USMCA and the Yellow Brick Road to World Government
By Joan Holleman Brown
Jun 19, 2019
We’re off to see the Wizard, the Wonderful Wizard of Trade. The media is ready for Congress to don Dorothy’s red slippers and dance down the Yellow Brick Road to the Wizard of Trade’s creation—the United States-Mexico-Canada-Agreement.
The USMCA is that so-called “free trade” deal to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement—NAFTA.
President Trump’s Trade Wizard is Robert Lighthizer, a long time New World Order member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). And, it is “Curtain Time!”
The scarecrow without a brain represents uninformed voters.
The Tin Man who’s missing a heart, personifies members of the one-world-government Council on Foreign Relations and the various foundations working to transform America into one little piece of their world government puzzle.
The cowardly lion wants courage and represents millions of concerned citizens waiting for you and me to inspire them to wake up and act to help protect America’s sovereignty, and our “Declaration of Independence,” and the United States Constitution—The Miracle that Changed the World—title of Cleon Skousen’s book.
Hasn’t President Trump been singing praises about the USMCA? Yes! But, does he know the details? To protect Americanism, didn’t Trump cancel the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), that represented 40 percent of world GDP, his first month in office?
Yes! But, readers of the 2,325-page, tri-country USMCA report it is a copy-cat version of President Obama’s defunct TPP.
What does the USMCA have to do with you and me?
NAFTA caused huge losses of manufacturing companies and jobs in SC and across the nation.
Massive, multi-country so-called “free” trade deals are unconstitutional, endanger America’s independence, and put our children and grandchildren’s futures as American citizens at risk.
On the other hand, Trump’s bi-lateral trade deals are both safe and smart. Our Founders argued strongly against foreign entanglements. Thomas Jefferson advised: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations…entangling alliances with none.”
The 2,325-page USMCA has sovereignty-stealing mechanisms as did TPP. USMCA by-passes America’s constitution with its commissions and courts thereby threatening America’s independence.
USMCA helps deliver the United States into the grasp of the United Nations and is, in essence, an embryonic North American Union.
If you enjoy American beef, on page 303 of the International Trade Commission report, proposed USMCA incorporates NAFTA’s fundamentally flawed provisions. It causes the elimination of the critical mass of competitive marketing channels and industry infrastructure needed to sustain an independent family farm and ranch system of cattle production in the U.S.
The USMCA will thus accelerate the destruction of the U.S. cattle industry as we know it today. Is this an “economic win?” At what cost?
USMCA has a “North American Competitiveness Committee” in Chapter 36 to further economic integration among all three countries.
Mexico’s out-going president said (in Spanish) the USMCA will “consolidate the economic integration of North America.” Economic integration? Of North America? What happened to “free trade?” Oh! I get it! By economically integrating economies of nations under the guise of “trade,” and sorting these nations into “regions,” such as the European Union, the North American Union, etc., the United States winds up in a teeny, weeny spot in the pictorial on the box of the entire globalists’ one-world-government puzzle pieces. The U.S. and Lady Liberty will be thrown into the trash bin of history.
Alarm bells are ringing because the United Nations’ Agendas 21 and 2030, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund are being used by the globalists to eventually create their one world government under the dictatorial rule of the United Nations, or other entity.
Remember? The European Union started out 60+ years ago as a “steel trade deal!” “Like Topsy, it just grew!” Now Britts want to Brexit! It won’t be easy for the U.S. to exit the North American Union, either.
This subject is too mighty to explore piecemeal If you’re reading this, you’re not like the scarecrow—uninformed voters. You’re not like the Tin Man with no heart, as per Council on Foreign Relations’ One World Government globalists. You are a lion! Our lion-hearts are rooted in Americanism. Americanists believe in our Constitutional Republic. We desire to restore states’ rights and local control. We want to reduce the size of government. We pray our local and state elected representatives will return to statesmanship and will end cronyism. America, South Carolina, and especially the lowcountry, all need honest statesmen who believe in less government, more responsibility, and with God’s help a better world.
