Treasonous agenda of the Trilateral Commission

"The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values."

– Zbigniew Brzeninski, National Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter and President Bush as co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisery Task Force; executive director of the Trilateral Commission

My column last week focused on the Council on Foreign Relations and their anti-American agenda. This treasonous operation is another one of the tentacles birthed by the elitists out to destroy our constitutional republic, turn us into a democracy (America is not a democracy!) and eventually merge all nations into a "one world government."

This is real – it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a heinous agenda that is all but complete except for the passage of CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement), FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) and nullification of the Second Amendment. If Bush gets his way and CAFTA and FTAA are ratified, you will see another gigantic sucking sound of millions more American jobs going south of the Hemisphere. So far, Utah appears to be the only state to recognize the danger of this destructive treaty (FTAA).

Few Americans really understood back in 1993 what would happen under GATT because few ever heard of it – too many simply bought the propaganda from politicians and the rest were more interested in sports, porn, drugs, booze or fun times. Guess how many members of the entire Congress read GATT? One – former Sen. Hank Brown. He's the only senator who read this 28,000 page treaty and stated emphatically that no way would he vote for it. Yet, the rest of the Senate ratified this insidious treaty without ever reading it. Sadly, the American people continue electing these same sellouts back into office.

During the hearings on this monster, French financier, the late Sir James Goldsmith, testified in front of Ernest Hollings committee. He demonstrated that GATT would gut the American textile market. The following are some quotes from the Washington Times, Dec. 6, 1993, which accurately reflect Sir Goldsmith's statements during the hearings:

Our Republic is perilously close to being destroyed. This isn't about Republican vs. Democrat or any of these other distractions – it's an American issue. Without question, this factual information is very disturbing to Americans, however, this is about remaining a free and sovereign nation and not falling to communist domination under a world government. William Wallace was depicted saying in the movie, "Braveheart": "What will you do without freedom?" I ask you the same.

Here are some remarks by Sen. Hollings, in a debate on AIR TRAVEL RIGHTS FOR BLIND INDIVIDUALS ACT (Senate - June 08, 1990). These comments are in the thomas database at thomas.loc.gov. He recognized that "free trade" could be used to diminish the economy of the Untied States. Its also interesting that he links "free trade" and the trilateral commission. He remarks that the textile industry was the most productive and competitive industry in the US. Is is coincidence that CAFTA will be the nail in the coffin of this prodcutive, competitive industry? Its taken years, but according to Senator Hollings, the goal has been accomplished:

They are conspiring up in New York right now, while I am talking, on trade to keep up the affirmative action program to dump foreign goods. How did that happen? We had the Marshall Plan. Thank heavens it worked. The Pacific rim went capitalistic, all those countries out there, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong, Thailand, Indonesia. It worked. In the EEC capitalism and democracy are working, but it took our American national productivity, Yankee traders, and geniuses to go over and not only give them the technology, develop the technology and produce the technology, financing those endeavors. They were not bothered by us Senators with all our bills mandating clean air, clean water, unemployment insurance, minimum wage, safe working place, safer machinery, parental notice, plant closing notice, and right on down the list.

They say, `We do not have to worry about those Senators, what regulations they are going to enact. We have a guaranteed profit overseas here and we can dump it back in America. All we have to do is cry, free trade, free trade to the dummy politicians.'So they organized the Trilateral Commission . They organized ECAT, the Emergency Committee Against Tariffs. They organized the Foreign Policy Association, and they preen and wax, erudite and holler, `Free trade, free trade, free trade.' And what they are really saying is, `Dump it, dump it, dump it,' as long as they can keep the largest richest market in the world open for dumping. Bear in mind that 40 percent of imports are U.S.-generated from U.S.-owned multinationals. So they say, `As long as we can maintain this conspiracy to dump, we will all make a fortune.'

They had a witness day before yesterday to the effect that there are 10 million in China in gulags, slave laborers producing textiles. That was testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee.

Do you know what is the most productive competitive industry in America? Milliken last year won the Baldrige Award. According to the Office of Technology Assessment, in its study just reported, the most productive competitive industry in America is textiles. Like the man said years ago, `Fritz, I can compete with any company in Japan; I just cannot compete with the entire country of Japan.' All of these countries have their governments on their side. The EEC is organizing and orchestrating their governments for EEC 1992, not to get free trade, but to gird themselves for the trade war in the Pacific Rim. You watch them.

Another bit of info. This stellar performer was a member of the Brookings Institute, the Rand Corporation and the Trilateral commission.

The same year, Carla Hills was named US Trade Representative. She is described in Congressional testimony as a member of the Trilateral Commission. Given that the Trilateral Commision was formed to promote "free trade" or dumping as Senator Hollings claimed, what influence do you think Ms. Hills had on our trade policy, that might have favored Trilateral Commission goals?

Here is the congressional record:

Mr. BENTSEN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chairman of the Finance Committee.

Mr. BENTSEN. Madam President, I have the pleasure of rising to support the nomination of Carla Hill as U.S. Trade Representative. The Finance Committee favorably reported her nomination by a unanimous vote on January 27th.

