Trump Wants To Terminate NAFTA And Replace It With USMCA – Which Is UN Agenda 2030 in Disguise

Last week, President Donald Trump, outgoing Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met in Argentina and signed the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA. This treaty is intended to further the political merger of these countries). USMCA, like NAFTA, stifles free trade, overrides national sovereignty, and increases the power of the UN and the World Trade Organization.  The document obligates the US to follow UN Agenda 2030 and rule by unelected bureaucrats.  -GEG

Summary by JW Williams

Journalist Gary Gileno analyzes Trump’s new USMCA agreement that is steeped in the United Nations Sustainable Development program that is based on global warming alarmism.  Gileno explains that UN Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development is implemented at the local level while UN Agenda 2030 implements world government on the international level.  Agenda 21 takes resources that are abundant and makes them appear to be scarce, in order to justify rationing resources such as water and energy.  Trump’s new agreement advances UN Sustainable Development and the word “sustainable” is allover his document in chapter 24, the environmental section of the USMCA treaty even though Trump says that he is against control by the United Nations and that he doesn’t believe in climate change.
.
The point of the new agreement is to change the governing structure of the United States from a constitutional republic with representatives who legislate on behalf of the citizens to rule by unelected bureaucrats sitting on international boards and commissions, centralizing one world government.  New international committees will supersede Congress.
.
Accountants, engineers, lawyers, doctors, architects, researchers and every other business professional will be allowed to flood into the US to take over jobs in the US which already has employment problems and Americans who are homeless.
.
Rosa Koire points out that the goal of the United Nations Sustainable Development program is the loss of sovereignty and private property, which includes control over your body and mind.
.
Gary’s critics claim that NAFTA is worse and that the USMCA agreement is a less harmful replacement because the president is not able to get rid of NAFTA, it must be done by Congress.  Critics point to Trump removing the US from the Paris Acord, the TPP the UN Migration Compact and other UN treaties and believe that Trump is still against the New World Order.

•••

From the New American:

Trump, Peña Nieto, and Trudeau Sign USMCA Integration Scheme

Early Friday morning, U.S. President Donald Trump, outgoing Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and signed the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), intended to further the economic integration of all three North American countries.

In his opening remarks, shortly before signing the USMCA, Trump called the new agreement “a truly groundbreaking achievement,” describing it as “the largest, most significant, modern and balanced trade agreement in history.”

Trump went on to laud the supposed economic benefits of the USMCA, but absent in his remarks was any mention of American sovereignty, which the agreement both erodes through the further economic integration of the three countries and abrogates to international regimes such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and International Labor Organization.

Although now signed, the trade pact still has to overcome several hurdles before it goes into effect as the replacement for NAFTA. Most importantly, the agreement has to be ratified by the legislative bodies of all three countries in order to become binding.

Mexico is expected to be the first of the three nations to ratify the agreement. Because Mexico regards the USMCA as a treaty, which they call T-MEC (Tratado entre México, Estados Unidos y Canadá, Spanish for Treaty between Mexico, United States and Canada), it will have to be ratified by the Senate of the Republic — the upper chamber of Mexico’s bicameral congress. The intention is for the Mexican Senate to ratify the treaty quickly so they can focus on domestic legislation and policy under incoming Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), who will be inaugurated on Saturday, December 1, 2018.

In his pre-signing remarks, delivered in Spanish, President Peña Nieto said, “The negotiations for the Treaty, Mexico, United States, and Canada, permitted to reaffirm the importance of the economic integration of North America.” Peña Nieto continued to boast about the increased economic integration that the T-MEC/USMCA would accomplish: “The renegotiation of the new trade accord looked to save the vision of an integrated North America — [with] the conviction that together we are stronger and more competitive.”

Regarding Mexico’s benefit, Peña Nieto continued, “The Treaty [of] Mexico, United States, and Canada gives a renewed face toward our integration.” He further boasted how the trade treaty “facilitates the participation of more sectors of the economy,” including small and medium-sized businesses. He praised the progressiveness of the deal, as well as how the new trade pact is a living agreement: “[It] employs the protection of workers rights, strengthens environmental protection, and includes a revision clause that allows for constant updates.”

Although Mexico is expected to ratify the USMCA first, a dozen Republican U.S. senators have urged President Trump to send Congress the finalized text of the agreement as soon as possible in order to approve it in the current 115th Congress, before the new 116th Congress is sworn in on January 3, 2019.

