02/12/17

A POSSIBLE REASON WHY THE TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES ABHOR DONALD TRUMP’S TRADE AND IMMIGRATION PROPOSALS

By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities
From: 2/9/17

President Trump may soon label China a currency manipulator. While I will skip the obvious notion that all countries manipulate their currencies either overtly (devaluation) or covertly (monetary policy), such a declaration may have wide ranging implications.

China is an export dominated country, defined as its economic wellbeing is dependent upon the financial health of its trading partners. A dated Commerce Department statistic suggested about 45% of Chines production is slated for export, exports dominated to Western Europe, Japan and the US. In other words, China is in a position of inherent weakness.

I reiterate a reason why electronic equipment and many other products are so inexpensive is because of trade policies, permitting exports from regions where labor is extremely cheap as compared to western wages. If the cost of production rises, either margins contract or prices go up. Either scenario may create more uncertainty.

If these increased production costs are unable to be passed onto the consumer, margins will drop, hence stock valuations will also drop.

If these higher costs could be passed on, inflationary pressures may accelerate.

The loudest protesters of Trump’s trade (and immigration) proposals are the technology companies, companies dependent upon cheap labor costs which permit greater access to their products via low prices.

Regarding stock valuation, in my view the technology companies are overvalued, representing about 24% of the capitalization of the S & P 500, eclipsing 2000’s record level which was then viewed as an absolute mania.

What happens if technology margins erode because of higher prices and inflationary pressures accelerate that forces a more hawkish Federal Reserve? Technology companies would get killed from lower than expected future cashflows discounted at a higher risk free rate, amplified by lofty valuations suggesting there is no room for error.

Against this backdrop, it is no wonder the technology companies are ardent detractors of the Trump administration, falling under the guise there is no interest like self-interest.

For the record, I think a trade war between the largest and second largest economies will end poorly… albeit I am in favor of free trade, whatever this may mean, for such will support the common man and Main Street versus a few.

We do live in interesting times where life is indeed stranger than fiction. So much for last year’s mantra that Donald Trump was behaving in such a manner to enable or permit Hillary Clinton to win the presidency for Trump then was also viewed as an elitist entrenched in the Establishment.

Last night the foreign markets were up. London was up 0.30%, Paris up 0.78% and Frankfurt up 0.55%. China was up 0.53%, Japan down 0.53% and Hang Sang up 0.17%.

The Dow should open nominally higher. The 10-year is off 9/32 to yield 2.36%.

07/25/16

The Trump-Sanders Coalition

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Trump

You know the terms “left” and “right” are losing meaning when left-wing websites are praising the Republican presidential candidate and attacking the Democrat, and Russia seems to be intervening in favor of the GOP.

The Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA), which has been pulling for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic race, has sent out an advisory entitled, “What Trump is Right About: NATO.” On the other hand, Mrs. Clinton’s pick for her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), has been depicted by the same group as a creature of Wall Street.

The IPA is not alone. Journalism Professor Jeff Cohen, co-founder of RootsAction.org and communications coordinator of the Bernie Delegates Network, has been quoted as saying that Kaine is a “corporatist,” or stooge of Big Business. Cohen’s colleague, Norman Solomon, calls Kaine a puppet of the “oligarchy.”

At the same time, WikiLeaks has released an email database from the Democratic National Committee, demonstrating that the DNC intervened in the primary contest against Sanders and in favor of Clinton. Since Russian hackers obtained the DNC emails, it means that Moscow wants to cause mischief on the Democratic side just as Hillary is getting the presidential nomination this week in Philadelphia.

An explanation for this interesting series of events may be found in the IPA news release on Trump and NATO, quoting Professor David N. Gibbs as saying that “Trump’s recent criticisms of the NATO alliance are reasonable.” He adds, “Trump is right to question NATO’s value in promoting U.S. security, and also to raise the issue of the enormous financial cost of this alliance to the U.S. taxpayer.” Gibbs has appeared on RT, the Russia Today propaganda channel.

Trump’s pro-Russian outlook has caused great consternation among conservatives who see the Vladimir Putin regime as the aggressor in Europe and interfering in the Middle East. Trump’s allies vetoed tough language in the Republican platform urging heavy weapons for Ukraine to fight Russian aggression. Instead, the Trump forces inserted language about providing “appropriate assistance” to Ukraine.

