Posted on 06/20/2015 7:55:29 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz blew away another gathering of religious conservative leaders this week, preaching about threats to religious freedom to a receptive and hungry crowd.
"I will never, ever, ever shy away from standing up and defending the religious liberty of every American," the GOP White House hopeful thundered at the Faith and Freedom Coalition's "Road to Majority" conference in Washington.
"Religious liberty has never been more threatened in America than right now today," Cruz added.
Cruz hit all the right notes and could easily be declared the winner of the three-day conference, which wraps up Saturday. But despite the good receptions at events like these, Cruz's work on stage is not translating to the campaign trail. He not only lags behind in early state polls, but also in organization. And despite being the first major presidential candidate to declare this cycle, early state activists are baffled by how little they say they have seen Cruz.
"I've always thought that Ted Cruz was kind of the perfect caucus candidate," said Craig Robinson, who runs "The Iowa Republican" website and is a former political director for the state party. "But what we haven't seen is a real commitment to the state."
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
(Runs and hides)
By tailoring his disinformation to appeal to conservatives, the career Democrat operative is attempting to make the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) toxic to Republicans.
Lachlan Markay of the Washington Free Beacon looked into the group behind the anti- TPP website, ObamaTrade.com, and found it is funded by Curtis Ellis, the progressive three-time Dem candidate for Congress.
Curtis Ellis leads a group called the American Jobs Alliance that vehemently opposes the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and “fast-track” authority that would expedite its congressional consideration. Ellis calls the latter “ObamaTrade.”
Only Perry has devoted more time to Iowa than Cruz. Cruz has a strong Iowa organization.
(I’m leaving out Walker, but although he hasn’t been in Iowa that much, Wisconsin is just next door and Gov. Branstad supporters have been working for him.)
Walker and Cruz look to have the strongest organizations in Iowa, and they look to be strongest this far away (six months) from the caucuses.
Cruz is one of 12 declared candidates seeking the GOP nomination. Speaking to reporters following his speech, the senator says he'll emulate Iowa Senator Charles Grassley by appearing in all 99 counties. Cruz says he favors the grassroots campaign approach necessary to win in Iowa.
So you Isara are for giving Obama fast track power.
You are for dismantling the constitution and destroying America since you are for giving Obama fast track or trade promotion authority.
The Constitution requires that 66% of the Senate approve any treaty (and amendments are allowed).
With this fast track or trade promotion Authority bill they want to lower it to 51% and no amendments and only 60 days to pass a bill. that’s a dictatorship and the end of America. Obama can basically rewrite USA laws as treaties override USA laws.
It would be ridiculously easy to pass a treaty with only a 51% up or down vote , no debates and no amendments and only 60 days to pass it as the people wouldn’t have enough time to get the message to their representatives.
This is unconstitutional. We want amendments that could kill a bad bill as the Constitution allows. We want 66% approval not 51% .Call Congress . Tell them to vote no on TPA (Trade promotion authority).
Fast track or trade promotion authority for Obama is the worst thing ever:
1. Fast track Lowers the Constitutional Senate approval from 66% to 51% for treaties.
2.Gives congress only 60 days to produce an up or down vote with no amendments shuts out the American people from the debate.
3 no amendments means any treaty written by Obama is passed almost automatically . So this is Obama writing laws which is a dictatorship.
4. Trade promotion authority is unconstitutional as the Constitution requires 2/3 of the Senate or 66% to approve treaties. this is dangerous empowering this monster Obama:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
The Constitution provides that 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” (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treaty making process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division.
Whether it is constitutional or not is NOT the issue. The issue is giving TPA to a President who has proven throughout his ENTIRE administration that he HATES AMERICA and is working to destroy us. What’s the RUSH? Obama only has a year and a few months. WAIT until a new President is elected and see just what we want to do. How many years was the pipeline delayed, only to pass, and be vetoed by Obama. i wouldn’t trust him with a soda straw, let alone ANOTHER PEN to screw America. (He wouldn’t even need a phone.!)
Senator Cruz would not and will not give President Obama one more inch of unrestricted power.
Does TPA give the President more authority?
No. TPA ensures that Congress has the ability to set the objectives up-front for free trade agreements.
Trade Promotion Authority has been used to reduce trade barriers since FDR. When Harry Reid took over the Senate, he killed it. History demonstrates that it is almost impossible to negotiate a free-trade agreement without TPA. Right now without TPA, America is unable to negotiate free-trade agreements, putting the United States at a disadvantage to China, which is taking the lead world-wide. It is not in America’s interests to have China writing the rules of international trade.
Moreover, Obama is going to be president for just 18 more months. TPA is six-year legislation. If we want the next president (hopefully a Republican) to be able to negotiate free-trade agreements to restart our economy and create jobs here at home then we must reinstate TPA. With a Republican president in office, Senate Democrats would almost certainly vote party-line to block TPA, so now is the only realistic chance.
