Open Letter To President Donald J. Trump, Part 1 & 2

By J.W. Bryan  /  News With Views

Part 1

Dear Mr. President:

It appears to many of us that you don’t really know what some of the people in your administration are up to. I believe you are being ill-advised by those in your administration who have a totally different agenda.  The first lady mentioned in her interview from Africa that she did not trust everyone in the West Wing.  You said the same thing on Fox and Friends only a couple days later.

You have kept so many of your promises, and for that we’re very thankful. However, it seems as though you aren’t going to keep your promises concerning NAFTA, especially since you lost your rejection of Chapter 19. That portion of the revised NAFTA allows Canada, Mexico and the United States to challenge one another’s anti-dumping and countervailing duties in front of a panel of representatives from each country. Over the years, Canada has successfully used Chapter 19 to challenge the United States on its softwood lumber restrictions.

NAFTA v USMCA

Mr. President, you have told us for some time that you were going to renegotiate NAFTA to our benefit or you would pull out of it completely. Now that it has been renegotiated, it certainly is not to our benefit. In fact, the new version is even worse than the original.

The New American Magazine posted an article by Christian Gomez, entitled, “NEW NAFTA: Text of U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Sir, I am humbly asking you to read this very important article. It outlines the problems with the new agreement to replace NAFTA and Mr. Gomez definitely believes they are worse.  In fact, what I have read thus far leaves no doubt in my mind that he is right.

The proposed USMCA has been widely portrayed as a replacement for NAFTA, which supposedly will no longer exist. Yet an honest look at the new agreement shows that what will no longer exist is the highly unpopular NAFTA name. Not only does the USMCA retain sovereignty-diminishing provisions found in the NAFTA agreement, but it actually strengthens and expands them.

Let me present an example of one of the many absurdities I find in this proposal.

In a bold step toward a potential North American Union, The USMCA establishes a new governing international bureaucracy. Chapter 30 of the agreement establishes the creation of a Free Trade Commission as a regional governing bureaucracy overseeing various lower regional committees.

Beneath the Free Trade Commission, the USMCA authorizes all three countries to establish 16 subordinate committees and each committee will have a representative from each country; and the possibility exists that each of these committees will have someone in charge, like a chairperson. We have 16 x 3 equals 48 x 3, or maybe 4, this could mean that these 16 committees could have a staff of at least 144 and possibly 192, all of whom are unelected by the people.

Something else which surfaces out of all this conglomeration of committees and commissions and humongous amounts of staff…most likely, all these heads of the various commissions will be insiders who will be chosen by the hierarchy of the USMCA. That being the case, we can reasonably expect practically all these staff to work towards the unspoken objectives of the USMCA – the successful fruition of the NORTH AMERICAN UNION.

“The USMCA has a total of 34 chapters, 12 more than the original NAFTA, which had only 22 chapters. Unlike the 1994 NAFTA, the USMCA includes chapters on labor, environment, anticorruption, regulatory policy, competitiveness, and Mexico’s exclusive ownership of its gasoline and natural gas resources, among others.”

The last part of the above paragraph raises some very serious questions, two of which have been pointed out by Arthur Thompson, CEO of the John Birch Society…

1. Why is it necessary to spell out the fact that Mexico retains exclusive ownership of its gas and natural gas unless they are worried about international controls or an eventual North American merger?
2. Why Mexico and not Canada or the United States?

Mr. Thompson continues by stating that the first question one has to ask is why are socialist Canada and corrupt Mexico (led by a very pro-communist president) happy to sign this deal?

Because they are playing their part in aiding the agenda for the new world order, i.e., world government to use the trade agreement strategy to incrementally and gradually combine all of North and South America into one regional entity.  They would be happy to sign, for they know that the agenda’s plan is to successfully combine all separate nations into regional entities of their areas. Then they follow up with combining all regional entities into one global entity with global authority.

This is likely the reason Mexico chose to have it spelled out that it would retain exclusive ownership of its gas and natural gas. They could avoid sharing with the U.S. or Canada if the North American Union successfully comes to fruition as planned.

Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer

Why didn’t our trade representative, Mr. Lighthizer, get the same agreement for America? He simply could have had it entered into the text of the agreement affording America the exclusive ownership of all its mineral properties.

