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 ...
TPP has been in the works for years without TPA. That’s unfortunate, because if TPA had been in effect, Congress would have set the parameters of the agreement and been involved in the negotiations from the start. Now we have a secret agreement and Congress can’t even talk about it. Which of the two seems more transparent, the agreement we have now, or what we would have had if TPA had been in place?
I do not think TPP will pass. For one thing, no one trusts Obama. He is known to be an awful negotiator. Any agreement he produces will get more scrutiny than any in history and those facing re election are not going to risk a yes vote. With solid Democrat opposition we only need a handful of Republicans to vote it down. We will still have TPA in place for almost 5 years for the next President.
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.
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.
Everything you say we need, TPA provides. Right now we have an agreement that has been in the works for 9 years and is so secret Congress is not even allowed to talk about it. If TPA had been in effect, Congress would have been in charge and involved from the beginning.
For some reason, you are refusing to process the facts of TPA in favor of Democrat talking points. We don’t have TPA now, we don’t know what the agreement says and will have no input whatsoever.
of course TPP will pass . TPA removed debate ,TPA removed the 60% cloture and 66% approval for treaties , TPA removed amendments . it’s just an up or down vote no debate , no amendments only 51% needed to pass, no cloture nothing . that’s why they passed TPA to pass TPP. TPA = passing TPP. and we the people won’t see what’s in TPP . remind you of anything ? Obamacare and they Obamacare had to get the 60% approval in the Senate . you’re mad if you think they won’t be able to get 50% for TPP. MAD. how many days will congress even get to see this secret TPP and how big is it. it dwarfs Obamacare and only a few chapters are even on trade. and all of you supposed conservatives support the passing of a secret agreement that dwarfs Obamacare in size written by Obama and other dictators in other countries .
With the Constitution something as huge as TPP would take years of amendments , committee votes, debate, and then it would have to pass a 60% cloture vote. ALL of these checks on Obama your TPA removes . You TPA says only a 51% vote , no debate ,no ammendments needed to pass country destroying TPP. that's un American. you are brainwashed
How fast do you think they will pass TPP after the dictators finish it? it will be fast tracked and the media won't even cover it. it will be worse than obamacare as we didn't see what was in that either.
What is the hurry then? Why not give the next President TPA instead of this one. Without TPP, TPA is worthless.
TPP will pass, and we will remember people like Cruz that made it happen.
That is not how trade agreements are negotiated. There has not been a trade agreement negotiated for the last 80 years without TPA. Countries are not going to sign an agreement that has been years in the making only to have the rug pulled from under them. Why not have Congress involved throughout the negotiations so that there is agreement between all parties and no need for deal breaking amendments?
Would you rather have transparency or the secretive process we have now?
If Dems regain control of the Senate, TPA will never be given to another President. That is why we haven’t had it since 2007 when the last one expired.
We are losing out in trade markets because we don’t have a process in place to negotiate new markets. It is hurting our economy. I know Democrats like to demonize trade agreements so they don’t have to focus on what is really sending our jobs out of the country, regulations, unions, and high corporate taxes.
Something this big we the people need to see it and debate it. your TPA eliminates debate, eliminates congressional checks on Obama such as amendments, 60% needed to pass etc.
you want us to accept a secret giant agreement negotiated in secret by Obama and put that to a single up or down vote with no amendments , no debate , only 51% needed to pass . That's not America. you are mad and working for the destruction of America.
go bother someone else . all of you are brainwashed
Senator Cruz would not and will not give President Obama one more inch of unrestricted power.
What is your proof that tpp will not get a majority vote?
that does not answer my question. where is proof that a bad tpp will not win a simple majority vote? Why make this piece of secrecy easier?
How about they vote on FAST TRACK IMPEACHMENT.
I’d support that.
Because this tpa is just something that depends on the good will of the President. He doesn’t show them the text,or he doesn’t listen to their negotiating objectives or doesn’t wait for 60 days or whatever....SO WHAT.
WHAT YOU GONNA DO CONGRESS ...IMPEACH ME? PLeeeeeezzzzz.
Does Cruz think NAFTA was good for US?
Simple question. He doesn’t need to wait to answer it because he can read the whole thing and see how it turned out.
So....jew like o jew no like ...si o no. yes or no.
Because if they liked NAFTA, THEY WILL LOVE THEMOTHER OF ALL NAFTAs.
In fact, if they liked H1Bs......
Nobody has said anything about accepting a secret agreement. Just the opposite. You make no attempt to look at what TPA provides us, an opportunity to have input and transparency. Obviously you are what is called a “lo info” voter, not because the information is not made available to you, but because you cannot or will not process it.
I hope you and Nancy Pelosi enjoy selling your “Chicken Little the sky is falling” Democrat talking points. You must be so proud.
Did we have NAFTA when we put 10 men and 2 SUVs on the moon?
What have we done since NAFTA? Well we have made Communist China a Super Power, increased our trade deficits.
Would you rather have transparency or the secretive process we have now? = Would you rather have THEMOTHER OF ALL NAFTAs NOW?
Future trade deals would not be unconstitutional, nor would they undermine U.S. sovereignty, if they contained an agreement to submit some disputes to an international tribunal for an initial determination. The United States will always have the ultimate say over what its domestic laws provide. No future agreement could grant an international organization the power to change U.S. laws.
Right out of the chute, TPP already violates TPA because the bill has not been negotiated under TPA which requires Congress’s setting of restrictions and involvement in the entire negotiating process. At the very least, TPA will give us a 60 day look at the agreement, which we don’t now have the right to.
All Democrats will vote against TPP. That is a guaranteed 44 votes against. They only need 7 votes to defeat it. I think Cruz will vote against, Sessions, Paul, Collins against. They only need three more votes to defeat it. Do you honestly believe that they can’t find three more Republicans who will not be able to resist the satisfaction of handing Obama a defeat? Especially when we have so many up for re election.
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.