sábado, 13 de junho de 2015

The Two Contending Visions of World Government

The Origin Broader Context of Obama’s ‘Trade’ Deals

Eric Zuesse

U.S. President Barack Obama’s due ‘Trade’ deals are indeed about possibly a universe is streamer toward a compulsory universe supervision — a persecution by the hundred or so tellurian super-rich who reason a last blocks of batch in a world’s largest ubiquitous corporations — or else toward a authorized universe government, that will be a tellurian association of giveaway and eccentric states, many like a United States was during a founding, nonetheless tellurian in extent. These are dual conflicting visions of universe government; and Obama is clearly on a side of fascism, an ubiquitous mega-corporate dictatorship, as will be documented here in a links, and explained in a discussion.

Also as a rough to a row here is a bargain that if Obama wins Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, afterwards all of his ‘trade’ deals will be authorized by Congress, and that if he fails to accept this Authority, afterwards zero of them will.

“Fast Track,” as will be explained in abyss here, is, indeed, a “open Sesame” for Obama, on a whole matter. Without it, his deals don’t mount even a probability of passage.

I formerly wrote about given it’s a box that “‘Fast Track’ Violates a U.S. Constitution.” The sum of a box are presented there; but, to promulgate it here: “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority,” that was introduced by a majestic President Richard M. Nixon in a Trade Act of 1974, violates a U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause — a proviso that says “The President … shall have power, by and with a advice and agree of a Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of a Senators benefaction concur.” (In other words: otherwise, a President doesn’t have that power, a President can't “make treaties.” Nixon wanted to make treaties nonetheless his wanting to have two-thirds of a Senate opinion “Yea” on them.) Fast Track abolishes that two-thirds requirement and replaces it by a requirement such as for normal laws, of usually a infancy of a Senate approving, 50%(+1, that would be Vice President Joe Biden, so all that will indeed be indispensable would be usually that 50%).

What follows here will continue from that case, by providing a story of a Constitution’s Treaty Clause, and of a complicated movement, during a Twentieth Century, for a legislative overthrow, something (the legislated overpower of a sustenance that’s in a Constitution) that in-itself is prohibited by a U.S. Constitution — an Amendment, or else a Constitutional convention, is instead required, in sequence to overpower any sustenance of a U.S. Constitution) — nonetheless that a Trade Act of 1974 says can be finished by means of a tiny “Legislative-Executive Agreement,” to carve out an difference to a Constitution’s Treaty Clause (“The President … shall have power, by and with a advice and agree of a Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of a Senators benefaction concur.”), whenever a President and 50%+1 members of a Senate confirm to do so.

Every formalized ubiquitous agreement, including agreements about “trade,” is a covenant and therefore it falls underneath this two-thirds rule. Furthermore, until 1974, any commonwealth in a world, including a United States, ostensible and did not plea a perspective that any ubiquitous agreement is a treaty, and that any covenant is an ubiquitous agreement. In fact, even right adult to a benefaction day, any compendium continues to conclude “treaty” as “an ubiquitous agreement.” An ubiquitous agreement is a treaty, and a covenant is an ubiquitous agreement. Throughout a world, usually in a United States starting prolonged after a Constitution was written, “treaty” = “international agreement.” It was always utterly simple, until recently. However, after a Trade Act of 1974, starting in 1979, 5 such treaties have been set by a President and a Senate’s Majority Leader on “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority” underneath a Trade Act of 1974, that sustenance of that law requires usually 50%+1 Senators to opinion “Yea” in sequence for a due covenant to be means to turn U.S. law. The doubt is possibly that’s Constitutional.


America’s Founders instituted this Constitutional treaty-requirement, for any covenant to win two-thirds of a Senators instead of a tiny infancy (50%+1) that’s compulsory for flitting normal laws (such as a Trade Act of 1974 itself is), given a Founders famous that an ubiquitous agreement can't be dismantled by simply flitting a new law that reverses it. An ubiquitous agreement — that is to contend a covenant — can't be dismantled unless all nations that are parties to it are pacific to change it in a proceed that will concede one of a signatories to skip from that group. Each signatory had sealed it partly given a others did. There are during slightest dual sides to any “agreement,” including to any ubiquitous agreement or “treaty.” The member-nations are so an unique partial of a agreement (or “treaty”) itself (unlike a box with any normal, merely national, law), and so a agreement itself is altered whenever one of them departs from it. This fact distinguishes any covenant from any unchanging law — that can be cancelled during will by a singular commonwealth that passes it, given that commonwealth is a usually celebration to it.

America’s Founders were wise, and were unusually schooled about history; and a U.S. Constitution embodies this knowledge and learning; a Treaty Clause’s two-thirds requirement exemplifies that. It is a essential partial of their integrity to forestall any President from carrying too many energy — from apropos a tyrant (something that becomes even worse if a tyrant has rammed by not usually tiny laws, nonetheless also treaties, given those are distant harder to undo). For example: it was dictated to retard any President from origination a covenant with a unfamiliar commonwealth if that covenant would be so bad that he couldn’t get two-thirds of a U.S. Senate to support it. (That’s tough, nonetheless a covenant is distant some-more formidable than any other law is to cancel; so, flitting it is flitting a law that’s substantially permanent and substantially unfit to modify.) And their knowledge is given a structure stays a world’s longest-lasting one.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote on 9 Jan 1796, fortifying a new Constitution, and generally a Treaty Clause: “I aver, that it was ostensible by all to be a vigilant of a sustenance [the Treaty Clause] to give to that energy a many plenty embodiment to describe it efficient to all a stipulations, that a exigencies of National Affairs competence require—competent to a origination of Treaties of Alliance, Treaties of Commerce, Treaties of Peace and any other category of Convention common among nations and efficient in a march of a practice to controul connect a legislative energy of Congress. And it was emphatically for this reason that it was so delicately guarded; a team-work of dual thirds of a Senate with a President being compulsory to make a Treaty. we interest for this with confidence.”

He went further: “It will not be doubtful that a difference ‘Treaties and alliances’ are of homogeneous import and of no larger force than a singular word Treaties. An fondness is usually a category of Treaty, a solitary of a general. And a energy of ‘entering into Treaties,’ that terms consult a management underneath that a former Government acted, will not be simulated to be stronger than a energy ‘to make Treaties,’ that are a terms forming a management underneath that a benefaction Government acts.” So: there can be no doubt that a tenure “treaty” refers to any and all forms of ubiquitous agreements. This was a Founders’ transparent and undeniable intent. No justice underneath this Constitution possesses any energy to change that, given they can’t change history.

Furthermore, George Washington’s famous Farewell Address asserted that, ”It is a loyal routine to drive transparent of permanent fondness with any apportionment of a unfamiliar world”; and a third President Thomas Jefferson pronounced in his equally famous Inaugural Address, that there should be “Peace, commerce, and honest loyalty with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” Jefferson’s criticism there was also a laconic tip-of-the-hat to nonetheless another vital regard that a Founders had per treaties — that by cultured in preference of a treaty-partners, they also distinguish against  non-partner nations, and so discredit “peace, commerce, and honest loyalty with all nations,” that was a Founders’ arch suspicion in their unfamiliar policies. But, a Founders’ arch regard was a tiny capitulation that treaties tend to be distant some-more “permanent” and “entangling” than any quite inhabitant laws. This was a categorical reason given treaties need to be finished many some-more formidable to become laws. Though this meditative was pervasive among a creators of America’s democracy (or people’s republic), America’s comparison subsequently targeted this dilution of a President’s treaty-making energy as being an snag toward their re-establishing a comparison that a American Revolution itself had dismissed and transposed by this people’s republic. And, a immeasurable probability for a comparison to revive a position around an majestic President, and so to extend their supervision over a shores, came roughly dual hundred years later.


In sequence to know given President Richard Nixon was means in 1974 to obtain a support of both of a then-solidly Democratic dual houses of Congress to pass into law a unConstitutional Fast-Track-initiating “Trade Act of 1974”, notwithstanding a then-ongoing investigations by Democrats per Nixon’s Watergate scandal, one contingency go behind indeed to a first meeting of a intensely sly comparison fascistic ubiquitous Bilderberg group, in 1954. Here from wikileaks is a 1955 standing news from Bilderbergs, on their early-stage results; and the man who wrote that news and hypocritically praised in it “the ultimate of authorized life” was indeed a ‘former’ Nazi, Prince Bernhard, who went all a proceed to his grave in 2004 as a champion of tellurian sequence by a American and European aristocracies. (The organisation was subsequently stretched by Bilderbergers David Rockefeller and a Polish noble Zbigniew Brzezinski to embody Japan in their Trilateral Commission.) Within usually 3 years, a 1957 membership of a classification became distant some-more American, distant reduction European, nonetheless David Rockefeller and his Wall Street crony George W. Ball were dual of a streamer members from a unequivocally start.