How can Senator Cruz trust Obama?
He doesn’t. Not at all. No part of Senator Cruz’s support for TPA was based on trusting Obama. However, under TPA, every trade deal is still subject to approval by Congress. If the Obama Administration tries to do something terrible in a trade agreement, Congress can vote it down. And most congressional Democrats will always vote no—because union bosses oppose free trade, so do most Democrats—which means a handful of conservative congressional Republicans have the votes to kill any bad deal. That’s a serious check on presidential power.
Yeah, the day NPR is shut down will be a good day.
Translation: "He still hasn't caved on ethanol, the fool."
The publicly funded source ‘NPR’ is all that needs to be noted to predict the release of dreck that follows.
Maybe, but Craig Robinson is a major Iowa backer of Ron/Rand Paul. I’m not sure Paulites are big on fuel ethanol.
I wish you Cruz folks would STOP the Misinformation campaign here.
Your Lies are just INSULTING now.
The posters here know the facts about this TROJAN Horse which is really all about amnesty and a massive H-1 Visas Scam for Cruz and Ryan and McCarthy and Issa ..... Billionaire donors who want cheap slave labor to replace the pricer American workers .
First, When Cruz and the rest of the Gop Senate RAM thru cloture on TPA it
insures TPP will get passed with a simple majority not a standard treaty 66 votes.
Second ,Your comparing a Radical far reaching Secret OPEN TREATY to previous treaties . We have to deal with a Radical Soros American hating puppet is given unlimited power versus previous small limited treaties which were not Open and not Secret and not controlled by a hostile American hating radical hell bent on destroying our country. Deal with reality and stop spinning the truth.
Its gotten real old.
By tailoring his disinformation to appeal to conservatives, the career Democrat operative is attempting to make the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) toxic to Republicans.
Lachlan Markay of the Washington Free Beacon looked into the group behind the anti- TPP website, ObamaTrade.com, and found it is funded by Curtis Ellis, the progressive three-time Dem candidate for Congress.
Curtis Ellis leads a group called the American Jobs Alliance that vehemently opposes the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and “fast-track” authority that would expedite its congressional consideration. Ellis calls the latter “ObamaTrade.”
Looks like the Paulites aren't So Sure Either
Thanks. I missed that.
Probably another reason Rand can’t keep the supporters his father had, and doesn’t seem to be adding any supporters to replace them.
What are TPA and TPP?
TPA stands for Trade Promotion Authority, also known as “fast track”. TPA is a process by which trade agreements are approved by Congress. Through TPA, Congress sets out up-front objectives for the Executive branch to achieve in free trade negotiations; in exchange for following those objectives, Congress agrees to hold an up-or-down vote on trade agreements without amendments. For the past 80 years, it has proven virtually impossible to negotiate free-trade agreements without the fast-track process.
TPP stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership. TPP is a specific trade agreement currently being negotiated by the United States and 11 other countries, including Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. China is not a negotiating partner. There is no final language on TPP because negotiations are still ongoing and have been since late 2009. Neither the Senate nor the House has voted yet on the TPP. There will be no vote on TPP until the negotiations are over and the final agreement is sent to Congress.
Some Key Facts:
Does TPA give up the Senate’s treaty power?
No. Under the Constitution, there are two ways to make binding law: (1) through a treaty, ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, or (2) through legislation passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress. TPA employs the second constitutional path, as trade bills always have done. It has long been recognized that the Constitution’s Origination Clause applies to trade bills, requiring the House of Representatives’ involvement.
Does the United States give up Sovereignty by entering into TPP?
No. Nothing in the agreement forces Congress to change any law. TPA explicitly provides that nothing in any trade agreement can change U.S. law. Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law, and Congress is the only entity that can change U.S. law. Nothing about TPP or TPA could change that.
Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPP?
Senator Cruz has not taken a position either in favor or against TPP. He will wait until the agreement is finalized and he has a chance to study it carefully to ensure that the agreement will open more markets to American-made products, create jobs, and grow our economy. Senator Cruz has dedicated his professional career to defending U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. He will not support any trade agreement that would diminish or undermine either.
Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPA?
Yes. Senator Cruz voted in favor of TPA earlier this year because it breaks the logjam that is preventing the U.S. from entering into trade deals that are good for American workers, American businesses, and our economy. Ronald Reagan emphatically supported free trade, and Senator Cruz does as well. He ran for Senate promising to support free trade, and he is honoring that commitment to the voters.
Free trade helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers; indeed, one in five American jobs depends on trade, in Texas alone 3 million jobs depend on trade. When we open up foreign markets, we create American jobs.
TPA also strengthens Congress’ hand in trade negotiations, and provides transparency by making the agreement (including TPP) public for at least 60 days before the Congress can act on any final agreement. Without TPA, there is no such transparency, and the Congress’ role in trade agreements is weaker.
