How the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Could Hurt You

Say NO to the TPP

The TPP is billed as a “free-trade” agreement between the United States government (representing the interest of the large corporations who have bought it) and 11 countries – Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.

Here is the only question you need to ask yourself – if trade were allowed to be free amongst individuals, companies, and other individuals and companies – why would you need an agreement?

Free trade, in its simplest form, means that people are free to trade with other people.  You don’t need an agreement, or a pact, because people are free to do what they want, and individuals and the market will respond accordingly. That is what “free” means.  If there is nothing stopping someone – they are free.

However, the TPP could very well end the freedom of individuals to both trade freely with other individuals, as well as have their individual rights eroded.

The agreement would allow food products from other countries into our nation’s food supply as long as the exporting country says they are ‘safe’.  This is a grave danger to the health and well-being of America’s citizens who enjoy the ability to consume foods that are extremely regulated in comparison to other countries, especially when it comes to the use of toxic pesticides and monitoring of heavy metals. Food labels could actually be considered a “trade barrier“, and the TPP would rather allow products to flow “freely” without allowing people to know where exactly their food is coming from.  And of course, I believe, that consumers deserve to make an informed decision of whether or not they want to eat a product – and the country of origin is certainly part of that decision.

Small companies and producers never benefit from such large, over-reaching agreements.  Only gigantic multi-national corporations, who purchase our representatives in Washington, need this type of blanket agreement with other governments – to preserve their trade.

The smoking gun here is that our government, that promised un-compromised transparency, will not allow us to see the actual text of the TPP agreement.  However, Wikileaks has a portion of this document available here.

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won’t speak to this issue, as another smoking gun, that the TPP is latent with corruption and does not deserve the support of our representatives.  We hope you will make an informed decision about who should represent you in 2016, and consider “cleaning your house” as a precaution.

– Tisha Casida



We must get new, fresh faces in Congress.  The representatives who are there now have been there TOO LONG and are corrupted.  The Rebellion Rule is simple – two terms, and you’re done.  No matter how good or bad a job they do and no matter what party you normally support, vote out anyone after their second term.  This is effective and the quickest way to get the attention of either party so that they produce better candidates and better policies.  Entrenchment equals corruption and two terms isn’t enough time for the special interests to entrench a party or elected official.

This is the quickest way to actually grab ahold of your freedom before it’s gone.

It is too late to infiltrate or change the corrupt two-party strangle hold.  You will never be able to win when you follow the rules of people who can change those rules at any time to stop you.

Voting out these politicians after two terms benefits our country because it creates unpredictable outcomes.  Some would say this is not a benefit but will ‘harm the nation and its people’ (these are usually people who make their living from being a sycophant in either of the corrupted parties).  Let’s face it, the corrupt people and parties in place today already harm the nation… they have a track record of failure and anything is better than letting those traitors continue to rule us.  A peaceful rebellion is our next option.  We must exercise this option before our current leaders impose rule or law that forces people to react in violent ways.  We advocate peaceful solutions even when our government provokes violence for their own power gain.

Clean your house this election!

Interview with Kevin Freeman, Author/Advisor for Economic Warfare


Tisha Casida interviews author Kevin Freeman about how individuals and States (using States’ Rights and the Tenth Amendment) can protect themselves from economic warfare and economic terrorism.  The National Security Investment Consultant Institute (NSIC) can train and equip leaders and investment managers for how to protect their community and clients –  Refuse to be motivated by fear and take your life, your finances, and your property and wealth into your own hands.  If the federal level of government and Congress won’t act – let’s have our States and our own families DO SOMETHING about protecting our money from economic warfare and terrorism!

Interview with Joel Salatin, Farmer & Author



I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms – one of the most well-spoken and actionable people in our country taking a stand against the bad uses of government force.  His book “Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal – War Stories from the Local Food Front”, has been a hit with the public, and his bio-dynamic farm in Virginia has been featured in Smithsonian Magazine and National Geographic.  You can listen or download the interview here, or watch the interview on Youtube here!

What is the Non-Aggression Principle?