The Bilderberg organisation incited divided from a former Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s ubiquitous suspicion for a post-WW II universe (conceived in and with Rexford Guy Tugwell, FDR’s arch policy-advisor), that ubiquitous goal, building on an already-existing grassroots movement, and wholly visitor to a synthetic judgment of top-down elegant tellurian control that a Bilderbergs promote, had been instead a light healthy evolution, bottom-up, toward a authorized universe government: a tellurian connection of giveaway and eccentric states, not corporate during all nonetheless instead a United States of a World, in that a forms of majestic ubiquitous aggressions that a nazi powers had perpetrated and that constructed WW II would be undisguised banned, and this aggression-ban would be corroborated adult by an ubiquitous troops force that would have a appearance of any one of a world’s states. In other words: FDR’s co-conception, and his fast goal, was of a democratic emperor universe government, not of a nazi or any other compulsory and non-federal universe government. It envisioned an ubiquitous democracy, consisting of a world’s nations as a emperor units, even if some of those nations competence still be dictatorships, in that box a democracy during a emperor turn (and a vigour from a authorized nations of a world) would afterwards inspire any compulsory nations to change or rise in a instruction of democracy. This was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s hope. It was a reasonable one. And it was secure not usually in an existent grassroots American transformation nonetheless in a source of how destiny story could rise toward assent as naturally as possible, and with a smallest of command-and-control from a tip — no comparison in control. This was a prophesy that was wholly in gripping with a goals of America’s Founders. But it sought to extend  that prophesy to a ubiquitous sphere, in a complicated age. The judgment of a United States of a World was formed on that. And a U.N. was to be a initial step towards it.

Rex Tugwell was unequivocally active while training during a University of Chicago right after WW II, compelling authorized universe supervision as being pivotal to a investiture of assent on a some-more secure institutional basis. Thus, in 1946, Albert Einstein wrote an essay, “Toward a World Government,” that was published in his Out of My Later Years, (pp. 131-33), and it opened: “A examination we had with 3 students of a University of Chicago has finished a clever clarity on me.” He afterwards voiced his self-assurance that “A chairman or a commonwealth can be deliberate assent amatory usually if it is prepared to concede a troops force to a ubiquitous authorities and to forgo any try or even a means, of achieving a interests abroad by a use of force.” Einstein was specific: “This [world] supervision contingency be formed on a clearcut structure that is authorized by a governments and a nations and that gives it a solitary showing of descent weapons.” In other words: it contingency paint eventually a people who elect a leaders of a several nations of a world, not ubiquitous corporations, that answer instead to a families that reason a last blocks of batch in them. Einstein was anti-fascist, never pro-fascist. He was 100% in a FDR mold. He was 100% a democrat, small-“d”.

This evident post-WW-II prophesy of an ultimate universe supervision in a FDR authorized mold lasted unchallenged until Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (who chose Nixon as Vice President) came into bureau in 1953, and (now that FDR and his power-heir Truman were gone) America’s immeasurable ubiquitous corporations, and their tax-exempt foundations including think-tanks, started dire for a universe supervision in a Bilderberg mold, one that would be comprised instead generally of ubiquitous companies that would assistance figure and would turn theme to a same manners and laws and regulations in any and any ‘democratic’ republic — that is, in any and any non-communist country. International companies during a Cold War championed a suspicion of a bi-polar, capitalist-versus-communist, world, in that a ubiquitous companies would, themselves, eventually become a universe supervision on ‘our’ side, dictating not usually ubiquitous environmental rules, and ubiquitous product-safety rules, and ubiquitous labor-rules, and ubiquitous manners on banking and finance, nonetheless also ubiquitous manners on immigration and on a rights of refugees.

But, then, a Soviet Union and a communism ended, and nonetheless a nazi Bilderberg group’s bearing for globalized international-corporate control continued on, even after a Cold War’s end, as also did what became their troops extension, NATO — a ubiquitous corporations’ tellurian enforcement-arm. NATO continued on, even after a Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact left in 1991. NATO became, then, instead of an anti-communist alliance, an anti-Russian alliance, an fondness to conquer Russia. The majestic concentration continued; nonetheless it had underlain a ideological shimmer even during a early Cold War years. The 1955 outline by Prince Bernhard of a 1954 Bilderberg assembly mentioned that Article 2 of a 1949 initial request of NATO, a Atlantic Treaty, had been discussed there. That apportionment of NATO’s covenant said: “The Parties will … find to discharge dispute in their ubiquitous mercantile policies and will inspire mercantile partnership between any or all of them.” This was an early messenger of a aristocracy’s bearing for what finally became U.S. policy, a Trade Act of 1974. Bernhard’s outline also clinging an whole territory to “European Unity,” including passages such as:

A European orator voiced regard about a need to grasp a common currency, and indicated that in his perspective this indispensably useful a origination of a executive domestic authority. A participant, vocalization as a German industrialist, pronounced that, carrying fought for formation before, German courtesy was still dynamic to pursue a same purpose, nonetheless he voiced estimable doubt as to a organic proceed to formation by relocating from one mercantile zone to another. In his view, a common problems of differences in work standards and currencies and a several elements entering into a common marketplace contingency be brought nearer to relation as a condition of offer progress.

A vital bearing of a early Bilderberg meetings was to settle uniform economic, environmental, and labor, regulations, and a common currency, around Europe: this suspicion of transferring to an ultimate European Union a estimable apportionment of any Euronpean nation’s sovereignty, started being satisfied in a 1957 Treaty of Rome, nonetheless some facilities of a Bilderberg devise were enacted usually many later, such as a common currency, a euro, that began in 1999.

Another territory of a 1955 Bilderberg outline was patrician “Economic Problems,” and it opened: “A United States rapporteur, defining convertibility as a state of affairs in that there is a smallest of limitation on ubiquitous trade, believed that a good understanding of swell had been finished in that instruction given a war. … The boost in trade and wealth both in Europe and a United States, however, was due in no tiny partial to a stairs that had been taken to revoke restrictions on trade.” So: both a U.S. aristocracy, and a several European aristocracies, directed to send during slightest some of their sold nations’ supervision to supra-national treaties; nonetheless there was no row of how this was to be achieved — possibly around authorized processes, or by compulsory ones, or some reduction of a two.

Among a streamer members of a Bilderberg organisation given a pregnancy were David Rockefeller and George Ball. The latter was a initial chairman on a Democratic side of American politics who championed as an ideal an anti-democratic, pro-aristocratic universe government. Matt Stoller, on 20 Feb 2014, bannered, “NAFTA Origins, Part Two: The Architects of Free Trade Really Did Want a World Government of Corporations,” and he reported, from his investigate of a Congressional Record, that:

After a Kennedy turn [international-trade talks] ended [in 1967], magnanimous internationalists, including people like Chase CEO David Rockefeller and former Undersecretary of State George Ball, began dire for reductions in non-tariff barriers, that they viewed as a successive set of trade impediments to lift down. Ball was an designer of 1960s U.S. trade routine — he helped write a Trade Act of 1962, that set a theatre for what eventually became a World Trade Organization.

But Ball’s suspicion behind removing absolved of these barriers wasn’t about giveaway trade, it was about reorganizing a universe so that companies could conduct resources for “the advantage of mankind”. It was a uncanny ideal prophesy that we can hear currently in a stream United States Trade Representative Michael Froman’s speeches. …

In a opening statement [by Ball to Congress in 1967], before a multitude of considerable Senators and Congressmen, Ball attacks a unequivocally suspicion of sovereignty. He goes after a suspicion that “business decisions” could be “frustrated by a multiplicity of opposite restrictions by comparatively tiny commonwealth states that are formed on prejudiced considerations,” and lauds a multinational house as a many ideal structure devised for a advantage of mankind.

As for David Rockefeller, he wrote in a 1 Feb 1999 Newsweek an letter “Looking for New Leadership,” in that he staid (p. 41) a widely quoted (though a rest of a essay is ignored): “In new years, there’s been a trend toward democracy and market economies. That has lessened a purpose of government, that is something business people tend to be in preference of. But a other side of a silver is that somebody has to take governments’ place, and business seems to me to be a judicious entity to do it.” (Of course, by “business” there, he’s referring usually to ubiquitous corporations, nonetheless he doesn’t contend that; he’s respectful adequate not to make it explicit.) This has been his clearest matter endorsing a presentation of a destiny universe supervision by ubiquitous corporations, that will possess a supervision aloft than that of any inhabitant government, that he says that he endorses given a alleviation of a purpose of authorized supervision “is something business people tend to be in preference of.” (Of course, those “business people” are usually a hundred or so who indeed control a vital ubiquitous corporations; they’re not mom-and-pop-type “business people”; nonetheless he’s respectful adequate not to make that explicit, either. The whole try is a con.)

This was a basement on that Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority was indeed ostensible by congressional Democrats in 1974. George Ball was a pivotal person, nonetheless he was comparison for this purpose given he could be paraded as being a ‘Democrat,’ so that support for a position would be ‘bi-partisan,’ not merely “Republican.”

After a finish of a Soviet Union and a Warsaw Pact, NATO became a troops arm of a hoped-for destiny no-longer bipolar universe — instead a monolithically uni-polar tellurian empire, that set out to conquer a former comrade nations (first by corrupting their transitions into capitalism, nonetheless afterwards increasingly by military means including NATO itself.) The ideological shimmer was now gone, nonetheless a purpose of tellurian mastery by a ubiquitous comparison didn’t go away. NATO became, distant some-more clearly, simply a troops arm of a tellurian aristocracy, whose mind is located in Washington as to politics, and in Wall Street as to finance. America’s comparison would so sequence Europe’s and Japan’s.