In addition, she has been chairman of the Urban Institute since 1983 and is a member of the Executive Committee of the American Agenda, cochaired by Presidents Ford and Carter. She has also served as Vice Chairman of President Reagan's Commission on Housing and as a member of President Reagan's Commission on Defense Management. Previously, she served as a trustee of the Brookings Institution, the Rand Corp. and as a member of the Trilateral Commission .

Once confirmed as USTR, Mrs. Hills will have the challenging job of representing the interests of the United States in negotiations in the international trade arena and will be instrumental in shaping our trade policy. With an estimated trade deficit of $135 billion for 1988, Mrs. Hills certainly has her work cut out for her. However, she will be, without a doubt, a tough negotiator and represent the United States well.

Maybe you in your great wisdom can refute this:

In the last days of the 106th Congress, the U.S. Senate ratified 34 treaties - without debate, without a vote, and almost without notice. Most of the treaties were between the U.S. and a single other nation, having to do with treatment of criminals, stolen vehicles, and other single-issue matters. Two of the treaties, however, have much broader implications: the International Plant Protection Convention, adopted at the World Conference on Food and Agriculture in Rome in 1997, and the Convention on Desertification, adopted in Paris, in 1994.

These two treaties are an integral part of the global environmental agenda contained in Agenda 21, adopted in Rio de Janeiro, at the 1992 Earth Summit II. The Convention on Climate Change, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, are also a part of the process through which the non-binding, "soft-law" Agenda 21, is converted into legally binding international law. These two newly ratified treaties further entangle the United States in the United Nations' web of environmental policy.

Consider how easily this was accomplished. On October 18, Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY), was recognized by the Senate President:

(Congressional Record: Page: S10658)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following treaties on today's Executive Calendar. They will consist of Nos. 20 through 53.

I further ask unanimous consent that the treaties be considered as having passed through their various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification; all committee provisos, reservations, understandings, declarations be considered and agreed to; that any statements be printed in the Congressional Record as if read; further, that when the resolutions of ratification are voted upon, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be notified of the Senate's action, and that following the disposition of the treaties, the Senate return to legislative session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the clerk report each treaty by title prior to the vote on each treaty, and further I ask for a division vote on each resolution of ratification.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The treaties will be considered to have passed through their various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification, which the clerk will report.

For each treaty ratified, there was entered into the record a Resolution of Ratification. This resolution sets forth conditions, understandings, and reservations, which is always the case with international treaties. What this means, is an open question.

Since 1992, almost all U.N. treaties contain a specific Article that prohibits reservations. Article 37 of the Convention on Desertification is such an Article. In such cases, the United Nations, and the other parties to the Convention, do not recognize or honor such reservations.

When the United States ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in June, 1992, it attached a laundry list of reservations. Other parties to the treaty began filing their rejections of the U.S. reservations. What this means is unclear, since at the present time, the United Nations has no enforcement mechanism. Decisions of the International Court of Justice are non-binding.

This situation is changing dramatically with the creation of the International Criminal Court, adopted in Rome, in 1998 - over the objection of the United States. The purpose of this new court is to prosecute violations of "human rights," which are presently defined in the Court's Charter to be limited to war crimes, genocide, international terrorism, and the like. The Court, though, has the authority to redefine its jurisdiction at will, well beyond the reach of U.N. Security Council veto.

Use of the death penalty in the United States is considered to be a violation of human rights within the United Nations community. American pilots have been denounced as war criminals by United Nations Human Rights officials. Delegates to the U.N. Climate Change conferences have accused the United States of human rights violations for its so-called global warming emissions.

The point is, we are witnessing the restructuring of the United Nations system which is posturing to acquire the ability to enforce international law. International law is not modified by any reservations that the U.S. Senate may include in a resolution of ratification. International law, and certainly, international attitude, is rarely in the best interest of the United States.

When the Convention on Desertification was introduced, Tom McDonnell of the American Sheep Industry Association, and a Director of Sovereignty International, analyzed the document, looking specifically for potential impact on U.S. policy. In March, 1998, McDonnell spoke to the Trans-Texas Heritage Association, pointing out some of the plans the U.N. has for water use. In July, 1998, eco-logic reported the creation of a new U.N. Commission on Water (M). The new Commission met in New York in 1999, to discuss the issues related to global water use management. The discussions included the need to integrate the other Agenda 21 Treaties into the new, emerging U.N. treaty on water. The Convention on Desertification is one of those treaties.

Neither the Convention on Desertification, nor the International Plant Protection Convention, is designed to benefit the United States. Our ratification only benefits other nations who have demonstrated willingness, and desire, to bring our nation under the control of an international power.

The ill-advised ratification of these two U.N. treaties - without review, comment, debate, or even a recorded vote - makes a mockery of the advise and consent responsibility placed upon the Senate by our Constitution. Further, it subjects the citizens of the United States to the increasing reach of global governance by the United Nations.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.