By contrast, the Democratic platform is tough on Russia and attacks Trump’s position on NATO. It says, “Russia is engaging in destabilizing actions along its borders, violating Ukraine’s sovereignty and attempting to recreate spheres of influence that undermine American interests. It is also propping up the Assad regime in Syria, which is brutally attacking its own citizens. Donald Trump would overturn more than 50 years of American foreign policy by abandoning NATO partners — 44 countries who help us fight terrorism every day — and embracing Russian President Vladimir Putin instead. We believe in strong alliances and will deter Russian aggression, build European resilience, and protect our NATO allies.”

These words sound great, except for the fact that, as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton had an opportunity to be tough with the Russians and blew it. Her Russian reset led to the invasion of Ukraine. It also masked the uranium deal highlighted in the movie “Clinton Cash,” based on the book, a deal in which the Russians bought 20 percent of America’s uranium production as millions of dollars flowed to the Clinton Foundation and hundreds of thousands of dollars went to Bill Clinton personally.

Has Hillary Clinton changed her mind on Russia? That’s what the platform would suggest. If so, it would be a big opening for Trump to pounce on her flip-flops. But he hasn’t done so. Instead, he refuses to take on Russian aggression in Europe or the Middle East.

In his speech, however, Trump openly appealed to Sanders supporters, saying they “will join our movement, because we will fix his biggest issue: trade deals that strip our country of its jobs and wealth.”

Trump’s appeal to Sanders supporters is based on trade. But it appears that his pro-Russian foreign policy has some appeal to them as well. If the Sanders supporters perceive Hillary Clinton to be a hawk on foreign policy, as Sanders himself suggested during the campaign, it’s possible they could either sit out the race or vote for the New York billionaire.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

05/28/16

Reds Demand Arms, Dollars and Trade Benefits

By: Cliff Kincaid – Accuracy in Media

Reds

Having established relations with the Castro regime in Cuba, President Obama has now signaled his willingness to sell weapons to the Communist Party dictatorship that runs Vietnam. It is the successor to the regime in Hanoi, North Vietnam, which overran South Vietnam, while in the process taking the lives of more than 58,000 Americans resisting communist aggression.

Media coverage of President Obama’s announcement in Hanoi portrayed the move as an attempt to counter Chinese influence in the region. This is pure propaganda from another “echo chamber” established by the Obama administration to sell a controversial policy. While China and Vietnam have some disagreements over territory, they are still both communist countries that share the same objective of defeating global “imperialism,” led by the United States.

Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered a speech on China-Vietnam relations at the Vietnamese National Assembly in Hanoi, Vietnam, on November 6, 2015. He referred to how relations have assumed “strategic importance.” China is Vietnam’s largest trading partner. These communist countries are not enemies. They are friends.

Continue reading

07/22/15

The Media Love Affair with McCain

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

In the fight between Donald Trump and John McCain (R-AZ) over the senator’s military service, the liberal media have taken McCain’s side. But since when did the media get concerned about the noble cause of fighting communism in Vietnam?

Our media, led by CBS Evening News anchorman Walter Cronkite, who was then an influential media figure, protested the Vietnam War and prompted the U.S. withdrawal and communist takeover. His FBI file demonstrated Cronkite’s contacts with Soviet officials and how he was used as a dupe by the communists.

More than 58,000 Americans sacrificed and died to save that country from communism.

The liberal media never supported the war against communism in Vietnam. Yet they are now browbeating Trump over avoiding the war through deferments. Our media are full of hypocrites. They don’t admire McCain for fighting in Vietnam. They admire him because he is a “maverick” who frequently takes the liberal line, such as on “comprehensive immigration reform.”

If the liberals in the media are so enamored of McCain’s military service in Vietnam, let them revisit the history of the Vietnam War and express some outrage over the fact that it was a Democratic Congress that cut off aid to South Vietnam, leading to the communist takeover and the genocide in neighboring Cambodia.

What about some critical coverage of Obama’s recent meeting with Nguyen Phu Trong, the head of Vietnam’s Communist Party? Vietnam is one of the beneficiaries of Obama’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement. If passed, it would benefit Vietnam’s communist rulers.

As we have pointed out, “Interestingly, Obama is trying to sell the agreement as a counter to China’s influence throughout the world. He wants us to believe that China and Vietnam somehow differ on their common objective of achieving world communism at the expense of America’s standing as the leader of what used to be the Free World. Both countries would gladly welcome the U.S. to help pay to accelerate the growth of their socialist economies and expand their markets.”