The U.S. aristocracy, and, to a obtuse extent, a European and Japanese aristocracies, within a Trilateral Commission that had been set adult by a Bilderbergers (especially underneath Bilderberger David Rockefeller), all continue their international-corporate aim for unitary corporate tellurian power, and for a abrasive of democracy within all of a member-nations. President Obama’s due ubiquitous treaties, a TPP, TTIP, and TISA, would reinstate inhabitant authorized laws and regulations per a environment, consumer protection, workers’ rights, and financier protection, by means of international-corporate control of those regulations, around panels of 3 ‘arbitrators,’ all of whom will be comparison by or differently gratified to a ubiquitous companies that are being regulated; and, if any commonwealth afterwards tries to sequence stronger laws to strengthen a open than those panels approve underneath a given treaty, that commonwealth will be fined by any house whose ‘rights,’ underneath these treaties (TPP, TTIP, and TISA), have been ruled by those panels to have been infringed by that violating nation. The simple suspicion is that a rights of a owners of a last blocks of batch in a ubiquitous companies take dominance over a rights of any tiny nation, or of a open in any commonwealth that participates in these immeasurable American-dominated ‘trade’ deals. (The underlying beliefs behind this is discussed in my 2015 book, Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.)

This new system, called “Investor State Dispute Resolution,” or ISDS, is usually usually starting to be employed and applied, from NAFTA and a few other such ubiquitous agreements that are already in force. The following is from a Congressional Research Service report (which is generally heavily inequitable in preference of ISDS), in that is described one of a biggest cases nonetheless that has been resolved by such panels:

A tribunal’s inability to change a laws or regulations of a United States directly does not meant that settlement awards can't be substantial. For example, in Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Ecuador, a judiciary systematic Ecuador to compensate Occidental $1,769,625,000—over 1 billion dollars—in damages.63 The judiciary rendered that award, that is one of a largest awards in favor of a petitioner underneath ISDS arbitration, after anticipating that Ecuador disregarded an investment agreement by expropriating Occidental’s skill in response to Occidental transferring some of its mercantile interests underneath an oil prolongation agreement in transgression of Ecuador law.64 Therefore, nonetheless a judiciary lacks management to change a U.S. supervision directly, some commentators believe that a probability for such immeasurable financial indemnification potentially could influence lawmakers and regulators when they cruise due laws or regulations that competence run afoul of IIA obligations.65

The arbitrators pronounced that a Ecuadorean laws, and even a Ecuadorean Constitution, were irrelevant, given Ecuador’s signing on to ISDS was their signing divided Ecuador’s supervision over these matters. Occidental sued and won opposite Ecuador’s enforcing Ecuador’s laws. Occidental’s stockholders won; Ecuador’s open lost. If this isn’t a warning to all successive signators to a covenant that has ISDS in it, zero is.

Another case pits a tobacco association Philip Morris opposite Uruguay. “Philip Morris is observant that a commission of warning labels that are compulsory on cigarette packs in Uruguay goes over what is reasonable to strengthen people from a damaging effects of smoking.” Perhaps Uruguay won’t have a income to competition a allegation, and will so be forced to discharge a requirement.

This is what a nazi instead of a authorized universe supervision is like. In a final years of Barack Obama’s U.S. Presidency, it’s what he turns out to be pulling with some-more energy than he has pushed anything before, even his “Obamacare.”

Andrew Gavin Marshall posted an essay on 16 Jun 2011 which supposing a remarkably well-documented story of a Bilderberg organisation and of their devise to succeed a sequence by inhabitant democracies, and to reinstate it with an ubiquitous supervision by a owners of a last blocks of batch in a world’s largest ubiquitous corporations. He records there that a immeasurable foundations and cruise tanks already paint a immeasurable ubiquitous corporations, and that they work as tax-exempt extensions of them. One chairman that he cites sums this adult well:

“Foundations like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford have a corrosive influence on a authorized society; they paint relatively unregulated and unaccountable concentrations of energy and wealth which buy talent, promote causes, and, in effect, settle an agenda of what merits society’s attention. They offer as “cooling-out” agencies, loitering and preventing some-more radical, constructional change. They assistance contend an economic and domestic order, ubiquitous in scope, that advantages the ruling-class interests of philanthropists and philanthropoids – a system which… has worked opposite a interests of minorities, the working class, and Third World peoples.”


As a good eccentric inquisitive publisher Wayne Madsen has reported, in depth, in his many articles, such as (and these are repostings of originals from Madsen’s subscription-only website) “Obama’s CIA Pedigree” and “Details suggested about Obama’s former CIA employer” and “The Story of Obama: All in The Company,” and in his 2012 book The Manufacturing of a President: The CIA’s Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House, Obama’s relatives and grandparents were in a compensate alternately of a U.S.-aristocracy-controlled CIA and of a U.S.-aristocracy-controlled Ford Foundation; and a trainer of Obama’s mom during a Ford Foundation was zero other than Peter Geithner, who was a father of Timothy Geithner, a Wall Street user who ran a U.S. Treasury Department in Obama’s initial tenure and who bailed out a investors in a megabanks while he refused to bail out a untaught and bad mortgagees they had suckered with extreme loans, and a grant supports and other outward investors in a feign ensuing ‘AAA’-rated Mortgage Backed Securities (MBSs, that a Federal Reserve is still shopping adult and transferring onto a backs of destiny U.S. taxpayers).

So, Obama was low into use to America’s aristocracy, ever given he was in college; and his relatives even lifted him with income from a CIA and a Ford Foundation. Furthermore, Obama’s initial practice was with a CIA front firm, Business International Corporation, in 1983 and 1984, nonetheless he competence have been recruited by a CIA even as early as around 1980. (Going behind even over than Madsen, some superb eccentric investigators, such as Joseph Cannon and a libertarian Robert Wenzel, were already exploring Obama’s CIA connectors within tiny months of his carrying won a U.S. Presidency in 2008. And, then, after Madsen, Andrew Krieg, in his 2013 blockbuster Presidential Puppetry, brought all of this together into a many broader, good documented, new story of a U.S. as being an oligarchic instead of a authorized nation.)

So: Obama represents (not usually in his policies, nonetheless even in his background) a U.S. comparison (or “oligarchs”), and he aspires to move to ultimate delight his predecessors’ dream, a dream of Bill Clinton, who did a largest before Fast-Track-approved treaty, NAFTA, and, before him, of Richard Nixon, who combined Fast Track (and before everything, a Bilderberg group): a suspicion of a nazi universe supervision designed in Washington and sealed by a aristocracies of a world’s countries that are debasing to a U.S. comparison — ’trade’ agreements that are indeed a signing-away of authorized inhabitant sovereignties to this U.S.-aristocracy-dominated tellurian international-corporate sovereign, that is both a covenant and a implementation. A world-government in a nazi style.

Other countries don’t have a U.S. Constitution’s two-thirds requirement to contend with; and, so, they don’t indispensably need to rape their constitutions in sequence to grasp this nazi better of their nation. Only a U.S. does; and this is a reason why, even a 5 ubiquitous treaties that were upheld around Fast Track are called, in any republic that sealed them, “treaty,” usually in a United States, where they are instead called (in settle with “Fast Track”) merely an “international trade agreement.”

On 20 Apr 2015, InfoWars headlined, “Is Jeb Bush Going to Bilderberg 2015?” and reported that:

Infowars correctly likely in 2007 that former Texas Gov. Rick Perry would run for boss in 2012 after roving to a Bilderberg conference in Istanbul, Turkey. Barack Obama also also reportedly visited a Bilderberg discussion usually before to apropos a presidential frontrunner after he “infamously left to a tip plcae with Hillary Clinton in Jun 2008 in Northern Virginia, during precisely the same time and plcae a Bilderberg Group were convening in Chantilly,” remarkable Infowars Paul Joseph Watson.

Basically, FDR’s post-WW-II bulletin was highjacked by a fascists opposite whom FDR had led this republic in sequence to better them; and, now, a Presidential possibilities are wanting to obtain a fascists’ approvals in sequence for them to be means to accept a campaign-funding that’s required in sequence to turn ‘a critical candidate.’

Consequently, any Democrat who says, like a Democratic user Michael Wessel did headlining in Politico on May 19th, “I’ve Read Obama’s Secret Trade Deal. Elizabeth Warren Is Right to Be Concerned,” that, “secretary [and she’s not ‘secretary,’ any some-more than she is ‘First Lady’] Clinton … should be commended … for lifting a note of caution” about Obama’s due trade-deals (Wessel is practically noticing there that she is perplexing to equivocate carrying to contend publicly that she supports Obama’s ‘trade’ deals, usually like she prolonged had avoided observant publicly that she had upheld her husband’s), is merely sucking her adult for a pursuit in her debate and/or in a White House (if she becomes President). Clinton is 100% solitary already, to a top bidders, usually like any sincerely Republican Presidential claimant is. Trusting her word on what her policies would be if she were to win, would be ridiculous, given she’s not scarcely as learned a liar as Obama and her father were, and she has a many lengthier career in open life than possibly of them did, and that career abundantly displays both her incompetency and her cravenousness. As a ‘servant of a people,’ she’d be a bad joke, not even a learned con-artist, such as her father and Obama were and are.

