Ted Cruz Supports Gutting of American Soverignty Through TPP


TPP Agreement Supported by Ted Cruz

The agreement was authored by GOP Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis), who is as establishment and big business as they come. Ted Cruz joined in on the proposal for fast-track authority, and any time an agreement needs to be rushed through, it is certain that the objective is to get it accepted before the public knows what is really contained in it. There are key aspects that should make this an agreement that never sees the light of day.

The dynamic duo start by asserting that the U.S. must “strengthen the country’s bargaining position” by giving President Obama fast-track powers. Really? The GOP Congress thinks it is vital to our national interest to expand the powers in Obama’s hands? And, what exactly “strengthens” our bargaining power? So the only way to win a deal is by convincing foreign governments that the U.S. Congress will be limited in what it can say on the matter? Are we to tell the world that the people and their elected representatives will be sidelined so a “deal” can be done?

Next, Ryan and Cruz assert that the American worker has been placed at a terrible disadvantage to workers in the rest of the world and that we have to give Obama more power in order to address this serious problem. But, of course, nowhere is there a mention of the fact that a big part of that “disadvantage” is currency manipulation and other financial gimmicks — issues that are expressly kept out of the trade deal. I guess nobody told these gentlemen that the primary weapon being used against American workers and business is not going to be discussed. Had they been allowed to read and review the so-called deal — the Trans-Pacific Partnership — they might have known that. But sadly, the Obama administration has kept the “deal” under lock and key — virtually nobody has been allowed to view it.

Additionally, there are three more elements that should make Congress just say no.

First, it asserted that there will be 150 “specific negotiating objectives.” Sounds good, except these objectives are nothing more than suggestions. If Obama comes back with a treaty and none of these “objectives” are included, there is no effect. The treaty will still get the up-or-down vote. No amendments will be allowed to be offered. No two-thirds ratification vote in the Senate will occur. And of course, at that point, all the special interests — having been fed their fill — will demand passage. Are we to believe that Ryan and Cruz will vote against the treaty if the 150 “objectives” are not included? If that is the case, why do they not say so?

Second, it is asserted that the administration would be required to “consult” with Congress over the course of final negotiations. This is the “kissing your sister” argument — no meaning and slightly discomforting.

Finally, it is claimed that giving Obama more power will enhance the power of Congress and thereby the American people. This is simply a lie. Under the authority Ryan and Cruz want to give the administration, the powers given Congress under the Constitution are suspended. No amendments are allowed. U.S. law will be subjugated to a treaty that can be passed by a simple majority in the two houses. Hollywood and Wall Street will get what they want and the American taxpayers will be given the bill. So, gentlemen, how are the American people protected by suspending the Constitution? Is this the 2016 GOP platform — gather votes signing praises of the Constitution while moving to undercut and suspend it at will?

Is there any question why the public is just disgusted and done with politicians of all stripes?  No one is looking out for the American public, and it seems that even anti-establishmantarian Cruz is just making his claim of going against the mainstream Republicanism as a positioning tool rather than offering real change. The question is, where to go from here? So the search for a real patriot continues, and it may simply be the impossible quest.

Source: thehill.com

Yes, Cruz initially opposed this deal, but pulled a typical flip-flop:

One of the more consequential policy shifts involved Mr. Cruz’s position on trade policy. He had been a vocal supporter of free trade and of “fast track” legislation to expedite approval of international trade deals. But on the eve of a key Senate vote for the legislation in 2015, he changed his position. Critics said it was an opportunistic shift in the face of stiff opposition to the bill by tea-party activists and other conservatives he was courting for his presidential campaign. Mr. Cruz said he still supported free trade but did not trust President Barack Obama to negotiate a good deal.

Now, Mr. Cruz is finding his own use for the strategy of identifying flip-flops in others. He has been raising questions about whether Mr. Trump is as conservative as he says now that he is running in a GOP primary.

Source: Wall Street Journal



Share

269 Comments

    • Pat
  1. Jan Brazell

Leave a Reply

Pin It on Pinterest