ELECTION 2016

'PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD'? NO, THANKS!

Exclusive: Curtis Ellis explains how globalist agenda crumbles under Trump

UNITED NATIONS – Events and data points that make little sense considered separately can only be understood when considered together.

Hillary Clinton says she dreams of “a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.” The world’s best-known common market, the European Union, was founded on the free flow of people, goods and capital.

President Obama says his administration’s “trade” policy is not signing bilateral deals between sovereign nations, but constructing “platforms that other nations can join over time.”

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stood next to Obama in the Rose Garden and said the Trans-Pacific Partnership will allow “people, goods and money to flow freely” throughout the region.

George Soros wrote in 1998, “The sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.”

Thirty-one years earlier, the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress was told the future of our government’s foreign trade policy required the “erosion” of national sovereignty in order to facilitate the smooth functioning of multinational corporations that are American-in-name-only.

Obama never tires of telling us we live and work not in a nation, but in a global economy. He is echoing what Bill Clinton told the Yale graduating class in 2010 when he said that interdependent individual nations was not good enough: “The great mission of the 21st century world is to make it a genuine global community. To move from mere interdependence to integration.”

Taken together, we can see that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is far more than a so-called “free trade” agreement – it is the cornerstone for the ‘open borders, open trade’ common market Hillary Clinton and her fellow globalists believe in and pursue so fervently.

The larger picture explains our government’s decades-long record of so-called free trade deals that, one after another, have moved more jobs overseas and increased our trade deficits despite promised job growth in America.

The federal government’s International Trade Commission uses the “Computational General Equilibrium” (CGE) economic forecasting model to predict rosy outcomes for these trade deals.

First, the CGE model assumes the unemployment rate stays at or below 4 percent for 15 consecutive years following the adoption of the trade deal. Thus, if Ford moves its small-car production from Michigan to Mexico, it assumes thousands of laid off American workers instantaneously find work elsewhere.

Second, and most absurdly, the model assumes our trade deficit will not change from its current level. Since NAFTA went into effect in 1993, the deficit with Mexico has risen from near zero to $60 billion. Since China joined the WTO in 2001, the China deficit in goods has risen nearly ten-fold annually, from $83 billion to $367 billion.

On first blush, the model’s deeply flawed assumptions seem indefensible.

But once we understand the purpose of these agreements is to further the “global economy,” not the national economy of the United States, it all makes sense. The model’s assumptions are a feature, not a bug.

There are no trade deficits in the economic model – because there are no nations to have deficits or surpluses in trading accounts.

Likewise, if someone in Hanoi takes the job that used to be done by someone in Rockport, Maine, there is no increase in unemployment – in the global economy.

Workers in Michigan, Pennsylvania or Maine whose jobs were sent to some remote corner of the globe can find cold comfort in knowing that Yale alumni, now populating the upper reaches of the Washington policymaking apparatus, have fulfilled Bill Clinton’s directive to them: “Bring economic opportunity to the 50 percent of the globe’s population which lives on $2 a day or less.”

It is time to see the radical globalization project pursued by the academic, corporate and political elites for what it is: national suicide.

It is time to elect someone who will be president of the United States, not president of the world.

His name is Donald Trump.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/president-of-the-world-no-thanks/#ZiZob9k0IQRCwHQs.99