And, a usually people who support any one of a Republican possibilities are a 0.01% of them who are aristocrats, and a 99.99% of them who are their aristocrats’ suckers. And a usually people who support a apparently feign ‘Democratic’ presidential candidates, a ones who haven’t already finished transparent to a open their heated oppositon to a feign ‘Democrat’ Obama’s ‘trade’ deals (since they have no such heated antithesis to them) — possibilities such as Hillary Clinton are — are a Democratic Party’s mega-donor aristocrats, and their mass of suckers on a Democratic-Party side.

But that’s a proceed we get a income to be ‘a critical Presidential candidate’ in today’s America.

In other words: a start of a unConstitutional “Fast Track” is a fight opposite a open that a comparison (both a Republican and a Democratic wings of it) has been waging, and increasingly winning, given 1953.


In Jun 1954, Morris D. Forkosch headlined in Chicago-Kent Law Review, “Treaties and Executive Agreements,” and epitomised a standing of this emanate adult into a start of a Eisenhower Administration. It was a opposite commonwealth then. He noted: “Suppose, however, that a covenant conflicts with a sustenance of the United States Constitution or contradicts a terms of a federal statute. Which, then, governs? In a initial of these situations, a United States Supreme Court has indicated, notwithstanding the language is obiter, that a covenant would be ineffective.29” (His footnote included: “DeGeofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258 during 267, 10 S. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642 during 645 (1890), and Fort Leavenworth R. R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525 during 541, 5 S. Ct. 995, 29 L. Ed. 264 during 270 (1885).”) So: according to U.S. Supreme Court decisions adult compartment during slightest 1954, any one of a 5 Fast-Tracked ubiquitous trade agreements that has been upheld given a Fast-Track law, a Trade Act of 1974, was passed, would have been blocked by a Supreme Court, were it not for a Trade Act of 1974 — a tiny law that, supposedly, has altered a Constitution nonetheless amending it, nonetheless that did this simply by reporting that when a Founders pronounced “treaty” they weren’t referring to any and all forms of ubiquitous agreement — that they clearly were referring to, in their era. Obviously, a energy to appreciate a Constitution rests usually with a U.S. Supreme Court. And a Supreme Court is ostensible to appreciate a difference that are in a Constitution as closely as probable to a proceed a Founders who wrote it dictated those terms to be ostensible to mean. That’s usually basic, to any inherent democracy.

In Feb 2001, Michigan Law Review published John C. Yoo’s Jan 2000 article, “Laws as Treaties: The Constitutionality of Congressional-Executive Agreements,” in that Yoo, a counsel who subsequently supposing to George W. Bush a rationalisation for Bush’s authorisation to use woe after 9/11, argued that a two-thirds Senate sequence needs, for unsentimental purposes, to be nullified for certain forms of ubiquitous agreements, including for a 5 that had already been Fast-Tracked. Rather than his traffic with a doubt of possibly a Executive and a Legislative branches possess Constitutional management to appreciate a Constitution, he wrote there a evidence that he would benefaction to a Judicial branch, during a U.S. Supreme Court, if he were to be a attotney arguing there for a Constitutionality of Fast-Track. (Perhaps this paper was even one of a reasons given he was comparison by Bush.) His whole evidence was useful as he saw it, such as, this: “Today, however, a Senate has about fifty percent some-more members than a initial House of Representatives envisioned by a Constitution, suggesting that a Senate no longer has a tiny numbers that a Framers believed required for successful diplomacy.” This arrange of thing constituted his evidence for given treaties that don’t regard inhabitant confidence and so tumble underneath a President’s Commander-in-Chief authority, shouldn’t be deliberate to be “treaties,” nonetheless usually “Congressional-Executive Agreements.”

However, even Yoo noted, during a time, that a most-prominent erudite evidence in preference of a Constitutionality of Fast-Track, “Is NAFTA Constitutional?” by Bruce Ackerman and David Golove, in a Feb 1995 Harvard Law Review, was a “provocative and sold speculation of phonetic inherent amendments,” given Yoo didn’t have a haughtiness to demean, nonetheless usually to note, a essay in that same announcement by Laurence Tribe, that demolished a Ackerman-Golove article. In Dec 1998, Golove came onward in New York University Law Review, with a 152-page treatise, “Against Free-Form Formalism,” perplexing to overcome Tribe’s case. But, some-more recently, Michael Ramsey posted online his 13 Aug 2012 examination of all of that, “Laurence Tribe on Textualism (and Congressional-Executive Agreements),” where he devotes many of his courtesy to a dual strange pro-and-con articles in a 1995 HLR, and says that Tribe’s box was distant some-more impressive than Ackerman-Golove’s; and, then, he records incidentally nearby a end: “(David Golove creates an attempt, in a respond essay published during 73 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 1791 (1998), nonetheless we don’t cruise he creates many advance opposite them [Tribe’s ‘points’]).” Golove’s 152-page dissertation unsuccessful to stir anyone. Among a authorised scholars, it’s flattering many a staid matter.

Thus: a stream educational standing of a emanate is: The Supreme Court would have small choice nonetheless to overturn a Fast-Track sustenance of a Trade Act of 1974, if a matter were to be ostensible by a Court for adjudication, unless a high Court were pacific to be despised not usually by a open nonetheless generally by authorised scholars. If a Court were to decrease to cruise a case, afterwards it would be usurpation a management of a Executive bend in and with some members of a Legislative branch, to appreciate a definition of “treaty” in a U.S. Constitution — and, in a whole story of a United States, a Supreme Court has never finished that.

Well, in a sense, that’s not wholly correct: a 2001 appeals-court case, Made in a USA Foundation v. U.S., was a usually box to understanding with this issue, and it concluded, citing as a arch management a non-dispositive Supreme Court preference that was combined by Justice William H. Rehnquist, in a 1979 case Goldwater v. Carter, that pronounced that a certain movement that President Jimmy Carter had finished underneath both his covenant management and his Commander-in-Chief management could not be Constitutionally challenged by Senator Barry Goldwater. But that Supreme Court decision, that was a ostensible management for this, endangered not ubiquitous trade, nonetheless instead a President’s management as Commander-in-Chief, and so it wasn’t even a “trade” box during all; it wasn’t relevant, and so unequivocally shouldn’t have been cited, given it dealt with opposite Constitutional supplies per what does and what does not reside within a President’s management — namely, as Commander-in-Chief, and as a adjudicator on mutual-defense treaties. So, there wasn’t even a doubt in this matter as to possibly it endangered a “treaty.” On that trashy basis, a appeals justice said: “We nonetheless decrease to strech a merits of this solitary case, finding that with honour to ubiquitous blurb agreements such as NAFTA, a doubt of usually what constitutes a ‘treaty’ requiring Senate ratification presents a nonjusticiable domestic question.” It pronounced this even notwithstanding denying that a definition of a Constitutional tenure “treaty” should be dynamic by a Executive and a Legislative branches, instead of by a Judicial branch:

It is loyal that a Supreme Court has deserted arguments of nonjusticiability with honour to other obscure constitutional provisions. In Munoz-Flores, a Court was confronted with a doubt of whether a rapist supervision requiring courts to levy a financial “special assessment” on persons convicted of emperor misdemeanors was a “bill for raising revenue” according to a Origination Clause of a Constitution, Art. I, § 7, cl. 1, in annoy of a miss of superintendence on accurately what forms of legislation amount to bills “for lifting revenue.” The Court, in electing to confirm the issue on a merits, deserted a row that in a deficiency of clear guidance in a content of a Constitution, such a integrity should be considered a domestic question.

To be sure, a courts contingency rise standards for origination [such] determinations, nonetheless a Government suggests no reason that developing such standards will be some-more formidable in this context than in any other. Surely a legal complement able of last when punishment is “cruel and unusual,” when bail is “[e]xcessive,” when searches are “unreasonable,” and when congressional movement is “necessary and proper”  for executing an enumerated power, is able of origination the more boring judgments demanded by adjudication of Origination Clause challenges.

So: even that appeals justice was not observant that a Legislative and Executive branches, operative in concert, should establish what a “treaty” is and what it isn’t, nonetheless instead that justice validated a disdainful management of a Judicial bend to make such determinations. It simply refused to excercise a authority. Its evidence on this was:

We note that zero of these cases [the cited ones on a Supreme Court’s determinations per a meanings of specific terms and phrases in a Constitution], however, took place directly in a context of a nation’s unfamiliar policy, and in zero of them was a inherent authority of a President and Congress to conduct a outmost domestic and mercantile family implicated. In serve to a Constitution’s textual joining of such matters to a domestic branches, we believe, as discussed offer below, that in a area of unfamiliar relations, prudential considerations militate even some-more strongly in preference of judicial noninterference.

So, given didn’t those jurists even make note of a fact that their arch citation, Goldwater v. Carter, endangered troops instead of mercantile matters, and not a definition of “treaty,” during all? Stupidity, or else some distant ground — given no reason during all was cited by them.

Their preference sealed by saying: 

We note that no member of a Senate itself has asserted that body’s solitary privilege to sanction NAFTA (or, for that matter, other ubiquitous commercial agreements) by a two-thirds supermajority. In light of a Senate’s apparent capitulation in a procedures used to approve NAFTA, we trust this further counsels opposite legal involvement in a benefaction case.

