act last year by “unanimous consent” without a recorded vote. The Act changes the FDA procedures to allow critically ill patients to “try” experimental, potentially live-saving drugs.   While this may deliver on one of Trump’s promises, the Dobbs and Fox focus camouflages the very real danger threating our nation (see below).

Dobbs concludes his endorsement with these words:

“And all the president is doing is leading, and as, he promised, winning.  And, yes, he keeps tweeting as well.

“And if you’re confused about what he’s doing about the massive trade deficit with China, bringing 323 actions and 301s as well, tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and the European Union tomorrow, well, just read the most succinct policy statement that a president has ever written.  It reads, here’s his tweet:  ‘Fair trade, explanation point.’

“Like I said, this president is a marvel.”

Covering Up the Real Threat

Lou Dobb’s endorsement will certainly gain him approval from Trump fans, and help keep them hooked on Fox.   But Lou Dobbs is not a “watchman on the tower” blowing a trumpet to warn of impending danger.

Instead, Lou Dobbs and Fox are playing a flute to put their viewers to sleep.

Both the conservative and Leftist wings of the CFR-controlled media serve the Internationalist Conspiracy by covering up its existence, influence, and agenda, while entertaining their audiences with relatively minor conflicts (see, for example, our web post, “The John Bolton Charade”).

Indeed, our web post, “The John Bolton Charade,”also demonstrates how the Establishment media hype phony leaders to conservatives. John Bolton, President Trump’s choice for National Security Advisor and most recently a Fox News analyst, is no real foe of the UN.  While both complain about the UN, they also accept the legitimacy of the UN.   But the Internationalists created the UN through deception as a step to an unaccountable world order run by them (see our web post, “The UN — Freedom’s Enemy”).

And the most prominent front group for this cabal in the U.S. is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), of which John Bolton has been a veteran member since 2000.  For many years, Rupert Murdoch, the founder and current CEO of Fox News, was also a member.   So perhaps it is not surprising that Fox News and its voices do not expose this group and its subversive agenda.

Most viewers of Lou Dobbs would regard him as a “conservative,” although he describes himself as an “independent populist.” Independent?  The notion that the major media conglomerates have no agenda other than making money is a myth.  They do not just hire anyone whom they believe can deliver exceptional ratings, and then give them a free rein.  And let’s be careful of the not so well understood term “populist.”  Jimmy Carter also described himself as a “populist.”

Like so many of his popular “conservative” colleagues, Dobbs provides doses of commonsense based on a seriously deficient view of what is driving America’s problems.

Indeed, the accolades Lou Dobbs paid to President Trump say a lot more about Dobbs and Fox than they do about the president.

Renegotiate NAFTA? No Way! — Get US out!

“Making good on a campaign promise, the Trump administration formally told Congress Thursday that it intends to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico….

“Last month, White House aides spread word that Trump was ready to pull out of NAFTA. Within hours, the president reversed course and said that he’d seek a better deal first.”
— “Trump administration announces plans to renegotiate NAFTA,” AP, 5-18-17

NAFTA has unquestionably exacerbated U.S. manufacturing and capital flight, with a corresponding decline in quality jobs and middle class opportunity.

However, “trade pacts” such as NAFTA involve much more than lowering tariff barriers to regional trade. They set up governing institutions, contrary to our Constitution. And improving prosperity through increased trade is never the objective.

Indeed, the discussion of NAFTA as a mere trade agreement acts as a smokescreen, obscuring the fact that NAFTA is an Internationalist-designed trap targeting our national independence and freedom.

The national press omits any mention of the real reason that Internationalists worked so hard to have the U.S. accept NAFTA. Although NAFTA was sold as a conservative “free trade” agreement, its real purpose was to erode the sovereignty of independent nations with an ultimate goal of capturing them under a totalitarian world government ruled by elites.   Recall that the precursor stages to the European Union (e.g., the Common Market) were misleading sold as just an economic arrangement.