It’s “Curtain Time!” USMCA debate in Congress starts soon—No Amendments—Yea or Nay—Period! Google & Read: The New American—“USMCA: a TPP Redux.” Watch 30-minute—YouTube: “USMCA: What they are not telling you.” Call Senators Scott and Graham t 202-225-3121 and Representative Cunningham at 202-224-3121. Tell them to stop the USMCA.
James Madison: Essay on Sovereignty
Dec. 1835
Sovereignty
It has hitherto been understood, that the supreme power, that is, the sovereignty of the people of the States, was in its nature divisible; and was in fact divided, according to the Constitution of the U. States, between the States in their United, and the States in their individual capacities that as the States in their highest sov. char. were compent to a surrender of yr whole sovereignty, and make themselves on consol. state so they surrender a part & retain as they have the other part, forming thus a mixed Govt. with a division of its attributes as marked out in the Constitution.
Of late another doctrine has occurred, which supposes that Sovereignty is in its nature indivisible; that the Societies denominated States, in forming the constitutional compact, of the U. States acted as indivisible Sovereignties; and consequently, that the Sovereignty of each, remains as absolute and entire, as it was then, or could be at any time.
This discord of opinions, arises from a propensity in many to prefer the use of theoretical guides technical language, to the divisions or depositories of pol. power, as laid down in the Constl. Charter, which expressly assigns certain powers of Govt. which are the attributes of sovereigty to the U. S. and even declares a practical supremacy of them over the powers reserved to the States; a Supremacy essentially involving that of exposition as well as of execution: For a law could not be supreme, in one depository of power, if the final exposition of it belonged to another.
In settling the question between these rival claims of power, it is proper to keep in mind, that all power in just & free Govts. is derived from Compact, that where the parties to the Compact are competent to make it, and where the Compact creates a Govt, and arms it not only with a moral power but the physical means of executing it it is immaterial by what name it is called. Its real character is to be decided by the Compact itself: by the nature & extent of the powers it specifies, and the obligations imposed on the parties to it.
As a ground of compromise let them, the advocates for State Rights acknowledge this rule of measuring the federal share of sovereign power under the Constl. Compact, and let it be conceded on the other hand, that the States are not deprived by it of that corporate existence & pol. unity, which wd. in the event of a dissolution voluntary or violent, of the Constl. replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the condition in which they entered into the compact.
condition of an independ. & full sovereignty; as was the effect of the Decln. 1776, which dissolved our connection with the G.B. and an exclusive the States individually to the character they at the formation of the compact
An the period of our revoln. it was supposed by some that it dissolved the social compact within the Colonies and produced a state of nature which required a naturalization of those who had not participated in the revoln. The question was brought before Congs. at its first Session, by Dr. Rand who contested the election of Wm. Smith who tho’ born in S. C. had been absent at the date of Independence. The decision was that his birth in the Colony made him a member, of the Society, in its new as well as its original State.
See letter to Webster Mar. 15. 1833.
Which of these views of the subject ought to be held the true one is a question of theoretical curiosity; but may be of less practical importance than the zeal of party has ascribed to it—
[To go to the bottom of the subject let us consult the Theory, which contemplates a certain number of individuals, as meeting & agreeing to form one political Society, in order that the rights the safety & the interest of each may be under the safeguard of the whole.
The first supposition is that each individual, being previously independent of the others, the compact which is to make them one Society, must result from the free consent of every individual.
But as the objects in view could not be attained, if every measure conducive to them, required the consent of every member of the Society, the theory further supposes, either that it was a part of the original compact, that the will of the majority was to be deemed the will of the whole; or that this was a law of nature, resulting from the nature of political society, itself the offspring of the natural wants of man.
