Bill Summary: The Senate had earlier (6-4-15) passed H.R. 2146 as the “Defending Public Safety Employees’ Retirement Act, but this time around it had become a vehicle for the much more significant Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). H.R. 2146 would now, when signed into law, provide the president with Trade Promotion Authority, primarily in conjunction with the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).TPA requires Congress to vote up or down on any negotiated agreement after the president submits the package (including implementing legislation). No amendments are allowed.

Background: After a coalition of liberal Democrats and GOP conservatives in the House was able to scuttle Trade Promotion Authority when it was tied to the vote on Trade Adjustment Assistance, the House Leadership decided to bring TPA up again for a new vote by attaching it as an amendment to the less controversial H.R. 2146.

Analysis: Trade Promotion Authority, originally known as “fast track,” is an unconstitutional delegation by Congress of law-making responsibility to the president. TPA violates the Constitution’s separation of powers.

However, much worse than the constitutional violation in “fast track” itself is the violation by the actual agreements fast track was developed to facilitate. These agreements unconstitutionally surrender sovereign U.S. power to international authorities, such as the World Trade Organization and NAFTA tribunals, having no public accountability.

Following an earlier successful vote in the Senate on TPP, Washington’s Roll Call (5-14-15) stated that Senator Ron “Wyden, the lead Democratic negotiator on the bill and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, said [the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal] would improve enforcement of worker protections and environmental protections across the globe, including upgrading enforcement in existing trade pacts like NAFTA.” [Emphasis added.]

Indeed, fast track is a key component of the Internationalist scheme to tie our nation to a system of regional trade blocs as a steppingstone to regional government, such as the European Union.   This hidden objective has nothing to do with removing trade barriers.

The deceptions used to create the European Union provide a good model for what Americans are now being told. In the case of the European Union, Internationalists promoted its precursor Common Market as a mere trade agreement, when, in fact, they intended it from the beginning as a foot in the door toward political union. [See, for example, the revelations in The Great Deception: A Secret History of the European Union, by British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North (a former research director for an agency of the European Parliament).

With regard to the NAFTA treaty, for example, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger boasted (see column in July 18, 1993 Los Angeles Times):

“[NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system….”

The NAFTA treaty, combined with side agreements, set up more than 30 new international committees to decide issues previously the responsibility of the individual national legislatures.

The Fall 1991 issue of [the Council on Foreign Relations’] Foreign Affairs revealed that the Insiders were well aware that NAFTA was following in the EU’s footsteps:

“The creation of trinational dispute-resolution mechanisms and rule-making bodies on border and environmental issues may also be embryonic forms of more comprehensive structures. After all, international organizations and agreements like GATT and NAFTA by definition minimize assertions of sovereignty in favor of a joint rule-making authority.”

GOP Leadership Support

The Internationalists have minimized public opposition to these deceptive power grabs by enlisting Establishment Republicans masking as conservatives to tout the ostensible economic benefits:

“Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Republican chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, hailed the measure as ‘the most important bill that will pass the Senate this year,’ and one that will prove to be an aid to the economy.” — “Republican-led US Congress hands Obama major win on trade,” AP (6-24-15)

President Obama’s Support

President Obama’s vigorous support for advancing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, despite the vehement opposition of most of his own party, confirms the Internationalist Establishment grip on the presidency (regardless of what party occupies the White House). Obama is a left-wing radical only so long as that agenda supports the goals of his Establishment bosses. (See Don Fotheringham’s The President Makers.)

For many decades, when political leaders or the media tout “bipartisanship,” it generally means that the leadership of the two parties have combined in a deception against America’s interest. Following the Senate vote to approve TPA, White House spokesman Josh Earnest noted:

“We have Republican majorities in Congress working closely with Democratic minorities in Congress to build bipartisan support for legislation that then arrives on the desk of a Democratic president.”

And he applauded the cooperation as an example of how policy should be made “in an era of divided government.” — AP (6-24-15)

Opposition to TPA by Liberal Democrats allows the negotiated measure to pass as conservative, reassuring the public that nothing serious is amiss. The opposition also provides the internationalists an excuse to increase the immediate authority of the new meddling institutions in the final agreement, ostensibly to address liberal concerns.

We do not score the Democrats on this one, since most voted the right way (nay) for the wrong reason.