It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TPP : How America is about to sell its sovereignty to create a concrete NWO

page: 3
90
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Let me put it this way:

If TPP passes and become a lawful treaty I will personally consider this an act of war on the American people.


Agreed, which is why I noted that I would no longer have a job to do as all our rights would go poof out the back door. (Window is a censored word now? When did that happen?)

Been reading more and more about this, esp the part about how congress doesn't get to see the draft of the proposal/treaty/whatever you want to call it (I call it a bill of sale of the USA) before they vote upon it. (I am not even sure reading some articles if they get to see it after they vote on it)

Heck after this passes, why do we need a SCOTUS anymore, they will be effectively useless, why do we need a Congress they would be powerless, IF this is what Obama has been working up to all this time, then we have a major major problem...

I'm just wondering why this isn't getting more attention than it is..
edit on 8112014 by vkey08 because: My comment had the word "Window" in it which is now apparently censored by the site..




posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
It wasn't that long ago that a privately funded individual could buy local air time on the TV for, say, a commercial, and actually say what they needed to say.




What they can’t afford to tell the American public is that [the rest of this sentence is classified].


Finish the sentence, on live air, in a big city.
He'd have been a martyr, and they'd shut him up for sure... but word would get around and at least the people would know.

They sure fixed that. Now everyone has a hundred channels in their home, and there's nothing to watch. Every one of them is bought and paid for, monitored, and controlled.

I guess we've got the right to free speech, but they've systematically taken away our ability.


They sure fixed that.
edit on 8-11-2014 by lordcomac because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: vkey08

Like the PATRIOT ACT and ACA the TPP is yet another "we find out what's in it once it passes" deal only worse than both of the former combined. They can't afford for the public to know what's in it because they would freak out and actually begin to speak out about it, possibly even protest in D.C.

That's not the current way in Washington as you know - everything is done under the shadow of darkness in the name of National Security. This is the final extreme attempt to prop up the USD by consolidating the US with the Pacific rim nations in a trade pact that erases National boundaries and substitutes corporate law for everyone.

As an example being openly critical of say dog food made by a Chinese company based in the US can get you sued for lost profits, simply because you pointed out they put plastic in it!

It's the height of insanity and we can't go much further down this road before either the SHTF or we're all corporate slaves working in labor camps.

Everything we've fought for in the name of human dignity and freedom will be tossed out the window. Our forefathers wouldn't be able to look us in the eye if this comes to fruition for being such cowards and allowing this to come to pass.

LOL! I can't type the word w-I-n-d-o-w either.
edit on 8-11-2014 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
It's giving China everything in lieu of our debt to them.


Do you think this is actually it? As in the bottom line? Like maybe American bankers said they could never repay china and are giving them the collateral instead?

Didnt the federal reserve use American labour or something along those lines as collateral..?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I see the original article in the opening post was from June 2013.
What is the current status?

Looking here for updates....

www.ustr.gov...



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
This is encouraging...from Nov.6, 2014.

More Than 700,000 Tell Congress: Fast Track Is the Wrong Path
www.huffingtonpost.com...




That's why today, representatives from environmental, labor, food and farm, consumer rights and other fair trade allies delivered to Congress more than 700,000 petitions opposing "fast track" -- a piece of legislation that would push these harmful trade agreements through Congress without any meaningful oversight or assurances that the trade pacts would actually benefit workers, families, and the environment. The delivery, which comes days before President Obama leaves for Beijing, China, where leaders will once again make a push to finalize the stalled TPP, sends a clear message that, in the words of Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune, "fast track is the wrong track for Americans who care about the health of our families and access to clean air, clean water, and land."


When I say "encouraging", that's not the same as saying I see any hope of this horrible agreement NOT passing. Since when has anyone's "rights" to life's basic necessities really mattered? Already corporations get away with atrocities by paying fines and having the government look the other way. But yeah, it'll be monstrously worse after this passes, assuming it will. It makes me sick to think about it.
edit on 8-11-2014 by On the Edge because: p.s.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Rand Paul is just like all the other nuts in the bowl, he has been to the "wall" in Jerusalem and bowed to it. He is a sell out and is far from his father in his belief's. The TPP is the final nail.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Free Trade at What Costs?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Stop the TPP and Other Rigged “Trade Agreements”



edit on 8-11-2014 by seasoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: tavi45

All I got out of this is that Congressman Alan Grayson isn't as brave as Chelsea Manning is.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: vkey08
Hint: Window, job and rights were all censored, as were words, which I'm using now and you did at 7:36 am (yes, I checked and assume is accurate, but that may be another assumption as I'm correcting one you seemed to

just
make) a long time ago. If you are just now recognizing this, then coffee isn't helping your judgement skills, though I've been telling folks not to judge, this morning and even yesterday, as well. But I'm assuming here, that one day follows another, and that may be just an assumption, as well, and no, I'm not trying to be funny, here.

There was and is never anything funny about censoring any of the three of those particular three things: windows, the appearance and and through them, rights and words. But the funny and not so thing about this is the timing, and the assumptions of its accuracy, too. If the timing isn't accurate, then there is great irony to be had in your remark. Because it would mean everything including the censorship of jobs and rights is happening all over again, which it would tend to do if history repeats itself. What would be ironic about that is if our assumption that timing is correct is used to use technology to make us repeat things, and/or people, for that matter. It's enough to get upset enough to write your congressman, if that would help. So write him/her, again. Keep writing them and keep getting upset, but don't keep making assumptions. And I'm telling myself that, as much as I'm writing it here and telling us all.