If Mr. Lighthizer is on our side and protecting our interests, surely that is something he would arrange for our benefit and protection, but he did not. This raises the question – is he on our side? No! Absolutely not. I say this because of where he comes from, who he is connected with, and their objectives.

What Lighthizer and others are up to is the destruction of the sovereignty of all nations and the amalgamation of all of them into one entity of global governance, i.e., the new world order, or one world government – Novus Ordo Seclorum (A new order of the ages).

Council on Foreign Relations

Mr. Lighthizer is a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and as such he would conduct his activities to bring to fruition the goals and objectives of the CFR.

Mr. President, despite your great intelligence and ability to accomplish much of what others have tried and failed, it appears that you are unaware of the purposes, goals and objectives of the CFR.

The CFR came into existence in 1921. It was headed by John Foster Dulles who later became the U. S. Secretary of State.  The specific purpose of the organization is to change the United States so that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.

Curtis Dall, in his book, “FDR, My Exploited Father-in-law,” said in reference to the CFR, and I paraphrase, “I was there in 1939 when these men with their attaché cases descended upon Washington; I could have had my place at that table (here he gives the address of the Pratt House which was headquarters of the CFR) but first I had to consider loyalty to my country and therefore I had to decline.”

There were prior actions by the forces which brought about the birth of the CFR. Around 1917, during the Russian Revolution, Alexandria Kerensky successfully deposed the Tsar and was in the process of setting up and putting into action a reform movement, when the powers behind the scenes in America smuggled Lenin and a large quantity of gold into Russia which was used to take control of the revolution and place it in the hands of the Bolsheviks.

This is how Russia became a part of the agenda for world government. The reason for it is very simple.  In order to move America away from its position at that time, which I will call the Thesis, to a diametrical one, there was a need for a nation that represented the diametrical position, or the Antithesis, which would be the arch enemy of America. Through manipulation of our foreign policy by members of the CFR for over a century, and through the application of dialectical strategies, the United States is almost at the point where it could be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union, and thus with the remainder of the world.  This is the resulting synthesis they are working toward.

American Sovereignty

Mr. President, the one thing we have to keep in mind is that we can recover from a lack of jobs and a bad economy – as the recent surge in our economy after your election proves. But what we cannot recover from is the loss of our sovereignty!

You really had the globalists worried in your recent speech before the United Nations, and especially when you declared that,” We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy. America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.”

What a wonderful statement, and it did my heart good to know that we had a President who would make such a declaration. But then either knowingly or otherwise you erased everything you said prior to that; when you stated, “The United States is committed to making the United Nations more effective.”

No, Mr. President, a “more effective” United Nations would be better able to undermine the sovereignty of our nation and all nations which is their goal. They were brought into existence specifically for this reason. Their main target is America for the national sovereignty of all other nations cannot be undermined as long as America remains sovereign. It gives me great pain Sir, to have to tell you that you have contradicted yourself by first telling the UN and the world that America intends to remain a sovereign entity and then claiming a ‘more effective’ UN is your goal. That amounts to a gigantic turn-around. The UN is the world’s greatest enemy of national sovereignty and a more effective UN would jeopardize the very sovereignty you have so greatly defended.

Conclusion

This so-called great trade deal, the USMCA, is part of and plays into the goals of the UN. And I’ll just be straight-up with you sir, there are no words to resort to, which completely conveys the depth of my contempt, scorn, revulsion, and loathing for those who promote, support and go along with this so-called “free trade” deal, or any other which threatens our national sovereignty.

Your advisors have, no doubt, set you up, Mr. President.  I expected as much when I learned something of the back-trail of Mr. Lighthizer.  Undoubtedly others are involved. One or more of your advisors recommended him to you, and surely some of them knew him and what he supported.

The ball is in your court Sir, if you let this deal come before Congress and the Senate it will in all probability be ratified which will begin the globalists’ process to bring to fruition the North American Union.  Another result will unfortunately be the failure of your reelection in 2020.

Don’t allow the globalists to make you out as one of their pawns in betraying America.  To hell with them…step up to the plate and do what is in your character to do.