This avowal totally abandoned that “the Senate’s apparent acquiescence” had occurred, and been measured, usually according to a 50%+1 Fast-Track standard, never according to a Constitution’s two-thirds standard. According to a Constitution’s standard, that was unsentimental nowhere in a routine along a highway toward capitulation of any of a 5 Fast-Tracked treaty-bills into law, a Senate never indeed ‘acquiesced in’ any of them. This justice was simply usurpation a Constitutional effect of that ‘acquiescence,’ so as to establish possibly or not it was Constitutionally valid. Circular logic — prejudice.

However, in sequence to support blockage of Fast Track for Obama’s due ‘trade’ treaties, it would severely assistance if one or some-more of a unequivocally outspoken opponents in a U.S. Senate, against Fast-Tracking these treaties — Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, and Harry Reid, for examples — would petition a Supreme Court to sequence on a Constitutionality of a sustenance in a Trade Act of 1974 that introduced Fast Track, and so on Fast Track’s extermination of a Constitution’s two-thirds rule. Perhaps a box competence turn patrician something like, “Warren v. United States,” where “Warren” stands for America’s public, and “United States” stands for America’s aristocracy.


What’s during interest here is zero reduction than possibly a destiny of a United States, and maybe even of a world, will be democracy, or else fascism. That’s a lot.

Obama, in his trade-deals, aims to cap a American aristocracy’s victory. If he wins all his trade-deals, afterwards a Obama Library and a other Obama-operations will turn huge with a billions pouring in, even as he’ll go down in story as maybe a misfortune President, substantially (due to those trade-agreements) worse even than George W. Bush, or Harding, or Buchanan, or Grant, and with a distant lengthier inauspicious outcome trailing after his Presidency, given those trade-deals will be unequivocally long-term catastrophes, that competence finish adult destroying a hopes for democracy, not usually internationally, nonetheless also nationally here in a U.S. The capitulation and ensuing philanthropy from America’s comparison doesn’t come cheap, these days.

The American comparison has spent billions for these deals given 1953, and now they direct their trillions on that investment. Obama aims to give them a orgasms of energy and income that they’ve been investing in, during many decades. This has been a extensive rape, and they’ll be unequivocally beholden to Obama if he delivers this consummate of it, to them — handing to them a world, as it were, on a golden platter, fetid from corruption, that is a sweetest smell they know, and that is by distant a many essential of all fragrances, in their nostrils, as they breathe it deep, and accept from it, this jolt, of perfect joy.

Alfred de Zayas is a U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable World Order, that is a U.N.’s central who speaks for a tellurian establishment per stream issues that are of regard to a feat of a U.N.’s initial objectives. A news in Britain’s Guardian on 4 May 2015, patrician “UN Calls for Suspension of TTIP Talks,” quoted him as observant that a reason given a U.S.-EU negotiations contingency be dangling is that, “We don’t wish a dystopian destiny in that companies and not democratically inaugurated governments call a shots.” But a ubiquitous aristocrats do wish that. De Zayas, a institutionalized orator for a prophesy of FDR and of RGT, spoke for a good on-going leaders who were committed to a better of fascism. However, Obama, a Clintons, all Republicans, and many of a care around a world, are now again within a nazi camp.

In a prolonged perspective of history, this matter is, on a tellurian level, a delay of WW II between democracy contra fascism; but, on a quite American inhabitant level, it is a delay of a American Revolutionary War between democracy and aristocracy. Either way, what had been suspicion to have been a wilful feat for democracy has incited out to have been not so wilful after all; and a aristocratic, fascistic, army have regrouped, and seem now to be streamer for victory. But, this time, if they win, it competence be final, given it truly would be a tellurian feat for a aristocracy, and a tellurian better for a open everywhere. This is what de Zayas warned of as “a dystopian destiny in that companies and not democratically inaugurated governments call a shots.”

This is a tellurian war, that has been waged given during slightest 1954, and Obama is aiming to negotiate a obey of FDR and a Allies who had won WW II. But they’d be surrendering to him. One competence call it “WW II, turn 2.” But it’s also “The American Counter-Revolution.” By eithername, it’s a same war, and a progressing victories for democracy are on a line, to be dynamic now, by a era — or, perhaps, usually by a aristocrats in a era (if those few people will be a winners). If they win it, afterwards what could a turn 3, or an American counter-counter-revolution, feasible be like — or would it be simply inconceivable? Or, perhaps, usually inconceivably violent? “All a world’s a prison” competence sound pacific for a aristocracy, who would be luxuriously outward those prison-walls in their possess gated compounds, and distant from reach of a explosions within; but, for a tellurian public, what would there be left to remove in a tellurian revolution? The comparison already possess roughly everything. (And here is another proceed of looking during this.) That’s not adequate for them, nonetheless maybe it will finally turn too many for everybody else. This form of “global warming” could so turn a tellurian conflagration, even before a environmental one destroys everything.

This is not biblical-doomsday stuff, during all. In fact, any doomsday that could indeed come, wouldn’t be during all mythological. Myths are designed to misinform people. Science is designed to surprise them. One won’t find out what a genuine threats are, by reading myths. Myths are made by a aristocracy, to control a public. Myths helped means today’s problems; they’re no resolution to a problems. They’re partial of a problems. Myths are propaganda. They do their jobs, for a deceivers, who beget them.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is a author, many recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of  Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

The Two Contending Visions of World Government

Jane Fonda boosts opposition to Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline

Jane Fonda Waffles

Jane Fonda Waffles

VANCOUVER — In 1970, Jane Fonda was arrested while marching with inland people during a function of Fort Lawton in Seattle, Wa.

Forty-five years later, a Academy Award-winning singer says she’s peaceful to be placed in shackles again while fortifying British Columbia’s seashore from oil tankers.

“I have a strike TV uncover now. If we get arrested it’ll move even some-more courtesy to a issue,” Fonda deadpanned in an talk with The Canadian Press. “I wish we get arrested.”

Fonda, now starring in a Netflix comedy “Grace and Frankie,” was in Vancouver on Saturday to pronounce during a Greenpeace rally. Protesters during a “Toast a Coast” eventuality were formulation to denote opposite oil sands development, tanker trade and Arctic drilling.

The devoted romantic pronounced she stands with internal First Nations who have against Kinder Morgan’s due Trans Mountain tube expansion, that would lay roughly 1,000 kilometres of new siren along an existent line from Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C.

If authorized by a National Energy Board, a plan would triple a pipeline’s bitumen-carrying ability to 890,000 barrels a day and boost a series of tankers in Burrard Inlet seven-fold.

“I don’t consider it’s going to happen,” pronounced Fonda. “What is only so relocating to me is that it’s First Nations people who are during a front lines of interlude a enlargement and interlude a pipelines.

“Of course, oil companies are still perplexing to pull them by and they will continue to try. First Nations people — with a whole lot of us station behind them and alongside them — are going to try to stop it and we consider we’re going to succeed.”

The 77-year-old star pronounced she was desirous by Canadian author Naomi Klein’s latest book, “This Changes Everything,” that targets meridian change as a era’s many dire issue.

“It positively racked me and brought me behind to a barricades. I’m going to dedicate a rest of my life to interlude tellurian warming by preventing hoary fuels from being extracted,” pronounced Fonda.

She pronounced growth of a Alberta oil sands contingency stop, adding that she hopes Canadians vigilance their antithesis to a attention during a subsequent sovereign election.

Fonda pronounced she wants to be on a “right side of history” when it comes to hoary fuels.

“Committing a rest of my life is no large deal, we don’t have that most left,” she quipped.

“But my grandchildren have a lot left and we wish them to be means to feel unapproachable of me, to feel that … we did each singular probable thing we could do to make their universe a bearable world.”

Jane Fonda boosts opposition to Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline

Subaru’s new sustainability pledge is pretty weak. Here’s why

A crony who recently bought a Subaru emailed me a couple to a company’s heavily promoted new environmental initiative, that is front and core on a homepage. With a video patrician “Who We Are Is What We Leave Behind,” it has committed to assisting make a inhabitant parks waste-free, definition it would send no plain rubbish to a landfill: Everything gets composted or recycled. That’s flattering cool. And Subaru creates a good product: Its cars are plain and protected (the Legacy was a usually non-giant and non-hugely costly automobile to record no highway deaths for indication years 2009 by 2012) and are a go-to vehicles in sleet country. The mileage is decent as well: New Outbacks exaggerate a newly softened 33 mpg on a highway.

So here’s a question: Why is such an apparently well-managed association regulating an outdated, nice-but-irrelevant, and eventually villainous proceed to cause-marketing, during a accurate time when a country, a world, and a automobile attention needs confidant leadership? I’m articulate about a fact that by focusing on plain rubbish (a third or fourth sequence problem, during best) in inhabitant parks, Subaru orderly dodges any debate (what’s not to like about assisting a inhabitant parks — that check by a roof?) and also dodges any shot during poignant impact on a executive emanate of a time. Yes, I’m articulate about meridian change.

Look, Subaru is a automobile company. And there’s a reason one of a initial stairs an empowered EPA took to residence meridian change, even before traffic with spark plants, was to aim newcomer vehicles. Transportation accounts for nearly a third of sum U.S. hothouse gas emissions, and entirely 62 percent of travel emissions come from newcomer cars and light-duty trucks. And emissions from travel have increasing by about 16 percent given 1990.