In a letter to President Trump, dated November 20, 2018, Senator Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) wrote: “It is still possible for the current Congress to consider and vote on the USMCA before the end of the 115th Congress, and do so by using Trade Promotion Authority’s procedural protections, including a simple majority vote in the Senate.”

The letter went on to urge the president to hand in the necessary documents as soon as possible in order to “start the clock on a mandatory 30-day waiting period” so Congress can draft and submit a USMCA Implementation Act to be voted on when both legislative chambers are in session, in the current lame-duck Congress.

Read full article here…

 

 

 




CA: Democrats Passed Ballot Harvesting Law Legalizing Voter Fraud and Stole the Elections While Republicans Allow It

Democrats in California quietly passed a law allowing ballot harvesting in 2016, which allows party workers to go door-to-door and offering to deliver mail-in ballots on behalf of the voter.  California lost 7 out of 14 Republican House seats in this election cycle.  Ballot harvesting is illegal in most states. In Texas, New York and Pennsylvania they arrest people for ballot harvesting.  Conservative Orange County turned all blue after and unprecedented 250,000 Election Day vote-by-mail dropoff ballots were produced.  Candidates who won on Election Day later lost their races to Democrats.  The Democrats don’t even hide their blatant voter fraud anymore – they just pass laws to make election fixing legal and the Republican party just sits back and allows it.

The Communists Democrats in California quietly passed legislature in 2016 allowing ballot harvesting.

Very few people took notice when far left Governor Jerry Brown signed the changes in AB1921 into law two years ago. 

As a result, California lost 7 of its 14 Republican House seats this election cycle.

Ballot harvesting is illegal in most states. In Texas, New York and Pennsylvania they arrest people for ballot harvesting.

Orange County, traditionally a conservative enclave in Southern California turned all blue after Democrats found hundreds of thousands of votes post election day.

Republicans such as Mimi Walters, Dana Rohrabacher and Young Kim were all ahead election night only to lose their races after late ballots were counted.

The amount of mail-in ballots counted in Orange County were unprecedented – a whopping 250,000 ballots were produced in OC as a result of the new “ballot harvesting” law.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported:

In Orange County alone, where every House seat went Democratic, “the number of Election Day vote-by-mail dropoffs was unprecedented — over 250,000,” Fred Whitaker, chairman of the county Republican Party, said in a note to supporters. “This is a direct result of ballot harvesting allowed under California law for the first time. That directly caused the switch from being ahead on election night to losing two weeks later.”

The voting system in California is so bad that a Democrat in California’s 21st district who was down by 6.4% on election night ended up winning three weeks later.

The Democrats don’t even hide their blatant voter fraud anymore – they just pass laws to make election fixing legal and the Republican party just sits back and allows it.

The Daily Caller has more on this outrageous practice used by Democrats.

The results drew the attention of House Speaker Paul Ryan.

“California just defies logic to me,” said Ryan at a Washington Post live event. “We were only down 26 seats the night of the election, and three weeks later, we lost basically every California contested race. This election system they have — I can’t begin to understand what ‘ballot harvesting’ is.” (RELATED: Bloomberg Drops Millions On California Dems Ahead Of Midterm Elections)

The stunning turnaround in California, of all states, can be attributed to several factors, as conservative critics like The Federalist’s Bre Payton wrote, but the most significant of those seemed to be the practice of “ballot harvesting.”

Passed as a barely noticed change in the state’s vote by mail procedures in 2016 and signed by then-Governor Jerry Brown, California’s AB 1921 allows voters to give any third party — not just a relative or someone living in the same household, as was previously the law — to collect and turn in anyone else’s completed ballot.

Called “ballot harvesting,” critics say the practice is ripe for fraud. Consider “Lulu,” who was recorded trying to “harvest” what she thought was a Democratic voter’s ballot in Rep. Knight’s district.

Read full article here…




20 Violent Crimes that Would Be Eligible for Early Release Under the US Criminal Justice Reform ‘First Step Act’

US: The ‘First Step Act’ is a new criminal justice reform bill being considered that allows inmates to earn early release for up to one-third of their sentences. Twenty violent crimes and serious drug crimes are included in the program that include trafficking in cocaine and methamphetamine, strangling a spouse or intimate partner, street-gang felonies, assault with intent to commit rape or sexual abuse, and similar crimes. -GEG

A Republican U.S. Senate document circulating among GOP offices opposed to the so-called FIRST STEP Act, a criminal justice reform bill making its way through Capitol Hill, lists 20 violent crimes that would be eligible for early release under the legislation.