Progressive Regionalization

Rather than trying to deceive the public into submitting to a world authority in one step, the Internationalists have promoted a “regionalism” strategy, modeled on the successful tactic use to ensnare nations in the European Union. The Fall 1991 issue of the CFR’s [Council on Foreign Relations] Foreign Affairs confirmed that the Internationalists saw NAFTA as following in the EU’s footsteps:

The creation of trinational dispute-resolution mechanisms and rule-making bodies on border and environmental issues may also be embryonic forms of more comprehensive structures. After all, international organizations and agreements like GATT and NAFTA by definition minimize assertions of sovereignty in favor of a joint rule-making authority.

Both David Rockefeller (former CFR chairman) and CFR heavyweight Henry Kissinger lobbied in the nation’s press for NAFTA, candidly claiming that NAFTA was a steppingstone to something larger. In a 1993 column that appeared in the July 18 Los Angeles Times, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared:

It [NAFTA] 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 an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere…. [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system.

A few months later, David Rockefeller championed the agreement in the Wall Street Journal: “Everything is in place — after 500 years — to build a true ‘new world’ in the Western Hemisphere,” Rockefeller enthused, adding “I don’t think that ‘criminal’ would be too strong a word to describe … rejecting NAFTA.”

Submitting to WTO “Authority”

The World Trade Organization is another element of the elitist architecture for ruling the world. A recent news report illustrates how U.S. decision-making has been delegated to a body over which Americans have no control:

Mexico can impose annual trade sanctions worth $163.23 million against the United States after winning a dispute over trade in tuna fish, a World Trade Organization arbitrator ruled on Tuesday….

However, the ruling could be overturned later this year if a subsequent WTO decision finds the United States has stopped discriminating against tuna caught by its southern neighbor. —   “WTO lets Mexico slap trade sanctions on U.S. in tuna dispute,” Reuters, 4-25-17

The “Just Promoting Trade” Deception Continues

The Peterson Institute, a “think tank” named after Peter G. Peterson, Chairman Emeritus of the Internationalists’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has long been a driver of “progressive regionalization” under the cover of promoting trade. Indeed, the opening AP report cites comments from Gary Hufbauer, member of the CFR and former VP of the CFR, 1997-98, lending credence to the pretext that NAFTA is just an orderly way to promote regional trade:

Gary Hufbauer, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute, said the United States could seek modest “technocratic” changes, including provisions to update NAFTA to reflect technologies that have emerged since the original agreement was negotiated.

In 1994, Hufbauer had co-authored a study for the Institute, entitled “Western Hemisphere Economic Integration.”

For further explanation of the deceptive Internationalist strategy of “progressive regionalism,” of which NAFTA is a part, please see Chapter 6, “Free Trade Pacts” in our booklet Media-Controlled Delusion. Chapter 6 concludes:

[T]he so-called national debate over trade totally ignores the real purpose of post-World War II regional trade pacts — to create unaccountable regional authorities at the expense of the sovereignty of the nation-state. Our national survival requires that this agenda be exposed, understood, and defeated.

Renegotiating NAFTA is not the road to prosperity. Instead, validating NAFTA through renegotiation strengthens the Internationalist power grab targeting our survival as a free nation.

A Troubling Example

Many Americans wonder why our federal government keeps working against our interests and how it can be brought under control. An important step in the solution is to understand what Washington is doing — no easy task, as we shall see.

The “Electrify Africa” act is a prime example of what Congress is doing that it should not.   The Act would set development priorities for foreign nations and subsidize that development (through loans and loan guarantees).

In the previous (113th) Congress, the House passed this unconstitutional foreign meddling as H.R. 2548 on May 8, 2014 (see our scorecard, 113th Congress, Session 2, roll call 208). Only 1 Democrat opposed the measure, whereas Republicans were fairly evenly split —106 in favor to 116 against.   Fortunately, the Senate didn’t pick up the authorization measure, and it died — that year.

However, a similar version, S. 2152, was brought up in the Senate late last year and passed on a voice vote. Then on February 1 of this year, the House suspended the rules (2/3 vote required) to pass S. 2152, again on a voice vote. Not a single representative demanded a recorded vote. The president signed the measure into law a week later.