The other irony here is that about the censorship thing, cause in the OP it says congrressmen and women are censored, too.
Nothing funny about any of that. Thing is once you agree to one, they tell you in theory, you've agreed to another.
and so on. and so on……
tetra



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I really need to educate myself with civics but doesnt the congress have the sole power to create treaties? Can obama use the EO on this especially now with a Republican held congress?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: sirlancelot
I really need to educate myself with civics but doesnt the congress have the sole power to create treaties? Can obama use the EO on this especially now with a Republican held congress?


Article II, Section 2, Clause 2


"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."


en.wikipedia.org...

This aint happening unless -everyone- is on board.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: sirlancelot
I really need to educate myself with civics but doesnt the congress have the sole power to create treaties? Can obama use the EO on this especially now with a Republican held congress?


Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution

(the president) "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur"

This is actually a pretty solid source for insight on that, it does a good job of detailing the history too.

www.senate.gov...
edit on 8-11-2014 by dr1234 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't trust paul. Can't really out my finger on it but for some reason I just don't.


Why would you trust any politician? I don't know one that wouldn't sell their soul for a dollar.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: sirlancelot
I really need to educate myself with civics but doesnt the congress have the sole power to create treaties? Can obama use the EO on this especially now with a Republican held congress?


Article II, Section 2, Clause 2


"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."


en.wikipedia.org...

This aint happening unless -everyone- is on board.


The senate isn't going to be opposition I'm afraid, during the research I've done this sentiment is treated like a forgone conclusion. The head of tradewatch.org said in an interview this will be a fight that is fought in the house. Now, forgive me if I misunderstood, but although the house is not needed to approve treaties, it is up to them whether or not this can be fast tracked, which they think it needs in order to be passed.

"As a candidate, President Obama said he would replace this anti-democratic process. But now he is asking Congress to grant him Fast Track's extraordinary authority – in part to try to overcome growing public and congressional opposition to his controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) deals. To prevent an expansion of this unfair "trade"model, Congress must not allow the executive branch to once again gain Fast Track's undemocratic powers."

www.citizen.org...

Read through these few articles, it's a fantastic resource.
edit on 8-11-2014 by dr1234 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I'm very liberal and think if the Tea Party were in charge we'd regress as a nation.

That being said it's ironic that they are the only hope we have of this being stopped. The mainstream Republicans are hardcore on board. Hopefully the Tea Party doesn't fail their own ideals or sell out.

If they do sell out this will pass through with zero resistance.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Money is like fertiliser, no good unless its spread around, so,once the super rich have it all, how will economies operate? who will make cars for the super rich? their clothes? shoes? food? mansions? the super rich have shot themselves in the foot, the bullet is just taking its time.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I hadn't read of this Fast-Track Authority/TPA until now.
Fast Track Authority


In a letter addressed to Rep. Walter Jones, R-S.C., Fein wrote that the “constitutionally illicit purpose of the Trade Promotion Authority legislation is to endow the President with a decisive vote over international trade legislation in violation of the separation of powers by usurping the power of the House to determine its own rules.” “The Trade Promotion Act would give the President an overruling influence over Congress in exercising its power to regulate foreign commerce under Article 1, Section 3, and thus would be unconstitutional,” Fein wrote.
www.wnd.com...




Can Obama and a Republican Senate Find Common Ground? Kamarck nominates Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and corporate tax reform. They aren’t bell-ringers but could end the gridlock to get Congress functioning again. TPA would allow Obama to conclude negotiations on a major trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It’s something Obama wants, and so does the GOP.
www.thedailybeast.com...


What is Trade Promotion Authority?
(All wrapped in nice, pleasant sounding "newspeak", of course!)
Reading between the lines, a must!

www.ustr.gov...



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: dr1234

originally posted by: sirlancelot
I really need to educate myself with civics but doesnt the congress have the sole power to create treaties? Can obama use the EO on this especially now with a Republican held congress?


Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution

(the president) "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur"

This is actually a pretty solid source for insight on that, it does a good job of detailing the history too.

www.senate.gov...



UNLESS!...they aren't called "Treaties"!
Maybe they're called "Congressional-Executive Agreements"?

Why Certain Trade Agreements Are Approved as Congressional-Executive Agreements
fas.org...




Summary U.S. trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), World Trade Organization agreements, and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) have been approved by majority vote of each house rather than by two-thirds vote of the Senate—that is, they have been treated as congressional-executive agreements rather than as treaties. ... This negotiating authority and expedited procedures are commonly known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: On the Edge

originally posted by: dr1234

originally posted by: sirlancelot
I really need to educate myself with civics but doesnt the congress have the sole power to create treaties? Can obama use the EO on this especially now with a Republican held congress?




Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution

(the president) "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur"

This is actually a pretty solid source for insight on that, it does a good job of detailing the history too.

www.senate.gov...



UNLESS!...they aren't called "Treaties"!
Maybe they're called "Congressional-Executive Agreements"?

Why Certain Trade Agreements Are Approved as Congressional-Executive Agreements
fas.org...




Summary U.S. trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), World Trade Organization agreements, and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) have been approved by majority vote of each house rather than by two-thirds vote of the Senate—that is, they have been treated as congressional-executive agreements rather than as treaties. ... This negotiating authority and expedited procedures are commonly known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).


Suprisingly covered in detail in the link the post... strange.. I know.

"Executive Agreements
In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law."

edit to mention I'm not mocking you, I'm just genuinely suprised the government website is so candid.

Also, for everyone, this whole "trade promotion authority" is the same old fast track with a less obvious name.


edit on 8-11-2014 by dr1234 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-11-2014 by dr1234 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
90
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join