A automobile association is a meridian changing machine, a kissing-cousin to a hoary fuel attention that has been a theme of a outrageous and flourishing divestment campaign. And meridian change itself is distant and divided a biggest plea of a time. Alan Rusbridger, a timid editor of a Guardian, orderly sums adult what we’re confronting in a warming universe as a “huge, overshadowing, strenuous emanate of how meridian change will probably, within a lifetime of a children, means infinite massacre and highlight to a species.” It’s really aged news that that highlight is attack a really organizations Subaru has committed to make 0 rubbish — a inhabitant parks. (Details can be found in a 2006 report Losing Ground: Western National Parks Endangered by Climate Change.)

In America, many of us drive cars. We shouldn’t be seeking Subaru to stop creation its excellent vehicles. But we as adults do wish Subaru to be partial of a solution, since we also wish to be partial of a resolution and we expostulate Subarus! And we don’t wish to be treated as dupes when a car company, of all things, creates a environmental focus, of all arenas, solid waste in a year 2015 and thinks we’re going to applaud that and dumbly and happily buy its cars meditative good thoughts about its business. Homey don’t play that diversion no more.

I can hear Subaru’s PR people saying: “Jeez, we theory no good help goes unpunished.” No, that’s not right. It’s that cluelessness gets punished. Not to discuss that this pierce is vital madness, as if a EPA had motionless to concentration on animal gratification instead of H2O peculiarity during a really impulse a Cuyahoga River held fire.

What should Subaru be doing? Expanding a good work on mileage potency (what about a super-efficient hybrid instead of a modestly fit Crosstrek?). Making meridian change, not plain waste, a concentration of a means marketing. Lobbying Congress for a CO taxation really publicly and from a CEO level. Continuing a 0 rubbish work too, since it’s good business, and inhabitant parks are awesome, though doing so in a context of meridian change, not instead of articulate about it.

We’ve entered a new epoch in corporate responsibility. No longer is holding a position on meridian change risky. Now, in a hottest year in a heat record, not holding a position on meridian change is a large risk. Companies that don’t should be called out. If “Who You Are is What You Leave Behind,” and we leave behind a universe warmed by 4 degrees C, afterwards we have a terrible Legacy. Tag, Subaru: You’re it.

Subaru’s new sustainability pledge is pretty weak. Here’s why

Abducted toddler found after 24 years - World

Abducted toddler found after 24 years

Stopping Obama’s “Legacy” ‘Trade’-Deals: Did Reid Finally Do It?

Eric Zuesse

President Obama has many times made clear to congressional Democrats that the most important thing in the “legacy” that he hopes to leave behind from his Presidency is his big-three ‘trade’ deals: TPP with Asia, TTIP with Europe, and TISA for international services including banking and insurance. 

It is, indeed, the most ambitious international economic agenda that has ever been pushed by any U.S. President. (It’s not about “trade”; it’s about transferring democratic national sovereignty to dictatorial corporate international sovereignty.) And the leading Democrat in the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid, has called it “insane,” because Bill Clinton’s much smaller but otherwise similar NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) sent so many jobs abroad, and so hollowed-out the American economy, that it significantly caused the soaring economic inequality during the Bush-Obama years.

The first thing that Reid did to kill those ‘trade’ deals — while he was still the Senate’s Majority Leader in 2014 and was thus able to prevent the enabling act, called “Fast Track,” to pass in the U.S. Senate — was to block that “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority,” which he possessed then the power to block, as the Senate’s Majority Leader, because there were more Democrats than Republicans in the Senate, and so Democrats chose the Senate’s leader. I headlined at the time (which was on 30 January 2014), “Harry Reid Effectively Kills Obama’s TPP and TTIP International Trade Deals.” 

After Reid did that, Obama’s only hope to pass those ‘trade’ deals through Congress would be for Reid to lose his position as the Majority Leader in the Senate — in other words, for voters to elect more Republicans than Democrats to the Senate in the 2014 elections — and this is exactly what happened: Obama in 2014 received the Republican victory that he needed in the Senate, in order for his legacy to be able to become what he hoped it would be: these ‘trade’ deals (which would cause America’s soaring wealth-inequality to soar even more). (He probably heaved a private sigh of relief at ‘his’ Party’s losses in November 2014.) Republican Senator Mitch McConnell thus replaced Reid in that position. McConnell, of course, passionately supports Obama’s ‘trade’ deals; and, so, after the November 2014 mid-term elections, it seemed that Barack Obama would, despite Reid’s opposition, finally be racing toward his Presidency’s finish-line with the high likelihood of winning his “legacy,” which would make Bill Clinton’s legacy seem tiny by comparison — and Bill and Hillary Clinton made $25 million in just speakers’ fees for merely the year 2014; so, Obama’s equivalent at a similar time in his retirement might be perhaps a hundred million dollars yearly, just in speaking fees alone, for what would then become his historically unprecedented achievement in serving the perhaps one hundred Americans who control half of the world’s largest international corporations and who would be perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars richer because of Obama’s then-successful efforts on their behalf. Those people are grateful to their biggest servants, and so it’s not at all difficult to understand the reason why Obama was seeking to have this type of legacy, as his own. He aspired to become the super-Clinton.

Here is how Harry Reid was finally enabled perhaps to kill those deals, even though he no longer runs the Senate:

In May, Reid made a deal with the new Senate Majority Leader, Republican Mitch McConnell, that Reid would be able to get enough Democratic Senators to vote with the Republicans to pass Fast Track only if it included “Trade Adjustment Assistance” (TAA) a slight assistance to the workers who would lose their jobs due to these ‘trade’ deals. This idea went against the grain of Republicans (who contemptuously call that “welfare”), but McConnell was finally persuaded to accept it so long as its “pay for” (in order not to increase federal spending) would come out of the hides of other poor and middle class Americans, not the rich — and the longtime dream of Republicans has been especially to cripple Medicare; so, cutting Medicare was McConnell’s demand; and, on that basis, Reid rounded up enough Senate Democrats to get what McConnell wanted — Fast Track with TAA and Medicare cuts — through the Senate and off to the House, to approve. Everybody at the time thought that it was a shocking sell-out, that Democrats provided the additional votes which were necessary in order to pass that.

Two phenomenally well-connected and knowledgeable pseudonymous bloggers, “Yves Smith” in the field of finance, and “Gaius Publius” in the field of politics, headlined on June 12th, “Gaius Publius: Nancy Pelosi Got a TPP Talking-To from Her Caucus, Plus Where We Are on Fast Track,” and “Gaius” called this Medicare-cut “the Medicare Poison Pill,” because it’s the thing that some Democrats who otherwise would have voted for the TAA bill, could not vote for it, because they’d then be challenged in primaries by a Democratic contender who’d say “That’s the person who voted to reduce your Medicare benefits.” The excuse from the incumbent in such a primary — “I had to do that in order to help the workers who will be displaced by the Obama trade bills that I was helping to fast-track into law” — wouldn’t do them much good; they might even lose their seats, no matter how much money that some appreciative billionaires would be donating to those Democrats’ re-election campaigns.

But there was yet another, though lesser “poison pill,” which caused a few Republicans to peal away from Obama’s “legacy” legislation; and this was Reid’s having also gone along with McConnell’s need to serve McConnell’s big export clients, especially GE and Boeing, by reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, a big subsidy to exporters. A few libertarian Republicans would refuse to go along with that, because they oppose any subsidies, not even to the rich. Or, as the Heritage Foundation said, “TPA [Trade Promotion Authority] has gotten bogged down in the politics of protectionism [the Export-Import Bank] and welfare spending [TAA].”

So, because TAA died, Fast Track died; and, because Fast Track died, Obama’s ‘trade’ bills (TPP, TTIP, TISA) probably won’t be able to pass.

Maybe Obama’s hope of becoming a billionaire died along with it, ending in failure his life’s personal business-plan (or career-aspiration): Obama has always had big plans for himself, and he has had an excellent background for a potential billionaire-class type of operator.

Nancy Pelosi, the leading Democrat in the House, was doing all she could to round up enough Democratic votes for Fast Track, but wasn’t willing to vote for it herself unless her vote would be the one that would produce the win and so move the bill to the President’s desk. As “Gaius Publius” headlined on June 4th, “Nancy Pelosi Is Whipping ‘Almost Daily’ for TPP.” Like Obama and the Clintons, she’s a Republican ‘Democrat,’ and thus needs to be able to blame the overt Republicans for America’s decline. She won’t publicly join in it unless that turns out to be the only way that the President’s plan can become law.

Here was the final vote in the House, which killed TAA, by 302 to 126 (HR1314). This vote meant that only a Fast Track without TAA can be voted on. But such a Fast Track will be rejected by the Senate — it’s not in the bill that the Senate passed.

Here was the House vote on that doomed version of Fast Track. It passed with two votes more than needed, and with 28 Democrats saying “Aye” instead of the initially estimated 20; so, 28 Democrats were willing to join 191 Republicans to pass Obama’s trade bills without assisting the displaced workers, but also without cutting Medicare. Republicans got the numbers they needed, with two to spare, but for a version of Fast Track that won’t get enough Democratic votes to pass in the Senate.

USA Today reported that “Pelosi suggested one path out of the tangle: Tying passage of the trade deal to a job-creating highway bill that Democrats would support.” She won’t give up; she’s still trying to pass Obama’s “legacy” into law. And that report also said the final revote in the House (attempting to approve a Fast Track bill that can pass the Senate) “needs to come next week, or it probably won’t come at all. But when the congressional leadership and the president agree that when something must pass, it usually does — even if some arms are broken in the process.”