What ever be the hypothesis, of the origin of the lex majoris partis, it is evident that it operates as a plenary substitute of the will of the majority of the Society, for the will of the whole Society; and that the Sovereignty of the Society as vested in & exerciseable by the majority, may do any thing that could be rightfully done, by the unanimous concurrence of the members; the reserved rights of individuals (of Conscience for example), in becoming parties to the original compact, being beyond the legitimate reach of Sovereignty, wherever vested or however viewed.
The question then presents itself how far the will of a majority of the Society, by virtue of its identity with the will of the Society, can divide, modify or dispose of the Sovereignty of the Society. And quitting the theoretic guide, a more satisfactory one will perhaps be found 1. in what a majority of a Society has done and been universally regarded as having had a right to do 2. what it is universally admitted that a majority by virtue of its sovereignty might do, if it chose to do
1. The majority has divided the Sovereignty of the Society, by actually dividing the Society itself into distinct Societies, equally Sovereign. Of this operation, we have before us examples in the separation of Kentucky from Virginia; and of Maine from Massachusetts; events wch. were never supposed to require a unanimous consent of the individuals concerned. In the case of naturalization a new member is added to the Social compact, not only without a unanimous consent of the members but by a majority of the governing body deriving its powers from a majority of the individual parties to the social compact
2. As in those cases just mentioned one sovereignty was divided into two, by dividing one State into two States, So it will not be denied that two States, equally sovereign, might be incorporated into one, by the voluntary & joint act of majorities only in each. The Constitution of the U. S. has itself provided for such a contingency. And if two States, could thus incorporate themselves into one, by a mutual surrender of the entire sovereignty of each; why might not a partial incorporation, by a partial surrender of sovereignty, be equally practicable, if equally eligible. And if this could be done, by two States, why not by twenty or more.
A division of sovereignty, is, in fact illustrated by the exchange of sovereign rights often involved in Treaties between Independent Nations; and Still more in the Several Confederacies which have existed, and particularly in that which preceded the present Constitution of the U. States]
Certain it is that the Constitutional compact of the U.S has allotted the supreme powers of Govt. partly to the U States by special grants, partly to the individual States by general reservations, and if Sovereignty be in its nature divisible; the true question to be decided is whether the allotment, has been made by the competent Authority. And this question is answered by the fact, that it was an act of the majority of the people in each State in their highest sovereign capacity equipollent to a unanimous act of the people composing the State, in that capacity.
It is so difficult to argue intelligibly concerning the compound System of Govt. in the U. S. without admitting the divisibility of Sovereignty, that the idea of sovereignty as divided between the Union and the members composing the Union, forces itself into the view and even into the language of those most strenuously contending for the unity & indivizibility, of the moral being created formed by the Social compact. "For security agst. oppression from abroad we look to the Sovereign power of the U. S. to be exerted according to the compact of Union; for security agst. oppression from within, or domestic oppression, we look to the sovereign power of the State. Now all Sovereigns are equal; the Sovereignty of the State is equal to that of the Union; for the Sovereignty of each is but a moral person. That of the State and that of the Union are each a moral person; & in that respect precisely equal". These are the words, in a speech which more than any other, has analized & elaborated this particular subject; and they express the view of it finally taken by the Speaker*, notwithstanding the previous introductory one, in which he says, "The States whilst the Constitution of the U. S. was forming, were not even shorn of any of their Sovereign power by that process" Tellegraph Mar. 23. 1834 or 3 et sequent in the Enquirer of Apl. 20.
*Mr. Rowan of Kentucky
That a sovereignty would be lost & converted into a vassalage, if subjected to a foreign Sovereignty, over which it had no controul, and in which it had no participation, is clear & certain; but far otherwise, is a surrender of portions of Sovereignty by compacts among Sovereign Communities making the surrenders equal & reciprocal; & of course giving to each as much as is taken from it
Of all free Govts. compact is the basis & the essence: and it is fortunate, that the powers of Govts. supreme as well as subordinate can be so moulded & distributed, so compounded and divided by those on whom they are to operate as will be most suitable to their conditions, and best guard their freedom, and best provide for their safety & happiness.
Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?