It remains to be seen if these matters will be addressed in the final version of the legislation, which is still in flux, but this circulating GOP Senate document illustrates just how divisive this particular legislative push is proving to be inside the GOP at a critical time for the party.

The staff-level letter, which lists the crimes that include drug trafficking, assaulting law enforcement, and making death threats against U.S. lawmakers, begins by addressing where this information came from.

A GOP Senate staffer wrote to colleagues in the letter obtained by Breitbart News exclusively:

I wanted to share some additional information about the FIRST STEP Act that may be of interest to your office. As the Department of Justice has confirmed, the bill creates a new time credit system that allows inmates to earn early release worth up to one-third of their sentence. Some offenders are ineligible to receive these early release time credits because the offense is listed on an ‘exclusion list’. But here is a partial list of crimes that an offender can commit and still be eligible for significant early release, according to Department of Justice Attorneys.

From there, the letter goes on to list the 20 violent crimes that would be eligible for early release under the bill:

  1. Trafficking cocaine or methamphetamines, even if convicted as a kingpin (18 U.S.C § 841(b)
  2. Strangling a spouse or an intimate partner (18 U.S.C. §113(a)(8)
  3. Trafficking fentanyl, except in rare cases (18 U.S.C. § 841(b))
  4. Providing or possessing contraband, including firearms, in prison (18 U.S.C. § 1791)
  5. Felonies committed while in a criminal street gang (18 U.S.C. § 521)
  6. Escape of prisoners (18 U.S.C. § 751)
  7. Rioting in a correctional facility (18 U.S.C. § 1792)
  8. Importing aliens for prostitution (18 U.S.C. § 1328)
  9. Assault with intent to commit rape or sexual abuse (18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(2)(F))
  10. Threatening to murder a congressman, senator, or government official (18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)
  11. Drug-related robberies involving assault with a dangerous weapon (18 U.S.C. § 2118(c)(1)
  12. Violent carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury (18 U.S.C. § 2119(2))
  13. Stealing immigration documents for the purpose of keeping an immigrant in slavery (18 U.S.C. § 1592)
  14. Attempt or conspiracy to engage in human smuggling (18 U.S.C. § 1592)
  15. Failing to register as a sex offender (18 U.S.C. § 2250)
  16. Arson (18 U.S.C. § 81)
  17. Blackmail (18 U.S.C. § 873)
  18. Domestic assault by an habitual offender (18 U.S.C. § 117)
  19. Hate crimes (18 U.S.C. § 249)
  20. Assaulting a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon (18 U.S.C. § 111(b))

Read full article here…

 




Former President George HW Bush, Died at Age 94. Here Is His Legacy That the Media Ignores

Both Republicans and Democrats are heaping praise on George HW Bush despite his record, which no one wants to discuss.  Bush Sr. lied in order to entangle the US in the first Gulf War against Iraq and he ordered 88,500 tons of bombs to be dropped on that country under false pretenses.  Additional war crimes include destroying infrastructure in Iraq in order to make that country dependent on the US for re-building.  He escalated the war on drugs that wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and led to the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of Americans, especially blacks, while utterly failing to reduce drug use.  Bush attended Yale and was a member of the Skull and Bones secret society.  He became the Director of the CIA in 1976 and was involved in the Iran Contra weapons-for-drugs scandal and many other adventures.   The Bush family were friendly with the Hinckley family, whose son shot President Reagan, which would have handed the presidency to Bush Sr if Reagan had died.  The Franklin scandal, involving sex parties with underage boys and girls inside the White House, happened during Bush’s term in office.

The tributes to former President George H.W. Bush, who died on Friday aged 94, have been pouring in from all sides of the political spectrum. He was a man “of the highest character,” said his eldest son and fellow former president, George W. Bush. “He loved America and served with character, class, and integrity,” tweeted former U.S. Attorney and #Resistance icon Preet Bharara. According to another former president, Barack Obama, Bush’s life was “a testament to the notion that public service is a noble, joyous calling. And he did tremendous good along the journey.” Apple boss Tim Cook said: “We have lost a great American.”

