Posted on 06/14/2015 6:37:02 AM PDT by ncalburt
http://wingright.org/2012/05/28/ted-cruz-pit-of-vipers-and-the-council-on-foreign-relations-member-in-his-family/
(Excerpt) Read more at wingright.org ...
Wikipedia says:
She is currently taking leave from her position as head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management ...Somebody has their facts wrong.
“corroboration”, not collaboration.
Sure, like internationals Germany, Italy, and Japan working together was a contradiction in the '30s and '40s, internationalism is just the means to an end. The end is yet another dictatorial system.
Fascism is yet another flavor of dictatorial socialism where power is consolidated away from the Republic, the voters, by partnership between government and business - business goes international. The tool used, be it the war on fill in the blank, or great pride in the mother land, all is about manipulation of the populated for control of the population, and ultimately the transfer of wealth to those holding power.
By letting Obama have his TPA it virtually guarantees passage with a 51 vote.
I get so sick of the “Don’t worry Mable, we’ll cut em off at the pass next vote!” mantra. We are such suckers.
Yes, but he’s pro-amnesty and he’s helping to try to ram these trade deals through.
Says a lot about how conservative our supposedly conservative representatives really are.
> “I do know that we have been doing trade all wrong, ...”
That’s pretty much true because we’ve had Presidents that are weak on conservative principles. Reagan was strong on trade but he had to go against the lazy, greedy auto unions that were wanting protectionism and who were not competitive. Because of his trade deals which were approved by Fast Track authority (every trade deal since FDR has needed a fast track renewal because without it the trade deals are too messy and never get sorted out) the american Auto Unions had their asses handed to them and the result was a resurgence in American manufacturing quality and competitiveness.
> “...and if TPA is how we’ve been doing it, that is a thing that needs to change.”
No! TPA is not the culprit. No foreign country is going to sit and work trade terms at a table when there is a legislative body (Congress) that turns all the work upside down again and again.
Example:
USTR=US Trade Reps appointed by the President
USTR sits down with multi-nation body to hammer out a trade deal.
USTR calls Senate Majority Leaders office (SMLO) “Mexico agrees to sell their oil at a discount if we import their iron ore”.
SMLO says “yeah sure but Senator Dufus wants to amend the deal that Mexico buys our carbon credits and approves of all our Climate Change rules”.
USTR calls back later and says “Mexico says Fuck You”.
What Fast Track does it to prohibit Senator Dufus from getting his hands into the details. He gets to vote yay or nay on the “Mexico agrees to sell their oil at a discount if we import their iron ore”; he doesn’t get to screw with it.
Without fast track, the deals never get done and other nations give the USA the middle finger.
But here’s an illustration of the kind of deal President Cruz will negotiate:
USTR: “Eurozone is begging on hands and knees for US LNG exports to get out of reach of the Russian bear”.
President Cruz: “Ok, let me get a thumbs up from SMLO and Speaker”. Calls SMLO and Speaker and says “LNG to Europe, Yay or Nay?”.
SMLO and Speaker say “what’s the benefit?”
President Cruz: “Jobs, building new liquefaction plants, new pipelines, export revenues and more jobs”.
SMLO: “What’s in it for me and my K-Street backers?”
President Cruz: “A big Texas boot up your ass”.
SMLO: “ How about Yay for LNG in return for revenue skim on the backend?”
President Cruz: “I don’t like that in principle; it’s dirty.”
Speaker: “One of my K-Streeters wants concessions on gay rights from Poland in return for LNG”.
President Cruz: “Nope, that’s against the rules. We are following fast track rules.”
*************************
TPA under President Cruz is GOOD for America. It boils down to TRUST.
If TPA renewal comes up in 2017, the new vote will require 60 cloture votes in the US Senate and the democrats are never going to give enough to reach 60 with President Cruz in the White House That’s why he wants it now. And that doesn’t mean TPP and all the others under Obama get passed. But even if they are looking to pass, Ted Cruz has successfully filed an amendment (S.Admt 1384 to S.Amdt 1221) to close the door on backdoor amnesty which Hillary needs to get in the White House.
So Ted knows what he’s doing. The question comes down to whether people trust Ted more than any others.
So you are OK with the Senate using the "nuclear option" on trade? Really?
From Wiki
The nuclear or constitutional option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or precedent by majority vote. The presiding officer of the United States Senate rules that the validity of a Senate rule or precedent is a constitutional question. They immediately put the issue to the full Senate, which decides by majority vote. The procedure thus allows the Senate to decide any issue by majority vote, even though the rules of the Senate specify that ending a filibuster requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) for legislation, 67 for amending a Senate rule. The name is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.
Ted Cruz is pro-amnesty? Now you are just spreading lies.
Dude you are so wrong but your mind will never be changed. You are like a 911 truther on Cruz.
I just got this off Wikipedia. The requirement seems to be that both houses pass the bill with a simple majority, but Hatch’s amendment can slow it down with 60 votes (a hurdle with Republicans in charge).
Procedure[edit]
If the President transmits a fast track trade agreement to Congress, then the majority leaders of the House and Senate or their designees must introduce the implementing bill submitted by the President on the first day on which their House is in session. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(c)(1).) Senators and Representatives may not amend the President’s bill, either in committee or in the Senate or House. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(d).) The committees to which the bill has been referred have 45 days after its introduction to report the bill, or be automatically discharged, and each House must vote within 15 days after the bill is reported or discharged. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(1).)
In the likely case that the bill is a revenue bill (as tariffs are revenues), the bill must originate in the House (see U.S. Const., art I, sec. 7), and after the Senate received the House-passed bill, the Finance Committee would have another 15 days to report the bill or be discharged, and then the Senate would have another 15 days to pass the bill. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(2).) On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(f)
She was probably making millions at her job before the campaign. Ted’s $172,000 is probably what they use for house payments and utilities.
You’re equating amnesty with free trade?
No I am not. He has repeatedly said he is for legalizing the illegals here currently (but not for giving them citizenship). That is amnesty. This is also another canard, because legalizing will get them 3/4s of the way to citizenship, which will inevitably follow.
You're correct. Unfortunately, trade agreements/pacts are just that and not "treaties". NAFTA was a trade agreement. It turned out to be detrimental to our economy and jobs, as Perot warned us. My problem is with the fast-track (TPA) authority given to any president that excludes amendments and filibuster from Congress.
However, a point could be made that the USA could rarely get any trade agreements done if left to Congress and their special interests. It's a conundrum.
I don't so much believe in free trade as much as I do in fair trade.
If 51 people in the Senate OR a simple majority in the House are wha can kill a bill, then, yes, I am fine with the Senate expecting a simple majority, because for any other bill, they only need a simple majority. as well.
I stand corrected Sergeant Hopper Sir
What makes you think TPP/TAA/TiSA are just about trade? Have you read them?
No Cruz has said secure the border First! Then we will have a discussion about who is left here illegally. He said that he would never allow them to become citizens or be able to vote. That is what he said. He has never said that he would give any kind of amnesty. He has never said he would not deport illegals if the discussion we have concludes they need to be deported.
When you listen to Cruz and Ryan, they will invariably talk about the benefits of “trade”. What idiot is against trade? It is the corrupt trade bills we are all against, well, most of us. If you love Cruz, you have to flip-flop in order to justify Cruz’s support of Obama’s agenda.
Show me one major candidate who has said “as soon as I’m president, we’re gonna put them beaner wetbacks in cattle cars and ship their butts back to Mexico, toot suite!” or give up all this “this here is amnesty” nonsense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.