Is TPA Constitutional?
TPA and similar trade authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional for more than 100 years.
Does TPA give the President more authority?
No. TPA ensures that Congress has the ability to set the objectives up-front for free trade agreements.
Trade Promotion Authority has been used to reduce trade barriers since FDR. When Harry Reid took over the Senate, he killed it. History demonstrates that it is almost impossible to negotiate a free-trade agreement without TPA. Right now without TPA, America is unable to negotiate free-trade agreements, putting the United States at a disadvantage to China, which is taking the lead world-wide. It is not in America’s interests to have China writing the rules of international trade.
Moreover, Obama is going to be president for just 18 more months. TPA is six-year legislation. If we want the next president (hopefully a Republican) to be able to negotiate free-trade agreements to restart our economy and create jobs here at home then we must reinstate TPA. With a Republican president in office, Senate Democrats would almost certainly vote party-line to block TPA, so now is the only realistic chance.
How can Senator Cruz trust Obama?
He doesn’t. Not at all. No part of Senator Cruz’s support for TPA was based on trusting Obama. However, under TPA, every trade deal is still subject to approval by Congress. If the Obama Administration tries to do something terrible in a trade agreement, Congress can vote it down. And most congressional Democrats will always vote no—because union bosses oppose free trade, so do most Democrats—which means a handful of conservative congressional Republicans have the votes to kill any bad deal. That’s a serious check on presidential power.
Isn’t TPP a “living agreement”?
That particular phrase—a foolish and misleading way to put it—is found in the “summary” portion of one particular section of the draft agreement. That section allows member nations to amend the agreement in the future, expressly subject to the approval of their governments. Thus, if some amendment were proposed in the future, Congress would have to approve it before it went into effect.
But isn’t TPA a secret agreement?
No, it is not. The full text of TPA (fast track) is public. What the Senate just voted for was TPA, not TPP.
Right now, the text of TPP is classified. That is a mistake. Senator Cruz has vigorously called on the Obama administration to make the full text of TPP open to the public immediately. The text being hidden naturally only fuels concerns about what might be in it. Senator Cruz has read the current draft of TPP, and it should be made public now.
Critically, under TPA, TPP cannot be voted on until after the text has been public for 60 days. Therefore, everyone will be able to read it long before it comes up for a vote.
Couldn’t Obama use a trade agreement to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants?
No. There is one section of TPP that concerns immigration, but it affects only foreign nations—the United States has explicitly declined to sign on to that section.
Moreover, Senator Cruz introduced a TPA amendment to expressly prohibit any trade deal from attempting to alter our immigration laws.
Two Republican Senators (Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul) blocked the Senate’s consideration of that amendment, but the House of Representatives has agreed to include that language in the final text of the trade legislation. Thus, assuming the House honors that public commitment, federal law will explicitly prohibit any trade deal from impacting immigration.
And, regardless, no trade agreement can change U.S. law; only Congress can change U.S. law.
If you think I'm exaggerating then Here is Senator Jeff Sessions writing how trade promotion authority does give Obama much more power:
http://www.conservativehq.com/node/20233
Senator Jeff Sessions:
“The request for fast-track also comes at a time when the Administration has established a recurring pattern of sidestepping the law, the Congress, and the Constitution in order to repeal sovereign protections for U.S. workers in deference to favored financial and political allies.
With that in mind, here are the top five concerns about the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that must be fully understood and addressed before passage:
1. Consolidation Of Power In The Executive Branch. TPA eliminates Congress’ ability to amend or debate trade implementing legislation and guarantees an up-or-down vote on a far-reaching international agreement before that agreement has received any public review. Not only will Congress have given up the 67-vote threshold for a treaty and the 60-vote threshold for important legislation, but will have even given up the opportunity for amendment and the committee review process that both ensure member participation. Crucially, this applies not only to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) but all international trade agreements during the life of the TPA. There is no real check on the expiration of fast-track authority: if Congress does not affirmatively refuse to reauthorize TPA at the end of the defined authorization (2018), the authority is automatically renewed for an additional three years so long as the President requests the extension. And if a trade deal (not just TPP but any trade deal) is submitted to Congress that members believe does not fulfill, or that directly violates, the TPA recommendations—or any laws of the United States—it is exceptionally difficult for lawmakers to seek legislative redress or remove it from the fast track, as the exit ramp is under the exclusive control of the revenue and Rules committees.
Moreover, while the President is required to submit a report to Congress on the terms of a trade agreement at least 60 days before submitting implementing legislation, the President can classify or otherwise redact information from this report, limiting its value to Congress.
Is TPA designed to protect congressional responsibilities, or to limit Congress’ ability to do its duty?