In the age of Donald Trump, it isn’t difficult for hagiographers of the late Bush Sr. to paint a picture of him as a great patriot and pragmatist; a president who governed with “class” and “integrity.” It is true that the former president refused to vote for Trump in 2016, calling him a “blowhard,” and that he eschewed the white nationalist, “alt-right,” conspiratorial politics that has come to define the modern Republican Party. He helped end the Cold War without, as Obama said, “firing a shot.” He spent his life serving his country — from the military to Congress to the United Nations to the CIA to the White House. And, by all accounts, he was also a beloved grandfather and great-grandfather to his 17 grandkids and eight great-grandkids.

Nevertheless, he was a public, not a private, figure — one of only 44 men to have ever served as president of the United States. We cannot, therefore, allow his actual record in office to be beautified in such a brazen way. “When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms,” as my colleague Glenn Greenwald has argued, because it leads to “false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts.” The inconvenient truth is that the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush had far more in common with the recognizably belligerent, corrupt, and right-wing Republican figures who came after him — his son George W. and the current orange-faced incumbent — than much of the political and media classes might have you believe.

Consider:

He ran a racist election campaign. The name of Willie Horton should forever be associated with Bush’s 1988 presidential bid. Horton, who was serving a life sentence for murder in Massachusetts — where Bush’s Democratic opponent, Michael Dukakis, was governor —  had fled a weekend furlough program and raped a Maryland woman. A notorious television ad called “Weekend Passes,” released by a political action committee with ties to the Bush campaign, made clear to viewers that Horton was black and his victim was white.

As Bush campaign director Lee Atwater bragged, “By the time we’re finished, they’re going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis’s running mate.” Bush himself was quick to dismiss accusations of racism as “absolutely ridiculous,” yet it was clear at the time — even to right-wing Republican operatives such as Roger Stone, now a close ally of Trump — that the ad had crossed a line. “You and George Bush will wear that to your grave,” Stone complained to Atwater. “It’s a racist ad. … You’re going to regret it.”

Stone was right about Atwater, who on his deathbed apologized for using Horton against Dukakis. But Bush never did.

He made a dishonest case for war. Thirteen years before George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction to justify his invasion and occupation of Iraq, his father made his own set of false claims to justify the aerial bombardment of that same country. The first Gulf War, as an investigation by journalist Joshua Holland concluded, “was sold on a mountain of war propaganda.”

For a start, Bush told the American public that Iraq had invaded Kuwait “without provocation or warning.” What he omitted to mention was that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had given an effective green light to Saddam Hussein, telling him in July 1990, a week before his invasion, “[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.”

Then there is the fabrication of intelligence. Bush deployed U.S. troops to the Gulf in August 1990 and claimed that he was doing so in order “to assist the Saudi Arabian Government in the defense of its homeland.” As Scott Peterson wrote in the Christian Science Monitor in 2002, “Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated … that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key U.S. oil supplier.”

Yet when reporter Jean Heller of the St. Petersburg Times acquired her own commercial satellite images of the Saudi border, she found no signs of Iraqi forces; only an empty desert. “It was a pretty serious fib,” Heller told Peterson, adding: “That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn’t exist.”

He committed war crimes. Under Bush Sr., the U.S. dropped a whopping 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq and Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, many of which resulted in horrific civilian casualties. In February 1991, for example, a U.S. airstrike on an air-raid shelter in the Amiriyah neighborhood of Baghdad killed at least 408 Iraqi civilians. According to Human Rights Watch, the Pentagon knew the Amiriyah facility had been used as a civil defense shelter during the Iran-Iraq war and yet had attacked without warning. It was, concluded HRW, “a serious violation of the laws of war.”

U.S. bombs also destroyed essential Iraqi civilian infrastructure — from electricity-generating and water-treatment facilities to food-processing plants and flour mills. This was no accident. As Barton Gellman of the Washington Post reported in June 1991: “Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to create postwar leverage over Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself. Planners now say their intent was to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could not repair without foreign assistance. … Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as ‘collateral’ and unintended, was sometimes neither.”

Got that? The Bush administration deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure for “leverage” over Saddam Hussein. How is this not terrorism? As a Harvard public health team concluded in June 1991, less than four months after the end of the war, the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure had resulted in acute malnutrition and “epidemic” levels of cholera and typhoid.

By January 1992, Beth Osborne Daponte, a demographer with the U.S. Census Bureau, was estimating that Bush’s Gulf War had caused the deaths of 158,000 Iraqis, including 13,000 immediate civilian deaths and 70,000 deaths from the damage done to electricity and sewage treatment plants. Daponte’s numbers contradicted the Bush administration’s, and she was threatened by her superiors with dismissal for releasing “false information.” (Sound familiar?)

Read full article here…