McCain supports the TPP; Trump does not.

We have pointed out that Vietnam is “a dictatorship with the blood of those Americans on its hands,” a reference to what the communists did to McCain and our soldiers, and “which has no respect for the human rights of its own people.”

A bipartisan congressional letter about Obama’s meeting with the Vietnamese communist reaffirmed this fact. It was signed by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), who represents one of the largest Vietnamese populations outside of Vietnam in the world, in Orange County, California. She said, “I am disappointed that the administration has chosen to host Nguyen Phu Trong, the General Secretary of the Vietnamese Communist Party. There continues to be egregious and systemic human rights abuses in Vietnam, including religious and political persecutions. As an advocate for human rights in Vietnam I cannot ignore the dismal state of freedom of the press and freedom of speech.”

This is precisely what McCain and tens of thousands of other Americans were fighting to prevent.

Yet, McCain issued a statement, saying that he “warmly” welcomed Trong’s “historic trip” to the United States. He added, “This visit demonstrates the growing strength of the U.S.-Vietnam partnership as we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the normalization of relations between our countries.”

Why is McCain celebrating a “partnership” with a dictatorship that he and thousands of Americans fought against?

What’s more, McCain says the U.S. “must further ease the prohibition on the sale of lethal military equipment to Vietnam…”  Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry had partially lifted a ban on lethal weapons sales to Vietnam in October of 2014.

If our media are so concerned about an American Vietnam veteran being the target of a perceived insult from Trump, why haven’t they put pressure on the Obama administration to clean up Vietnam’s human rights record before going ahead with another agreement to benefit that regime? After all, this is the same regime that captured and tortured Sen. McCain.

The answer is that our media are using the current McCain controversy to damage Trump, who has almost single-handedly made illegal immigration into a national issue. They don’t really care about McCain’s service in Vietnam.

When President Bill Clinton normalized relations with communist Vietnam in 1995, he thanked Senator McCain and then-Senator John Kerry (D-MA) for agreeing with the notion that America had to “move forward on Vietnam.”

What has happened in the meantime?

We pointed out 11 years ago that President Clinton’s lifting of the U.S. trade embargo on Vietnam in 1995 was followed by a bilateral trade agreement. Kerry and McCain supported that, too. The U.S. trade deficit with Vietnam has been consistently rising ever since, to the point where it was $19.6 billion in 2013.

In his statement on Trong’s visit to the United States, McCain said, “Since 1995, annual U.S.-Vietnam trade has increased from less than $500 million to $36 billion last year.” He conveniently ignored the trade deficits that have cost American jobs.  For example, the communist regime has been dumping shrimp products into the United States at artificially low prices, and has become the fourth largest shrimp supplier to the U.S. market, even though several shipments have been detected with banned antibiotics.

At the time he extended diplomatic relations, Clinton said, “Whatever we may think about the political decisions of the Vietnam era, the brave Americans who fought and died there had noble motives. They fought for the freedom and the independence of the Vietnamese people. Today the Vietnamese are independent, and we believe this step will help to extend the reach of freedom in Vietnam and, in so doing, to enable these fine veterans of Vietnam to keep working for that freedom.”

False. The Vietnamese people did not become independent. They became slaves of the communists.

Obama recently met with their slave master. But our media didn’t utter any tears for the victims of communism.

You may also recall that then-Senator Kerry ran a Senate investigation that brought the search for live American POWs from the war to a close. McCain was a member of the Kerry committee.

Since McCain has been in the news for his military service, this should have been a newsworthy topic for our media.

Roger Hall, A POW/MIA researcher, went to court, having sued the CIA for documents on missing or abandoned Vietnam POWs. Hall and many others are convinced that hundreds of American POWs were left behind in Vietnam.

Former Senator Bob Smith (R) of New Hampshire wrote the legislation creating the Senate Select Committee on POWs and MIAs in the early 1990s in order to get the truth released to the public.

“Despite the release of thousands of documents and the testimony of dozens of witnesses, I could not complete the job. Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Select Committee, and Senator John McCain were more interested in establishing diplomatic relations and putting the war behind them than they were about finding the truth about our missing,” said Smith. “I fought them constantly to the point of exhaustion. It was a very sad chapter in American history.”