During the February 1 House debates (actually self-aggrandizing campaign statements, masquerading as debate) on the Electrify Africa Act, the legislation’s leading Democrat advocate, Pennsylvania’s Brendan F. Boyle, undoubtedly reassured conservative voters when he stated: “This legislation puts into law President Obama’s 2013 Power Africa initiative.”

Pretext vs. Reality

Those U.S. representatives arguing in favor of the measure spoke forcefully regarding how the Act would address the terrible electricity shortage that is holding back Sub-Saharan Africa economically.   The lead Republican advocate in the House, Representative Ed Royce of California, stated:

“[T]oday 600 million people living in sub-Saharan Africa — that is 70 percent of the population— do not have access to reliable electricity….

“Why do we want to help increase energy access to the continent? Well, to create jobs and to improve lives in both Africa and America. It is no secret that Africa has great potential as a trading partner and could help create jobs here in the U.S.”

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Yet we see several major problems. First the U.S. Constitution does not authorize foreign aid. Our government has neither responsibility nor authority to advance the welfare of other nations with taxpayer dollars, particularly when our nation is seriously in debt.

Second, private enterprise and foreign capital should be eager to make such investments as long as the regimes in those nations are stable and respectful of foreign investment.

However, here is the crux of our concern: Supporting socialist regimes may help build Internationalist control, but it is no way to help a people economically.

Ever since World War II, the Internationalist-controlled U.S. State Department has established a long, consistent track record of supporting socialist, even Communist regimes (e.g., Red China, and initially Fidel Castro), and undermining pro-Western regimes (e.g., backing the Sandanistas in Nicaragua against Anastasio Somoza and working to oust the Shah of Iran, replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini).

As informed skeptics, we have to regard the humanitarian arguments as insincere pretexts to support a power-grabbing agenda.

The techniques employed in collectivist strategy are not new. Nineteenth-century French statesman Frederic Bastiat wrote that governments seek to increase their power by “creating the poison and the antidote in the same laboratory” — that is, by using government resources to exacerbate problems which can then be used to justify statist “solutions.”

The same strategy has damaged our economy. Government programs have provided both the carrot and the stick to drive heavy industry and manufacturing abroad. And collectivists would have us believe that more government programs are the solution to restoring our economic health.

For more on the solution, please see our “Congress Is the Key!” menu item.

Sleeping Off National Debt

Every time the subjects of quantitative easing, debauching currency, and gross domestic product enter a conversation, most Americans’ eyes seem to get a sleepy haze over them as they check-out of the conversation. “Don’t think about it. It’ll just get you upset.” In other words,“I’m taking an Ambien. Wake me up when the fiscal crisis is over.” As if the $17 trillion debt and all its nightmarish consequences will float away to la-la land if they sleep long enough.Sleeping away daunting fiscal problems was attempted by Washington Irving’s Rip Van Winkle 200 years ago. In the famous short story, Rip escapes to the woods to avoid his wife nagging about the farm’s struggling finances. He imbibes some strange liquor and falls asleep. When he opens his eyes again, he is shocked to discover his dog is gone, his rifle is rusted, and he has a long beard. Back in the village his wife has died and the portrait of King George III has been replaced by General George Washington. Rip’s world has changed dramatically.We are also living in a changing era as America’s position in the global market shifts and outside countries keep our fiscal moves under close scrutiny.In a best case scenario, economists estimate that, in ten years, if interest rates don’t raise and there are no wars or recessions and depressions, we will pile on an additional $7.2 trillion to our already whopping national debt. This will put us close to $25 trillion in the red with a crippling $799 billion a year payment in interest alone.Left unchecked, by 2020, 92 cents of every federal tax dollar will be needed just to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt. If these are the optimistic calculations for our near future, the realistic reckonings should keep Americans awake pacing the floors at night.