© 2018 NWV – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail J.W. Bryan: [email protected]

https://newswithviews.com/open-letter-to-president-donald-j-trump-part-1/

Part 2

Dear Mr. President:

At the close of my personal letter to you, dated 11-25-18, I stated that I would be dealing with sustainable development along with other issues in my future article, “Open Letter to President Donald J. Trump, Part 2.”

The Dangerous USMCA

I stated that the revised NAFTA trade deal, the USMCA is a globalist trap; for it brings in the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) through the back door.  Now that you’ve signed this new trade deal, we have to hope that Congress will reject it.

There may be some parts of the agreement which are favorable as far as trade is concerned, but that is just a small part of the multiple-page document.   It establishes supranational governing bodies that have ultimate authority over many aspects besides trade.  It becomes a regional government and is open ended in order to include other countries, forming an even larger regional government just as was done in Europe.

Mr. President, if you only concentrated on the trade aspects and trusted your team with the rest of it, you may not be aware of the pitfalls.

According to a recent article in Canada Free Press, USMCA contains a new chapter (24) on environment which was not in the NAFTA agreement. The three parties recognize sustainable development (SD), the lynchpin of United Nations Agenda 21, now morphed into UN 2030, as an essential ingredient without which trade cannot exist.

According to what is stated here, the three parties recognize and no doubt agree that any party that does not promote and advance sustainable development will not have the privilege to trade.

Mr. President I believe that our Trade Representative, Mr. Lighthizer, and those involved with him, must have either been asleep or failed to pay attention to what was going on. Could it be that he and others were completely in favor of advancing sustainable development? I believe this is what has occurred. As we saw in the last stages of the renegotiation of NAFTA, it was apparent Lighthizer was not on America’s side.

For example, when you sent a directive to eliminate Chapter 19 in its entirety, your directive “disappeared” because so many others wanted to retain that portion.  And then, there’s the fact that Lighthizer is a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the intent of which from its inception in 1921 was and is to gradually and incrementally change the United States so that it can be merged with other nations into a world government. That being the case, it is reasonable to expect him to be about the business and goals of the organization of which he is a member.

As for a member of the trade entity losing its privilege to trade for not promoting sustainable development, just think of the trouble this will cause. Let’s suppose that one of the parties is not too enamored with having to force the sustainable development onto their people; but recognizes that if there isn’t at least a show of complying, it will result in no trade.

It is apparent that the parties to the agreement are caught in a pincers-like trap between the people and the authorities of the Trade Commission.  If they fail to advance sustainable development, they will be denied the privilege to trade.

The purpose for joining with the other parties was to bring about more trade, more opportunities for more jobs – in short, for a better life for business and the people; but all this is headed in the opposite direction. What’s going on here?

The United Nations is using trade as the bait to suck all nations into one global entity of complete economic, cultural and political control, i.e., the New World Order, or Global Governance. And to implement this on-going plan, the UN is using local change strategies such as Agenda 21 to introduce and incrementally facilitate change through state and local governments which will bring a mind-set more favorable to global governance.

Agenda 21 Connection

It is difficult to define the connection of Sustainable Development and Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a part of Sustainable Development, and is the vehicle which advances sustainable development.

Let’s take a look at some of the people behind all this activity, as well as what they propose and endorse.

William F. Jasper, editor of the New American Magazine attended the 1992 Earth Summit, known officially as the United Nations Conference on environmental Development (UNCED), the eco-confab in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  It was unprecedented in size and scope, bringing together some 35,000 government officials, diplomats, NGO activists, and journalists. According to Jasper, Rio became the launch pad for a number of huge initiatives that have been gradually gaining force and wreaking havoc on the planet in intervening decades; one of the main documents to come out of UNCED process was Agenda 21.

The ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) web page states that its Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Programme is “designed to aid local governments in implementing Chapter 28 of Agenda 21,” the global action plan for sustainable development.

ICLEI’s website informs us:

The Council was established when more than 200 local governments from 43 countries convened at our inaugural conference, The World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York.