A YouTube video exposed McCain’s efforts to block access to POW information and examines his alleged cooperation with the North Vietnamese while he was in captivity. Senator Smith is one of those featured in the video.

Why don’t the media remind us of that? We have the answer. They are too busy bashing Trump and trying to look patriotic about the Vietnam War.

07/8/15

The Media vs. Trump’s Patriotic Appeal

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Donald Trump may be the most politically incorrect candidate on the Republican side. He openly mocks the news media and addresses the problem of illegal immigration. But even more importantly, he attacks the trade policies that benefit our enemies and adversaries. By doing so, he challenges what radio talk show host Jeffrey T. Kuhner calls the bipartisan “ruling establishment,” whose dominance “is based on the complicity of the mainstream media.”

With regard to the media, Trump’s attack on NBC after the network cut ties with him demonstrates his understanding of what appeals to the conservatives who vote in the Republican Party.

“If NBC is so weak and so foolish to not understand the serious illegal immigration problem in the United States, coupled with the horrendous and unfair trade deals we are making with Mexico, then their contract-violating closure of Miss Universe/Miss USA will be determined in court,” he said. “Furthermore, they will stand behind lying Brian Williams, but won’t stand behind people that tell it like it is, as unpleasant as that may be.”

Williams is the serial liar who, despite being exposed for numerous fraudulent claims about his own career, has been kept on the payroll of NBC News.

The response to Trump, who is rising in the polls, demonstrates that conservatives like a candidate who exposes the liberals in the media as the hypocrites they are.

But it’s not just standing up to the media—or his criticism of criminals coming into the country through Mexico—that has made him into a hero. As analyst Nevin Gussack notes, “Trump’s economics and aspects of his national security strategy challenge the Washington Consensus of globalism, free trade, and other internationalist policies.” This may be the sleeper issue of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Gussack is the author of the book, Sowing the Seeds of Our Destruction: Useful Idiots on the ‘Right,’ which contends that trade policies under both Democrats and Republicans have served the interests of countries hostile to the United States, most especially China.

In his voluminous writings on the topic, Gussack is particularly critical of current and former Republican governors, some of them running for president, noting that they have “colluded to hasten Red Chinese economic colonization of the United States under the guise of foreign investment.” He faults them for traveling “hat in hand” to the Chinese “to negotiate for the outright takeover of U.S.-owned assets.”

He cites the case of 25 wealthy Communist Chinese investors visiting Orlando, Florida for a “US-China Investment Week” in 2012 that was attended by Florida Governor Rick Scott, then-Texas Governor Rick Perry, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

In 2010, Gussack notes, Governor Rick Perry helped the Chinese telecommunications firm Huawei Technologies open a headquarters in Plano, Texas. A 2012 report from the House Intelligence Committee called Huawei a threat to U.S. national security interests because of its connections to the Chinese government, including the People’s Liberation Army.

Accuracy in Media disclosed in a 2014 investigative report that the firm had been linked to the murder of an American citizen, Dr. Shane Truman Todd, who had been working on a project in Singapore involving Huawei.

Governor Walker opened something called the Wisconsin Center China in Madison, Wisconsin, to facilitate trade with the communist regime. At the time, Walker said, “This trade center strengthens our relationship with China and provides Wisconsin businesses the resources and assistance to pursue export opportunities in this growing market. Through the years, Wisconsin has built a strong trade relationship with China, and the opening of the Wisconsin Center China will help Wisconsin businesses continue to strengthen our trade relationships and grow export opportunities.”

Walker embarked on a trade mission to Red China in 2013, Gussack points out, where he met Communist Party officials and Chinese President/General Secretary Xi Jinping. The Communists then hosted a reception for Governor Walker and his delegation, which was made up of 300 Wisconsin businessmen and officials.

“Tragically,” Gussack goes on, “it appeared that Governor Walker and a majority of state Republicans sought to liberalize foreign ownership laws over Wisconsin land. Specifically, Governor Walker sought to overturn the law that prohibited the foreign ownership of more than 640 acres of land in Wisconsin.” Republican State Senator Dale Schultz acknowledged that repeal “would allow the Chinese government to buy a big chunk of land in northwest Wisconsin if it wanted to.”

However, outrage over the provision caused Walker to drop it from a budget plan.