3. Ceding Sovereign Authority To International Powers. A USTR outline of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which TPA would expedite) notes in the “Key Features” summary that the TPP is a “living agreement.” This means the President could update the agreement “as appropriate to address trade issues that emerge in the future as well as new issues that arise with the expansion of the agreement to include new countries.” The “living agreement” provision means that participating nations could both add countries to the TPP without Congress’ approval (like China), and could also change any of the terms of the agreement, including in controversial areas such as the entry of foreign workers and foreign employees. Again: these changes would not be subject to congressional approval.
This has far-reaching implications: the Congressional Research Service reports that if the United States signs on to an international trade agreement, the implementing legislation of that trade agreement (as a law passed later in time) would supersede conflicting federal, state, and local laws. When this occurs, U.S. workers may be subject to a sudden change in tariffs, regulations, or dispute resolution proceedings in international tribunals outside the U.S.
Promoters of TPA should explain why the American people ought to trust the Administration and its foreign partners to revise or rewrite international agreements, or add new members to those agreements, without congressional approval. Does this not represent an abdication of congressional authority?
5. Immigration Increases. There are numerous ways TPA could facilitate immigration increases above current law—and precious few ways anyone in Congress could stop its happening. For instance: language could be included or added into the TPP, as well as any future trade deal submitted for fast-track consideration in the next 6 years, with the clear intent to facilitate or enable the movement of foreign workers and employees into the United States (including intracompany transfers), and there would be no capacity for lawmakers to strike the offending provision. The Administration could also simply act on its own to negotiate foreign worker increases with foreign trading partners without ever advertising those plans to Congress. In 2011, the United States entered into an agreement with South Korea—never brought before Congress—to increase the duration of L-1 visas (a visa that affords no protections for U.S. workers).
Every year, tens of thousands of foreign guest workers come to the U.S. as part of past trade deals. However, because there is little transparency, estimating an exact figure is difficult. The plain language of TPA provides avenues for the Administration and its trading partners to facilitate the expanded movement of foreign workers into the U.S.—including visitor visas that are used as worker visas. The TPA reads:
“The principal negotiating objective of the United States regarding trade in services is to expand competitive market opportunities for United States services and to obtain fairer and more open conditions of trade, including through utilization of global value chains, by reducing or eliminating barriers to international trade in services… Recognizing that expansion of trade in services generates benefits for all sectors of the economy and facilitates trade.”
This language, and other language in TPA, offers an obvious way for the Administration to expand the number and duration of foreign worker entries under the concept that the movement of foreign workers into U.S. jobs constitutes “trade in services.”
Stating that “TPP contains no change to immigration law” is a semantic rather than a factual argument. Language already present in both TPA and TPP provide the basis for admitting more foreign workers, and for longer periods of time, and language could later be added to TPP or any future trade deal to further increase such admissions.
The President has already subjected American workers to profound wage loss through executive-ordered foreign worker increases on top of existing record immigration levels. Yet, despite these extraordinary actions, the Administration will casually assert that is has merely modernized, clarified, improved, streamlined, and updated immigration rules. Thus, at any point during the 6-year life of TPA, the Administration could send Congress a trade deal—or issue an executive action subsequent to a trade deal as part of its implementation—that increased foreign worker entry into the U.S., all while claiming it has never changed immigration law.
The President has circumvented Congress on immigration with serial regularity. But the TPA would yield new power to the executive to alter admissions while subtracting congressional checks against those actions. This runs contrary to our Founders’ belief, as stated in the Constitution, that immigration should be in the hands of Congress. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution grants Congress plenary authority over immigration policy. For instance, the Court ruled in Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531 (1954), that “the formulation of policies [pertaining to the entry of immigrants and their right to remain here] is entrusted exclusively to Congress… [This principle] has become about as firmly imbedded in the legislative and judicial issues of our body politic as any aspect of our government.” Granting the President TPA could enable controversial changes or increases to a wide variety of visas—such as the H-1B, B-1, E-1, and L-1—including visas that confer foreign nationals with a pathway to a green card and thus citizenship.
Future trade deals could also have the possible effect of preventing Congress from reforming abuses in our guest worker programs, as countries could complain that limitations on foreign worker travel constituted a trade barrier requiring adjudication by an international body.
The TPP also includes an entire chapter on “Temporary Entry” that applies to all parties and that affects U.S. immigration law. Additionally, the Temporary Entry chapter creates a separate negotiating group, explicitly contemplating that the parties to the TPP will revisit temporary entry at some point in the future for the specific purpose of making changes to this chapter—after Congress would have already approved the TPP. This possibility grows more acute given that TPP is a “living agreement” that can be altered without Congress.
Proponents of TPA should be required to answer this question: if you are confident that TPA would not enable any immigration actions between now and its 2021 expiration, why not include ironclad enforcement language to reverse any such presidential action?
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.