ICLEI’s website notes that in 2003 it changed its name “ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability,” no doubt to place more emphasis on the “local” and to diminish concerns about its “international” influence and its political and financial ties to the United Nations. ICLEI and other UN-affiliated NGOs and government officials have come under increasing suspicion in recent years from American citizens, and have taken to camouflaging their UN-driven environmental agendas, even to the point of denying obvious and easily documented connections. On its web page entitled “ICLEI Connecting Leaders,” ICLEI explains some of its networking strategies. They include:

Connect cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies. ICLEI represents local governments at the United Nations (UN) Commission on Sustainable Development, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Conventions on Biodiversity and Combating Desertification and cooperates with the UN Environment Programme and UN-HABITAT.

“That seems pretty clear: ICLEI’s mission is to “connect” local governments to the UN and its affiliates. It goes on: “

Mobilize local governments to help their countries implement multilateral environmental agreements such as the Rio conventions through Cities for Climate, Protection, and Local Action for Biodiversity and other initiatives.

Again, fairly straightforward: Get the locals to lobby and pressure the national government to hop on board the global programs that will transfer more money, authority, and power to the UN. ICLEI continues:

Forge multi-stakeholder partnerships such as Resilient Cities, a global framework on urban resilience and climate adaptation where local governments, international agencies, development banks, ministries, institutions, and others collaborate.

Translation: bribe, entice, seduce, flatter local officials, NGOs, and corporations to join the green lobby.

According to William F. Jasper, in the New American Magazines article, “Your Hometown & the United Nations’ AGENDA 21,” although the Climate Change Convention has dominated the media headlines and political landscape for many years, Agenda 21 is even more far-reaching and dangerous.  Jasper points out that the alarmists declare that desperate measures are necessary to “save” Mother Earth, and only a comprehensive, global plan will do. He admits that UN Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global. It proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains – in short, everything.  There is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21.

According to the report. The most accessible of Agenda 21 to come out following the Rio summit was published under the title Agenda 21: “The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet,” edited by environmental-activist attorney Daniel Sitarz, and enthusiastically endorsed by now deceased Earth Summit chief Maurice Strong. The book is instructive for demonstrating the completely alien mindset that holds sway in so many influential political, academic, and media circles. Sitarz’s edition provides a powerful, albeit unintended, indictment of the UN agreement by offering this candid appraisal of the plan’s totalitarian ambition. Incredibly, Sitarz admits with apparent approval that:

Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which is intended to be implemented by every person on Earth…. It calls for specific changes in the activities of all people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that concern for environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.

One might ask, what does all this have to do with the renegotiated NAFTA – the USMCA? If the USMCA is ratified it will bring in by the back-door the UN Law of the Sea Treaty that will not only aid in implementing much of what is planned in Sustained Development through Agenda 21, but so much more. However, even if there wasn’t anything else to avoid, what is imbedded in this one Chapter 24 is more than enough to outright reject this USMCA trade deal.

And that, Mr. President is what you should do. You shouldn’t even let it come to a vote. I’m sure you intended that it be renegotiated to a positive result – positive to Americans sense of values. Of course, as we now see this hasn’t been done. But if it is allowed to come before Congress and the Senate it will probably be ratified. There are many legislators who are supposedly on our-side, but too many who are not.

As I said in my “Open Letter to you, part 1,” the ball is in your court. Mr. President, millions of Americans are hoping you will step up to the plate and do the right thing – pull completely out of it.

If you choose not to, let’s look at the consequences, it will mean that you will have broken your promise. And that is most likely to result in about 30 percent of your supporters staying home in 2020. And I hate to even think about the consequences.

I’m not finished yet, Mr. President, but I’ll have to take that up in Part 3.

© 2018 JW Bryan – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail J.W. Bryan: [email protected]

https://newswithviews.com/open-letter-to-president-donald-j-trump-part-2/

Read more great articles here: https://newswithviews.com

J.W. Bryan was born in 1927 and spent five years in the Marines, from 1945 – 1951. He worked at International Paper Company for 31 years as paper machine worker, and later in quality control. He is a Lifetime member of the John Birch Society, having joined in 1961. After retirement from International Paper, he and his wife Polly worked several years as house parents in children’s homes, both in Virginia and Mississippi, 1991 – 2008. They now reside in the country out of West Monroe, La. where he produces peaches, watermelons and vegetables. He has spent his life fighting to keep our Constitutional Republic