In 2011, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush visited the Chinese province of Hainan, where he talked about stronger economic ties, and in January 2012 met with the former Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping, now the President of China. Xi Jinping said the Bush family had made great contributions to promoting relations between China and the United States, “which the two nations and the two peoples will not forget.”

Gussack comments, “Naturally, Bush was following in his father’s and brother’s footsteps in the promotion of the economic and political interests of a communist enemy of the United States. The Bush family was another case of a family rooted in transnational capital which promoted Beijing’s interests, rather than solely the advancement of American national interests.”

In a piece entitled, “Is the U.S. Being Colonized By Red China?,” Tom Deweese, president of the American Policy Center, wrote that “The genius of the Chinese system is that they are using its growing industrial might to create wealth the Soviets could never have dreamed of possessing. China is using its vast wealth (trillions of dollars) compiled from the glut of Chinese goods sold in American stores, to buy its power. It’s buying American debt and wielding heavy influence on the American economy.”

DeWeese argued that through the so-called Immigrant Investor Regional Centers of the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service, countries like China are investing in American communities with federal help. “While the program is open to immigrants from around world, the main interest appears to be from Communist China,” he said, adding that “the waning American economy and a U.S. government that no longer sees communism as a threat, makes us vulnerable to a power that knows exactly what it seeks.”

Trump has challenged this kind of pandering to Beijing and other foreign interests, leading radio talk show host Jeffrey T. Kuhner to comment that Trump “is a Teddy Roosevelt-style nationalist, who seeks to break the stranglehold of Big Business, Big Media and Big Government. Moreover, his vast wealth means that he cannot be bought and paid for.”

Kuhner added, “Economic nationalism has been a cardinal principle of conservatism dating back to our Founding Fathers. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams—all supported protective tariffs and a trade policy that guaranteed America’s economic independence.”

While his comments on criminal aliens have garnered the attention, Trump’s criticism of the trade practices of foreign countries may be what ultimately sets him apart from the other Republican contenders. It could be his path to the Republican nomination and victory in 2016.

06/12/15

Why Are TPA & TPP Being Referred to as Obamatrade?

By: Nancy Salvato

In an article by Connor Wolf called This Is The Difference Between TPP And TPA (Hint: They Are Not The Same Thing), he explains that these two bills are linked together because Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is a means to fast track passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). I am confused by this line of reasoning because as a stand-alone bill, TPA is intended to provide transparency to all trade negotiations by soliciting public and congressional input throughout the process, however, TPP as a stand-alone bill, is a behemoth and most of the information to which the public has access has been leaked. Furthermore, it was negotiated behind closed doors. According to the verbiage of TPA, if TPP is not negotiated using TPA guidelines, the fast track option is negated. So why do news outlets and a wide range of legislators portray these two bills disingenuously? Bundling the TPA and TPP as one idea called Obamatrade is no different than bundling immigration reform and border security, which are two separate issues. One is about drug cartels and terrorism and the other is about how we manage people who want to immigrate to the United States.

Challenges TPA hopes to remedy throughout the negotiating process and in resulting trade agreements have parallels to challenges facing the US and its allies when agreeing to make war on the foreign stage. While one president may assure allies that US troops will assist in gaining and maintaining freedom, i.e., Iraq, a new administration or congress may change the terms, leaving a foreign country abandoned, with the understanding that the US cannot be relied upon to meet its agreed upon obligations. When negotiating foreign trade agreements, this same realization comes into play when negotiations that took place in good faith are undermined by a new administration or congress that change the terms. TPA hopes to create a set of consistent negotiating objectives when hammering out trade agreements, allowing agreements to transcend administrations and congresses.

The following excerpts from a letter written to President Obama from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R, AL) would alarm any person who understands the division of powers and checks and balances built into our rule of law.         Posted in Exclusive–Sessions to Obama: Why Are You Keeping Obama Trade’s New Global Governance Secret? Sessions explains:

“Under fast-track, Congress transfers its authority to the executive and agrees to give up several of its most basic powers.”

“These concessions include: the power to write legislation, the power to amend legislation, the power to fully consider legislation on the floor, the power to keep debate open until Senate cloture is invoked, and the constitutional requirement that treaties receive a two-thirds vote.”

Understanding that Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Representative Paul Ryan have gotten behind TPA, it would be short sited and irresponsible not to probe further into why they aren’t exposing these violations of our rule of law.