– Tisha Casida

Most of us have grown up with some type of moral or ethical code that guides our decision-making.  One of these well-known mantras of good behavior is “The Golden Rule”, also known as the “ethic of reciprocity”.  I am paraphrasing here: ‘Treat others as you would like to be treated’ or ‘Don’t treat others as you would not like to be treated’.

This is a way for most people, historically, to make judgements about good and bad behavior.  As the human race, most of us enjoy or dislike similar things.  We enjoy having an ability to act freely, and we dislike being detained or made slaves.  We enjoy accumulating forms of property and wealth, and we dislike having our things taken away from us.

As a member of the so-called “Millenial” generation that is watching our country move in various directions politically, economically, and socially, it reminds me of the importance of embracing a moral and ethical code in decision-making, especially when it comes to government action and the use of our country’s resources to be a “player” on the global economic stage.

The Non-Aggression Principle is another maxim, like the Golden Rule, that projects that one should not use aggression against another human being unless it is in self-defense.  Simple enough, right?  Why would I be aggressive towards another person, unless that other person is trying to harm me?  Well, unfortunately, with the bureaucracy we face as individuals, entrepreneurs, small-business owners, farmers, producers, etc., it is easy to get caught up in the aggression and use of force by government – and this aggression towards us – may be a bad and dangerous use of force.

Let’s take the example of federal income taxes.  Income taxes, specifically at the federal level of government, are a way for the federal government to tax your labor (arguably your property), and then use this money to fund various pet projects – many times and most often not directly benefiting the person being taxed.  If someone doesn’t pay their federal income taxes, they can be fined or jailed.  The government uses force and aggression to collect these taxes in the name of “the greater good and general welfare”.  However, since around only half of Americans pay federal income taxes, this leaves a greater burden on those who are working and paying for the “general welfare” of all people (and corporations) in the United States.

Government can use force and aggression to extort money from individuals who have committed a “crime” with no victim.  Is this a good and beneficial use of aggression and force?  Using the non-aggression principle, one would come to the conclusion that if the taxpayer is not outwardly hurting others by paying taxes and fees levied in their own State instead of giving their hard-earned money to the federal government (which can then take those funds and use them for other States, for creating and perpetuating wars, and to fund a Health Care system that is generally not any more affordable or transparent than the mess we have now), that they should not be hurt for their actions.  I am not saying you shouldn’t pay taxes – I am saying, why aren’t we paying taxes to our State instead of the federal government?  Wouldn’t this be a more efficient and effective use of our money – keeping it closer to home, where there is more transparency and accountability for what is done with this money?

Have you seen uses of force and aggression by government agencies on people who have not been aggressive or forceful to the government?  If I am a soap-maker, and I want to sell my soap with eucalyptus oil and call it “Breathe Better”, is it right and just that I could be attacked by the Food and Drug Association (FDA) for making this claim?  Is it right and just that I have to follow the same rules and regulations that Pfizer has to follow in bringing a drug to market?  Is it a good use of force to have government agencies aggressing individuals, entrepreneurs, small business owners, farmers, ranchers, and producers with these requirements that then stymie and crush the ability of people to be free in what they produce and what they bring to market?

I believe that there is a time and place for the use of aggression and force by the government.  However, I think that most of what the federal government is doing, through these agencies that purport to “protect” the American public, actually hurts the ability of people to be healthy, to be creative, and to be free.  This use of aggression and force by the government goes against the non-aggression principle.  If I am not hurting anyone with the tomato that I grow, the soap I make, the cookie that I bake – then why on earth would anyone try and hurt me?  Especially my government that I fund as a taxpayer and give permission to – to create our infrastructure, engage in defense, and administer a justice system.

I urge you to take a look at the ideas of the non-aggression principle, and how using this for decision-making could change the way we allow our government to use aggression and force on us, as well as on other countries.  I believe in peace, and I believe that using this as a model, we can make more sustainable decisions about how we operate as communities and States in America.

This article was published in the 2015 New Year Edition of That’s Natural! You can view and purchase a subscription at


Big or small, we’ve got a solution when you need it. Our advanced service and support tools provide step-by-stepinstructions without being put on hold or waiting in line.