• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Video: Rep. Matt Gaetz on Tucker: Reject the EU-like Merge with Mexico and Canada

Joined
Apr 2, 2022
Messages
870


Rep. Matt Gaetz discusses possibility of European Union-like deal with Canada, Mexico



Fox News
Oct 14, 2022

----


Get US Out! of the USMCA


Alert Summary

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) threatens American national sovereignty and moves us closer to a North American Union. Congress and the president must withdraw the U.S. from this dangerous agreement!


Click Here:
https://jbs.org/alert/get-us-out-of-the-usmca/


URGENT: The Biden administration is working with Mexico’s government to end U.S. national sovereignty by merging North America into a European Union-style organization. In recent comments, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) stated that “I think that [U.S. Secretary of State Antony] Blinken spoke about consolidating the region of North America, and we agree on that.” AMLO added that “We are also in favor of the unity of the entire American continent” under an EU-style agreement.

The globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) dominates the Biden administration, as it has for other administrations throughout the last century. It is the central nervous system of the Deep State — the unelected “permanent government” that has hijacked our country — and it is pushing for regional arrangements like a North American Union as a step toward world government. Contact your U.S. representative and senators and urge them to exit the USMCA and to oppose all regional integration schemes!

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) threatens American national sovereignty and, by extension, our constitutional liberties. Congress and the president must withdraw the United States from this agreement.

The USMCA formally began with U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement on April 27, 2017 to renegotiate the also-dangerous North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which had existed since 1994. Globalists and leftists immediately began efforts to secure a replacement agreement that would further erode U.S. sovereignty and enable the eventual establishment of a North American Union. They were aided by none other than U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a Council on Foreign Relations member, who also sought to expand the new agreement’s scope at the expense of U.S. sovereignty. The U.S. even dropped the few negotiating positions that favored national sovereignty. Congressional Democrats, ostensibly skeptical of the renegotiated agreement, also pushed for left-wing, anti-sovereignty provisions.

On December 10, 2019, after much negotiation, the United States, Mexico, and Canada, signed the final USMCA agreement. The U.S. House and Senate quickly approved the agreement, and President Trump signed it into law on January 29, 2020. With the agreement also approved by Mexico and Canada, it officially went into effect on July 1, 2020.

Despite what’s been said about the USMCA being a “better deal,” it is merely a reshuffle of everything that was bad about the old NAFTA and Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), as both supporters and critics of the agreement have acknowledged.

Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister Chyrstia Freeland has repeatedly described the USMCA as being a “very progressive agreement.” For example, the trade scheme promotes collective bargaining at the national level; mandates protections for “gender-identity” and other “gender-related issues” in the workplace; provides for additional protections for “migrant workers”; promoted the UN Agenda 21/Agenda 2030 concept of “sustainable development;” and subordinated the U.S. to international global governance organizations and conventions, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Labor Organizations (ILO), and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), otherwise known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which the U.S. Senate has refused to ratify.

The competitiveness chapter (Chapter 26) of the USMCA agreement establishes a “North American Competitiveness Committee” with the view of “promoting further economic integration” of North America. At the signing ceremony for the USMCA, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, then-President of Mexico Enrique Peña Nieto touted with great joy how the USMCA would consolidate the “economic integration,” or merger, of the continent. “The renegotiation of the new trade agreement sought to safeguard the vision of an integrated North America, the conviction that together we are stronger and more competitive,” President Peña Nieto remarked in Spanish. Further adding, “The Mexico-United States-and-Canada Treaty gives a renewed face toward our integration.” Shortly after signing the integration scheme, Peña Nieto tweeted the following on Twitter:

On my last day as President, I am very honored to have participated in the signing of the new Trade Treaty between Mexico, the United States and Canada. This day concludes a long process of dialogue and negotiation that will consolidate the economic integration of North America. (Translation)​

The “Trade Treaty between Mexico, the United States and Canada” is the Mexican government’s name for the USMCA, known in Spanish as the Tratado entre México, Estados Unidos y Canadá (T-MEC). In order to facilitate the integration of North America, Chapter 30 of the USMCA establishes a governing Free Trade Commission, comprised of unelected representatives from all three governments. They will not only oversee the implementation of the trade scheme, but will also oversee a vast bureaucracy of 19 committees, each governing different sections of the agreement, and have the power to amend the agreement thereby making it into a “living agreement,” allowing continental infrastructure to be built for the North American Union.

Regional integration is already occurring. As we previously alerted you,the railway companies Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern are merging together, which will “create a railroad linking Mexico, Canada and the United States,” thus establishing a nascent USMCA Super Railway. The USMCA’s implementation enabled this development, and this economic integration closely mirrors the transformation of the European Coal and Steel Community into the globalist European Union.

The USMCA threatens U.S. national sovereignty and moves us closer to a North American Union, long-pursued by globalists. And under the globalist strategy of “progressive regionalization,” regional orders are the first step to a world government. The U.S. must withdraw from this agreement and reject any other agreement or treaty that threatens our constitutional liberties.

Contact your U.S. representative and senators in support of immediate withdrawal from the regionalist United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), and encourage them to Get US Out! of the USMCA by introducing and passing legislation to that effect.


Click Here:
https://jbs.org/alert/get-us-out-of-the-usmca/
 
I am against the concept of the countries on this continent joining in EU style. However, in New England, there are tiny towns, cities, villages, that I think would benefit from joining together. It seems ludicrous that each little entity has its own government and all the expenses that go along with that. I would be more for an unincorporated county where services were very limited and taxes cheap. But if cities or towns are going to exist, it seems that coopting resources would be a wise thing to do.
 
I am against the concept of the countries on this continent joining in EU style. However, in New England, there are tiny towns, cities, villages, that I think would benefit from joining together. It seems ludicrous that each little entity has its own government and all the expenses that go along with that. I would be more for an unincorporated county where services were very limited and taxes cheap. But if cities or towns are going to exist, it seems that coopting resources would be a wise thing to do.

Yikes - No, No, No. That's the opposite direction of where you want to go. You want to keep governance as local as possible. The more "constituents" you have, the harder it is to stop the madness.

If you take it as a given that government "services" are necessary, and that you could get savings with more people, then local communities could partner with one another to secure services at a reduced rate. (BTW, this happens with all kinds of services already... trash pickup, road maintenance, electric suppliers, etc. No need to consolidate power in the hopes of reducing waste - that NEVER happens)
 
Yikes - No, No, No. That's the opposite direction of where you want to go. You want to keep governance as local as possible. The more "constituents" you have, the harder it is to stop the madness.

If you take it as a given that government "services" are necessary, and that you could get savings with more people, then local communities could partner with one another to secure services at a reduced rate. (BTW, this happens with all kinds of services already... trash pickup, road maintenance, electric suppliers, etc. No need to consolidate power in the hopes of reducing waste - that NEVER happens)
I agree with you. I lived in an unincorporated county and the only police were the sheriffs and people had to hire private companies for trash removal. The problem is these small local towns don't want to consolidate or trim fat. They do not want to partner with neighboring towns to minimize costs. Their goal is to spend as much as possible. I think local towns need to figure out how to pool resources and partner so they can minimize expenses and increase efficiency.
 
I agree with you. I lived in an unincorporated county and the only police were the sheriffs and people had to hire private companies for trash removal. The problem is these small local towns don't want to consolidate or trim fat. They do not want to partner with neighboring towns to minimize costs. Their goal is to spend as much as possible. I think local towns need to figure out how to pool resources and partner so they can minimize expenses and increase efficiency.

That only sounds like a problem for those who choose to live in that particular town/city.
 
Back
Top