Posted on 05/25/2015 8:39:20 AM PDT by Mariner
Conservative talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh slammed President Barack Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal on Friday, telling listeners, "The odds are the United States is gonna take it in the shorts."
Limbaugh argued Republicans shouldn't do Obama any favors by helping him pass a secretive trade agenda that his own party does not support.
"Republicans are providing the necessary push to get it passed, which kind of bothers me," Limbaugh said. "Since it's an Obama deal, the odds are it isn't good. Since it's an Obama deal, the odds are the United States is gonna take it in the shorts, as we have on so much of the Obama agenda, both domestic and foreign policy."
A host of tea party groups have opposed Obama's trade agenda for months. But Limbaugh's entrance into the debate significantly disrupts Republican leaders' hopes of securing a deal with Obama by overriding objections from House Democrats, given the radio host's substantial influence over conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
In the other corner are the Tea Party, Unions, Rush, Levin and Elizabeth Warren.
Who to root for?
As for me, I root for American Manufacturing.
With Agriculture, it defines wealth.
Why would it be necessary to keep a deal secret if it’s so damn good for us?
'Nuff said.
cuz when lies are truth, that’s what “the most transparent administration in history” does.
Instead of wielding power they are yielding power.
Who do they think they were elected to represent? Their constituents or Preezy Urkel?
BILLIONS in back-channel bribes and payoff to sell American workers and businesses down the river.
Well said.
When people wonder WHY Republicans would do this, knowing it's their certain political demise (along with "immigration reform"), that's the reason.
They, and their family and friends will live like the Kardashians for the rest of their lives.
Rich beyond calculation.
Wow, Rush a played populist for a day.
Why don’t the Conservatives write their own Top Secret Trade Bill ... and like the President’s Bill ..... nobody is allowed to read it ..... Then make sure the bill includes the removal of the President and all traitorous Republicans from power as it’s main corner stone .... then pass it unanimously saying it will definitely improve the economy and bring back jobs to the US?
I too am surprised he broke with the establishment GOP and Wall Street.
But he's right on this. even IF the proposed deal is the best deal in the history of the USA, the means by which it's being enacted is anti-American.
And, there is no reason whatsoever to believe Obama will cut the the best deal in the history of the USA.
Ask Ted Cruz. He voted for it.
Rush is still the best when he is on real topics and wasting air time.
When we get a Constitution Loving President, could we scuttle the trade deals?
Amen to your comment, Mariner!
I guess we need to ask Ted Cruz who voted for cloture and I am assuming from his comments that he’s going to vote for final passage. I don’t get it and I don’t like it.
We don’t know what’s in it, as usual.
Easy assumption is that it’s bad since Obama likes it.
The fact that the far left/unions/socialists hate it is a good sign though, so maybe it’s a mixed bag.
Doesn’t matter, it’s obviously a done deal.
We can’t protect our way to fair trade anyway, we have to compete our way there. Distorting markets with tariffs etc. won’t get us anywhere but stagnation. American workers have to learn how to do more advanced things than producing t-shirts, flipping burgers and bolting together assembled parts. Unless you like being stuck in the 19th Century.
ABSOLUTELY YES.
the process by which these deals are enacted is PRECISELY the same process as the proposed "deal" with Iran over nukes.
It is not a Treaty as they bypassed the Constitutional Treaty process of 2/3rds Senate vote.
Any POTUS could refuse to enforce or recognized any/all of these trade deals...WTO, NAFTA, TPP etc. on a whim.
Yes, that would result in a galactic Constitutional fight.
The only thing a POTUS could not do unilaterally is to impose tariff that has been removed by Congress.
But, finding all good from another country unfit for sale in the USA on some trumped up health or safety concern? NO PROBLEM.
Going after US businesses who outsource their manufacturing with trumped up banking and financial transgressions, again, no problem.
In October 1996, Metalclad Corporation, a U.S. waste-disposal company, accused the Mexican government of violating NAFTA's Chapter 11 when the state of San Luis Potos refused it permission to reopen a waste disposal facility.
The state governor ordered the site closed down after a geological audit showed the facility would contaminate the local water supply. The governor then declared the site part of a 600,000-acre ecological zone. Metalclad claimed that this constituted an act of expropriation and sought US$90 million in compensation.
Other Chapter 11 Cases
In 1997 the U.S. chemicals giant, Ethyl Corp, used NAFTA's Chapter 11 to sue the Canadian government for a ban imposed on MMT, a gasoline additive produced by Ethyl which is toxic and hazardous to public health. Ethyl claimed that the ban "expropriated" its assets in Canada and that "legislative debate itself constituted an expropriation of its assets because public criticism of MMT damaged the company's reputation."
Ethyl sued the Canadian government for US$250 million. A year later, in June 1998, the Canadian government withdrew environmental legislation banning MMT, and paid Ethyl Corp US$13 million to settle the case.
Three more suits are outstanding against the Canadian government, three against the Mexican government and two against the U.S. government.
The case against the United States by a Canadian corporation, Mexthanex, also gained attention with a September 5 article in The National Post announcing that Methanex will seek US$970 million in compensation for environmental laws in California which are "tantamount to expropriation."
All of these cases are based on the "rights" of investors guaranteed in NAFTA's Chapter 11, where a broad definition of "expropriation" is combined with the right of investors to directly sue governments for compensation (under "investor-to-state" dispute resolution).
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.