That “breaking of arms” might entail a huge burst of campaign contributions from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others of Washington’s big lobbies. After all, the benefits for the super-rich could be in the trillions of dollars on this. An extra biullion spent buying members of Congress might turn out to be a bargain for those sponsors.

As the custom has it, children are not supposed to see the way sausage is made — nor the way legislation is made. If ‘democracy’ is just a superficial overlay upon an underlying oligarchy, then its myth must be maintained, in order to sustain the racket. But, maybe Harry Reid was determined that the racket has gone too far and must not go as far as Obama (along with, principally, the overt Republicans) has been fighting to take it. Enough is enough — or, more like, too much.

As Republicans are delighted to point out, their leaders in Congress — and Nancy Pelosi — have higher approval ratings from the American public than Harry Reid does. Unlike Obama and the Clintons, popularity just hasn’t been his thing. There is no gratitude to a politician who really does place the public’s interest first. It’s a thankless type of virtue. Polls show this. The popularity contests get won by others, who care more about that than they do about the public’s welfare. This is ‘democracy’ in action.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of  Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

Stopping Obama’s “Legacy” ‘Trade’-Deals: Did Reid Finally Do It?

Fast-track Hands the Money Monopoly to Private Banks — Permanently

It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.                                                                                                                                                                        — Attributed to Henry Ford

In March 2014, the Bank of England let the cat out of the bag: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it. So wrote David Graeber in The Guardian the same month, referring to a BOE paper called “Money Creation in the Modern Economy.” The paper stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong. The result, said Graeber, was to throw the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.

The revelation may have done more than that. The entire basis for maintaining our private extractive banking monopoly may have been thrown out the window. And that could help explain the desperate rush to “fast track” not only the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), but the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). TiSA would nip attempts to implement public banking and other monetary reforms in the bud.

The Banking Game Exposed

The BOE report confirmed what money reformers have been saying for decades: that banks do not act simply as intermediaries, taking in the deposits of “savers” and lending them to borrowers, keeping the spread in interest rates. Rather, banks actually create deposits when they make loans. The BOE report said that private banks now create 97 percent of the British money supply. The US money supply is created in the same way.

Graeber underscored the dramatic implications:

. . . [M]oney is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There’s really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it.

Politically, said Graeber, revealing these facts is taking an enormous risk:

Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.

If money is just an IOU, why are we delivering the exclusive power to create it to an unelected, unaccountable, non-transparent private banking monopoly? Why are we buying into the notion that the government is broke – that it must sell off public assets and slash public services in order to pay off its debts? The government could pay its debts in the same way private banks pay them, simply with accounting entries on its books. What will happen when a critical mass of the populace realizes that we’ve been vassals of a parasitic banking system based on a fraud – that we the people could be creating money as credit ourselves, through publicly-owned banks that returned the profits to the people?

Henry Ford predicted that a monetary revolution would follow. There might even be a move to nationalize the whole banking system and turn it into a public utility.

It is not hard to predict that the international bankers and related big-money interests, anticipating this move, would counter with legislation that locked the current system in place, so that there was no way to return money and banking to the service of the people – even if the current private model ended in disaster, as many pundits also predict.

And that is precisely the effect of the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), which was slipped into the “fast track” legislation now before Congress. It is also the effect of the bail-in policies currently being railroaded into law in the Eurozone, and of the suspicious “war on cash” seen globally; but those developments will be the subject of another article.

TiSA Exposed

On June 3, 2015, WikiLeaks released 17 key documents related to TiSA, which is considered perhaps the most important of the three deals being negotiated for “fast track” trade authority. The documents were supposed to remain classified for five years after being signed, displaying a level of secrecy that outstrips even the TPP’s four-year classification.

TiSA involves 51 countries, including every advanced economy except the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). The deal would liberalize global trade in services covering close to 80% of the US economy, including financial services, healthcare, education, engineering, telecommunications, and many more. It would restrict how governments can manage their public laws, and it could dismantle and privatize state-owned enterprises, turning those services over to the private sector.

Recall the secret plan devised by Wall Street and U.S. Treasury officials in the 1990s to open banking to the lucrative derivatives business. To pull this off required the relaxation of banking regulations not just in the US but globally, so that money would not flee to nations with safer banking laws.  The vehicle used was the Financial Services Agreement concluded under the auspices of the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The plan worked, and most countries were roped into this “liberalization” of their banking rules. The upshot was that the 2008 credit crisis took down not just the US economy but economies globally.

TiSA picks up where the Financial Services Agreement left off, opening yet more doors for private banks and other commercial service industries, and slamming doors on governments that might consider opening their private banking sectors to public ownership.

Blocking the Trend Toward “Remunicipalization”

In a report from Public Services International called “TISA versus Public Services: The Trade in Services Agreement and the Corporate Agenda,” Scott Sinclair and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood note that the already formidable challenges to safeguarding public services under GATS will be greatly exasperated by TiSA, which blocks the emerging trend to return privatized services to the public sector. Communities worldwide are reevaluating the privatization approach and “re-municipalizing” these services, following negative experiences with profit-driven models. These reversals typically occur at the municipal level, but they can also occur at the national level.

One cited example is water remunicipalization in Argentina, Canada, France, Tanzania and Malaysia, where an increasing frustration with broken promises, service cutoffs to the poor, and a lack of integrated planning by private water companies led to a public takeover of the service.

Another example is the remunicipalization of electrical services in Germany. Hundreds of German municipalities have remunicipalized private electricity providers or have created new public energy utilities, following dissatisfaction with private providers’ inflated prices and poor record in shifting to renewable energy. Remunicipalization has brought electricity prices down. Other sectors involved in remunicipalization projects include public transit, waste management, and housing.

Sinclair and Mertins-Kirkwood observe:

The TISA would limit and may even prohibit remunicipalization because it would prevent governments from creating or reestablishing public monopolies or similarly “uncompetitive” forms of service delivery. . . .

Like GATS Article XVI, the TISA would prohibit public monopolies and exclusive service suppliers in fully committed sectors, even on a regional or local level. Of particular concern for remunicipalization projects are the proposed “standstill” and “ratchet” provisions in TISA. The standstill clause would lock in current levels of services liberalization in each country, effectively banning any moves from a market-based to a state-based provision of public services. This clause . . . would prohibit the creation of public monopolies in sectors that are currently open to private sector competition.

Similarly, the ratchet clause would automatically lock in any future actions taken to liberalize services in a given country. . . . [I]f a government did decide to privatize a public service, that government would be unable to return to a public model at a later date.

That means we can forget about turning banking and credit services into public utilities. TiSA is a one-way street. Industries once privatized remain privatized.

The disturbing revelations concerning TiSA are yet another reason to try to block these secretive trade agreements. For more information and to get involved, visit:

Flush the TPP

The Citizens Trade Campaign

Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch

Eyes on Trade


Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at

Fast-track Hands the Money Monopoly to Private Banks — Permanently

sexta-feira, 12 de junho de 2015

Mark Ruffalo just won our hearts (again) on the Daily Show

Mark Ruffalo, one of Grist’s loyal loves (the truest, babe, *two-finger-lip touch*), is a kind of stand-up man who says things only how they are — either that means advocating for renewable appetite and workers’ rights, or fearlessly vocalization out about how truly smokin’ prohibited is one Umbra Fisk.

Ruffalo’s many new pierce to pronounce truth to power was during an appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (another designated Grist boyfriend) on Thursday night. During a episode, he 1) hunkily detonate out from backstage before his talk to call Stewart out for not carrying seen his new film (though how we hatred it when they bicker), and 2) talked anti-fracking legislation and disciple a acclimatisation to renewable energy. Oh, we two! Seeing we together on a same theatre — we only can’t. Swoon.

Mark Ruffalo just won our hearts (again) on the Daily Show

The pope’s encyclical now has an epic movie trailer

Get prepared for a newest summer blockbuster. No, it’s not Jurassic World — it’s even bigger, crazier, and some-more movement packed: a eremite request released by a pope. The new encyclical is set to residence meridian change and humanity’s dignified requirement to quarrel it. But distinct any encyclical ever released before, this one has an epic (unofficial) film trailer. Yup, as if we indispensable any some-more reason to trust that a pope is magnificently badass. (Just so we’re transparent — saying as one non-Christian Grist staffer got a small confused — this isn’t indeed Pope Francis, only a really flexible lookalike.) The video was combined by Brazilian meridian movement group Observatório do Clima.

Noteworthy moments:

  1. Game of Thrones-esque theme music

  2. Big Oil exec super villains, finish with eye patches

  3. The pope boxes, trains with Jesus, and blesses solar panels

The pope’s encyclical now has an epic movie trailer

Take that, Trans-Pacific Partnership! Enviros celebrate as Obama’s trade agenda takes a blow

Environmental groups and a horde of allies won a vital feat on Friday when House Democrats derailed Obama’s “free trade” bulletin — during slightest for now.

Through some congressional maneuvering, House Democrats threw a vicious roadblock in front of a devise to give a boss trade graduation management (TPA) that he could use to pull by a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade understanding that many environmentalists, among others, are deeply doubtful about. (Look out for some-more acronyms below!) TPA would “fast track” a trade deal, constraining Congress to a “yes” or “no” opinion on it and permitting Obama some-more space to negotiate what a understanding would contain.