In the corporate world, there will be nearly a $500 billion trade deficit this year, compared to the 1980s when it was $300 billion. This means we are spending $500 billion more on products made outside of the United States than what we are exporting out to other countries. We also have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, at 39.2%, which further discourages corporations to remain on U.S. soil and has contributed to the loss of nearly 5 million manufacturing jobs from 2001-2010.

With Russia and the Middle East in major headlines, it’s interesting to compare the World Bank statistics. Russia’s debt-to-GDP ratio, a calculation used by investors to determine if a country can pay back its debt, is only 13.41%  with $509 billion in reserves. Iraq’s is 31.34% with $77 billion in reserves. America has $448 billion in reserves, but this is hardly impressive when coupled with a deplorable debt-to-GDP ratio of 101.53% and a $17.8 trillion debt bill. China has an impressive $3.88 trillion in total reserves and is also the biggest foreign buyer of U.S. Treasuries by holding over $1 trillion of our debt.

As hard as the numbers have been to swallow over the years, we cannot just get bored of the “money talk,” close our eyes, and wake up when it’s over. Rip Van Winkle was lucky that, after 20 years, the only things he missed were the death of his nagging wife and the American Revolution. If we were to wake up after 20 years of denial and unbalanced budgets, instead of seeing George Washington’s picture over Rip’s favorite mantel, it could very well be Xi Jinping, China’s paramount communist leader, and you’d have to pay for your beer with the new world currency.

I suggest we either accept the inevitable pains associated with legitimately fixing our borrowed prosperity now, or plan on sleeping for at least another 100 years. We’d all best wake up and hide the sleeping pills!


Ashley R. Smith is a freelance writer and columnist who has volunteered for various charitable and Americanist causes, including providing regional leadership to mentor teens. As a mother of six children she resides in Colorado, holds a black belt in women’s self-defense, and a degree from Brigham Young University.


Export-Import Bank Renewed

The House voted Wednesday [May 9, 2012] to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank [H.R. 2072] for another three years, permitting the agency to continue providing hundreds of millions of dollars in trade assistance to U.S. firms….

“All 183 Democrats voted for the bill, along with 147 Republicans, but 93 GOP lawmakers voted against it.”
 — “Export-Import Bank reauthorized by House; Senate expected to act soon,” Washington Post (online) 5-9-2012

FFS: Similarly, on May 15th the Senate voted overwhelmingly (78 to 20) to send the House bill as passed to the president. No Democrats opposed the reauthorization. Republicans were split: 27 to 19 in favor.

The charter for the internationalists’ creation, the Export-Import Bank, was set to expire on May 31st. The Bank was also pushing against its authorized lending limit of $100 billion. In the past, the periodic renewal of the Bank has encountered little opposition, but this time considerable principled opposition arose.   Nevertheless, given the Insider influence on Congress, the outcome should not have been in doubt.

Congressional Quarterly Today’s description of the battle should have raised questions (such as why any Republicans would support a top priority of the Obama administration at this time):

“A top priority of the Obama administration, renewing the [Export-Import] bank’s charter divided Republicans who have been caught between their allies in the business community — who desire passage — and free market advocacy groups that oppose government-backed export financing as a form of corporate welfare.” — “Deal Sets Up Passage of Ex-Im Bill,” CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS, 5-14-2012

FFS: The above report and others referred to the pressure from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, which were supporting this federal intervention in the free market. But no mention was made of the fact that the Bank supports the internationalist agenda of boosting socialism abroad and has operated in the past to aid America’s enemies.

A prime example were the loans in the 1970s to the Soviet Union to finance the building of the world’s largest truck factory on the Kama River. At that time the Export-Import Bank joined with Chase Manhattan in an even split to finance 90 percent of the project, which subsequently produced trucks supporting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Neither was any mention made in much of the media coverage of the fact that the powers of the Ex-Im Bank are not authorized by the Constitution.

Although the dollar amount (the lending limit is scheduled to increase from $100 billion to $140 billion in stages), the votes are nevertheless revealing of the internationalist grip on Washington, which transcends party.

Receive Alerts

Get the latest news and updates from Freedom First Society.

This will close in 0 seconds