According to The Hill’s Daniel Horowitz in TPA’s ‘Whoa, if true’ moment, Cruz and Ryan have explained, “most of the content of the bill is actually requirements on the executive branch to disclose information to Congress and consult with Congress on the negotiations.” Congress would be informed on the front end, as opposed to debating and making changes to what was already negotiated. This is important because as Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome and K. William Watson explain in Don’t Drink the Obamatrade Snake Oil:

Although trade agreements provide a mechanism for overcoming political opposition to free trade, they also create new political problems of their own, most of which stem from the inherent conflict in the U.S. Constitution between the power granted to Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations” (Article I, Section 8) and that granted to the president to negotiate treaties (Article II, Section 2) and otherwise act as the “face” of U.S. international relations. In short, the executive branch is authorized to negotiate trade agreements that escape much of the legislative sausage-making that goes in Washington, but, consistent with the Constitution, any such deals still require congressional approval—a process that could alter the agreement’s terms via congressional amendments intended to appease influential constituents. The possibility that, after years of negotiations, an unfettered Congress could add last-minute demands to an FTA (or eliminate its biggest benefits) discourages all but the most eager U.S. trading partners to sign on to any such deal.

TPA, also known as “fast track,” was designed to fix this problem. TPA is an arrangement between the U.S. executive and legislative branches, under which Congress agrees to hold a timely, up-or-down vote (i.e., no amendments) on future trade agreements in exchange for the president agreeing to follow certain negotiating objectives set by Congress and to consult with the legislative branch before, during, and after FTA negotiations. In essence, Congress agrees to streamline the approval process as long as the president negotiates agreements that it likes.

For a really good argument for fast tracking, watch the video that can be found here:

Here’s why the TPP is such a big deal 03:24

K. William Watson explains in What’s Really in the New Trade Promotion Authority Bill? TPA will actually bring more transparency to the negotiating process:

The current bill would require the administration to provide public summaries of its negotiating positions. This will give the public something concrete to debate without having to resort to conspiracy claims or wild theories. It will also help everyone see more clearly how negotiators intend to implement the negotiating objectives of TPA.

It will also require that every member of Congress has access to the full text of the negotiations from beginning to end.

If TPA actually does what it is intended, a bill like TPP could not possibly be held to an up or down vote because it would not have been negotiated using the processes as outlined. Or could it? This administration passed Obamacare, which is a tax; they wanted comprehensive immigration reform and secure borders yet they openly courted Latin American countries to bring their kids to the border; they said they’d be the most transparent administration but there has been a dramatic lack of transparency, one must pass the bill before knowing what’s in it.

Perhaps what it all boils down to is what Rick Helfenbein writes about in Trade promotion authority, a Washington drama:

There are other conservatives like Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) who remain adamantly opposed to giving the president (presumed) additional authority. Jones said of Obama and TPA: “Given his record, I am astonished that some of my colleagues are so eager to fork over even more of their constitutional authority to the [p]resident for him to abuse.”

While this article addresses the issue of TPA, it doesn’t begin to address the arguments against TPP, for example The Guardian’s C. Robert Gibson and Taylor Channing’s conclusion that, “Fast-tracking the TPP, meaning its passage through Congress without having its contents available for debate or amendments, was only possible after lots of corporate money exchanged hands with senators.” That is an article for another day.

Nancy Salvato directs the Constitutional Literacy Program for BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan research and educational project whose mission is to re-introduce the American public to the basic elements of our constitutional heritage while providing non-partisan, fact-based information on relevant socio-political issues important to our country. She is a graduate of the National Endowment for the Humanities’ National Academy for Civics and Government. She is the author of “Keeping a Republic: An Argument for Sovereignty.” She also serves as a Senior Editor for NewMediaJournal.us and is a contributing writer to Constituting America. Her education career includes teaching students from pre-k to graduate school.  She has also worked as an administrator in higher education. Her private sector efforts focus on the advancement of constitutional literacy.

05/3/15

Obama’s Trade Deal With Communist Vietnam and Muslim Brunei

By: Cliff Kincaid
America’s Survival

Kevin Kearns, president of the U.S. Business & Industry Council (USBIC), is interviewed about whether the Republican-controlled Congress will pass President Obama’s Trans Pacific Partnership. USBIC is a national business organization advocating for domestic U.S. manufacturers since 1933. He says previous trade deals have resulted in the U.S. losing five million manufacturing jobs and 57,000 manufacturing establishments since 2000.