Both TPA and TPP have found preference with many Republicans, nonetheless they’ve also brought together a extended bloc in opposition. Tea Partiers who conflict Obama’s management some-more or reduction on element came together with a whole operation of progressives. Many fear a TPP would send domestic jobs abroad — some progressives have called a understanding “NAFTA on steroids.” Environmental groups contend a agreement would also set behind efforts during conservation, rebellious meridian change, and improving open health. The TPP is now being negotiated in tip between a U.S. and scarcely a dozen other countries along a Pacific Rim.

The Obama administration has been pulling tough for trade graduation management and a TPP deal. The boss himself even incited adult to discharge White House–brewed beers and convince legislators during a congressional ball diversion yesterday where Democrats were personification Republicans. Republicans started chanting “TPA! TPA!” when Obama arrived. Yeah, this things indeed happens. Obama also addressed House Democrats for 45 mins this morning.

The administration has been observant that a TPP would give a United States a energy to write a manners of general trade before China starts doing so. With a reins in America’s hands, a administration argues, globalization competence be means to pierce brazen in a demeanour that TPP’s opponents don’t find utterly so odious.

But the opponents are not convinced. In a notation to Congress yesterday, 40 environmental groups urged rejecting of the “fast track” TPA bill. “A new indication of trade that delivers advantages for many Americans, promotes broadly common prosperity, and safeguards a sourroundings and open health is possible. To grasp such goals, however, quick lane contingency be transposed with a new complement for negotiating and implementing trade agreements,” a notation read. Many of a signatories on yesterday’s notation hermetic another one, behind in April, with 2,000 other groups who opposite quick lane authority.

As for a TPP trade understanding itself, environmental groups conflict many of a supplies that are rumored to be in it, including ones that would concede unfamiliar companies to sue governments over their environmental and open health policies. And afterwards there’s a element of transparency: “After some-more than 5 years of negotiation, we still have to rest on WikiLeaks for a information,” Ilana Solomon of a Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Program told The Guardian.

When it came time for a opinion today, Democrats, by a 3-to-1 margin, voted opposite a sustenance to yield assist for workers who remove their jobs as a outcome of trade deals. Though Democrats upheld a specific provision, called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA — another acronym!), they chose to opinion it down in order to skip a whole legislative routine on quick lane authority. At a final minute, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had not formerly been transparent about her position, told her follow House members that she would opinion opposite TAA, and some uncertain Democrats followed her lead.

When a Senate upheld a trade check final month, it enclosed both TPA and TAA. So if a House check doesn’t also embody TAA, afterwards there’s no final chronicle that can be sent to Obama’s desk. Still, even nonetheless a disaster to pass TAA done a House opinion on TPA a indecisive point, a Republican care motionless to press forward with a opinion anyway. TPA upheld 219 to 211, and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) asked to move TAA behind adult for a opinion subsequent week. If TAA passes then, today’s TPA opinion will stand.

That means a TPA — “fast lane authority” — isn’t utterly passed yet. Obama has some-more time to turn arms in an try to get Democrats to do an about-face. But a boss would have to change utterly a lot of minds, so, for now, advocates are celebrating.

“This is a vital feat for everybody who thinks trade should be satisfactory and responsible,” a Sierra Club’s Michael Brune pronounced in a statement. “The epoch of giveaway trade deals that mistreat workers and a sourroundings is entrance to a close.”

Some of those celebrations are some-more discreet than others.

“Today’s victory, while important, is not decisive,” pronounced Friends of a Earth President Erich Pica. “Friends of a Earth and others will sojourn observant to safeguard that destiny efforts to pass Fast Track and climate-destroying trade agreements are defeated.”

Take that, Trans-Pacific Partnership! Enviros celebrate as Obama’s trade agenda takes a blow

Drought forces cuts to some of California’s oldest water rights

California H2O regulators Friday took a step that they haven’t taken given 1977: They cut H2O allocations to 114 comparison water-rights holders in a state.

In fact, this movement will substantially have some-more impact than a 1977 cuts, since a state has a larger authorised and unsentimental energy to demand restrictions.

The State Water Board released a notice saying: “The State Water Board has been monitoring diversion annals and upsurge conditions within a Sacramento-San Joaquin River watershed and Delta. Due to singular flood and snowpack runoff, a stream flows are deficient to prove all diversion final underneath comparison rights.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that this is only a beginning:

Officials pronounced even some-more curtailment orders are expected in a weeks to come as direct increases and reserve dwindle.

“It’s not even summer,” pronounced a board’s executive director, Tom Howard. “We’re going to be doing serve curtailments.”

The comparison water-rights holders embody H2O districts — that yield H2O to farmers — and municipalities (including, incidentally, my hometown, Nevada City). You can find a list of those influenced here.

California is awaiting lawsuits over all this — and there are authorised uncertainties still slow from a 1970s. Back then, water-rights holders sued a state, though before a justice complement could strech a decision, it started raining, digest a emanate moot.

It’s misleading how most H2O this will keep in a rivers — here’s a Sacramento Bee again:

Plenty of H2O rights holders, expecting Friday’s action, have been storing H2O in reservoirs, and that supply is off boundary to regulators. “Stored H2O is … radically a skill of a chairman who stored it,” Howard said.

But he pronounced he believes Friday’s sequence will move some-more pain to H2O users, quite farmers. “There will be some land finale adult being fallowed as a result,” he said.

Deep as these cuts are, they don’t impact a oldest water-rights holders — only those dating behind to 1903. San Francisco’s H2O right was determined in 1901. There aren’t many comparison than that.

Drought forces cuts to some of California’s oldest water rights

The Heroic Anti-TPP Action by Alan B, Morrison — and More to Come

Eric Zuesse

On June 10th, Alan B. Morrison, one of America’s leading Constitutional lawyers, sent a letter to all members of the U.S. House of Representatives, explaining why U.S. President Barack Obama’s proposed Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) would violate the U.S. Constitution. 

The striking headline above his letter is “The Investor-State Dispute Settlement Provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Violate Article III of the United States Constitution.”

He explains, at the start:

“I am writing this letter because I believe that the creation of private arbitral tribunals to decide whether otherwise valid federal, state, and local laws are inconsistent with the investor protection provisions of the TPP improperly removes a core judicial function from the federal courts and therefore violates Article III of the Constitution.”

He then emphasizes that, “my objection is that our Constitution does not permit disputes that, in practical effect, challenge the legality under the TPP of federal, state, or local laws of the United States, to be assigned to private parties for their exclusive resolution.”

He gives examples of the dangerous consequences that this would open up, such as:

“If Congress decided to regulate them [e-cigarettes] after enactment of the TPP, a non-U.S. investor from a TPP country that makes e-cigarettes here could ask an ISDS panel to rule that its investment-based expectations were improperly violated [by the regulation] and thus that it is entitled to damages under the minimum standard of treatment provisions.”

“A similar challenge could be made by a TPP investor who owned farm land in California and objected to an intensification of mandatory water rationing for farms enacted after the TPP goes into effect, even if such rules also applied to U.S. owners of land that would be adversely affected by them.”

He concludes:

“Given the importance of the ISDS provisions to the TPP, the Administration owes it to Congress and the American people to explain how the Constitution allows the United States to agree to submit the validity of its federal, state, and local laws to three private arbitrators, with no possibility of review by any U.S. court.”

As a career lawyer, who stands far more to benefit by endorsing — rather than by criticizing (as he strongly does here) — Obama’s stunningly pro-mega-corporate ‘trade’ deals (TPP, TTIP, TISA, all of which actually present the very same Constitutional issues that TPP does and that Morrison is here attacking), Morrison is nothing less than heroic by his pointing out how horrific these deals actually would be.

Tomorrow, I (who, in lucky contrast, am only a private citizen, with no career or other personal involvement in these matters) shall post a more-detailed case than Morrison has presented, in which I shall argue that Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, which is essential in order for any ‘trade’ deals like this to be able to stand even a chance of being passed by Congress, is, itself, blatantly unConstitutional, and has been so, ever since it was passed into law in 1974 and never yet been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court as to its Constitutionality (which it actually lacks).

So, if any of Obama’s three mega-corporate international ‘trade’ deals (TPP, TTIP, TISA) does become passed into U.S. law, then the Constitutional challenges, which should actually have started in 1974, will finally begin, and these will be the issues that ultimately decide the matter. Unfortunately, however, the pressures upon the Supreme Court to avoid examining the (anti-Constitutional, I shall argue) can of worms that President Richard Nixon proposed in 1973 and that Congress passed into law the next year, will be enormous and might actually swamp the Constitution itself, as the jurists draw up their rulings. Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules by then, the ruling will create enormous damages, because, even if the Court upholds the Constitution, then the consequent overthrowing of NAFTA etc. by the U.S. as a signatory nation to an unConstitutional agreement, will be severely attacked by other signatory nations.

My article tomorrow will lay out the case that has never been presented to the Supreme Court, because that Court did not want to lead the country, and also because no one in either the Executive or the Legislative branch was willing to do what has been his and her professional duty, to uphold our Constitution — so, this entire issue, of the Constitutionality of such ‘trade’ deals, has simply been ignored, until now.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of  Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

The Heroic Anti-TPP Action by Alan B, Morrison — and More to Come