‘Glad #TPP is dead’: Sanders & Dems applaud Trump for pulling out of global trade deal


U.S. President Donald Trump holds up the executive order on withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership after signing it in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington January 23, 2017. © Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

President Donald Trump is being commended by former presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) as well as some Democrats facing tough reelection campaigns, following his executive order removing the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

“I am glad the Trans-Pacific Partnership is dead and gone,” Sanders said in a statement Monday.

The self-declared democratic socialist campaigned hard to keep Trump out of the White House, stumping for Hillary Clinton despite a fierce primary battle that included a biased Democratic National Committee. But since the election, Sanders has expressed openness to working with Trump, whom he agreed with on his populist opposition to global trade deals.

“For the last 30 years, we have had a series of trade deals – including the North American Free Trade Agreement, permanent normal trade relations with China and others – which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and caused a ‘race to the bottom’ which has lowered wages for American workers,” Sanders said Monday.

“If President Trump is serious about a new policy to help American workers, then I would be delighted to work with him,” he added.

This political alliance may be brief and coincidental, but Sanders has a reelection campaign in 2018 to consider. The two-term senator won handily in 2012 with 71 percent of the vote, and Vermont went for Clinton in 2016, but some Democratic senators who have also come out in praise of Trump over TPP are not in as comfortable a position.

Democratic Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin both saw their blue states go red for Trump, a first in decades. They also both face reelection in 2018. Senator Baldwin tweeted Monday: “Withdrawing from #TPP & moving to renegotiate #NAFTA are good 1st steps from @POTUS, but more must be done to keep his word to WI workers.”

“I support President Trump’s issuing of an executive orders that will pull the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and his recent steps to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),” Casey said in a statement Monday. “NAFTA has adversely impacted middle class families in Pennsylvania and the TPP would have cost jobs and hurt income growth, which is why I voted against fast tracking the deal in 2015.”

All political rules went out the window when it came to Trump’s campaign for president. Only time will tell if any more are broken, as the midterm election season creeps up.




The Malevolent Trade Pacts (of Death)

What’s more delightful and heartening about this report is that it comes from non other than the cabal owned propaganda machine the Financial Times. The winds of change are blowing hard that even the MSMs are finding it difficult to keep their silence on the deadly agendas of their masters. Though this is specifically TTIP but it transposes the other pacts TPP and TISA just as well…and perfectly.



The transatlantic trade pact that risks more harm than good

As real incomes stagnate voters have concluded that economic gains benefit everyone but them


The British electorate rebelled against membership of the EU. The Italians may rebel against constitutional reforms in a referendum in November. The Germans, French, Austrians and Belgians, among others, are rebelling against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, otherwise known as TTIP.

President François Hollande of France said last week that he no longer sees an agreement on TTIP in time for ratification before President Barack Obama leaves the White House in January. Since neither of the candidates to succeed him — Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump — supports TTIP, there is a strong probability that it will fail…

TTIP is not a classic free trade agreement. It is largely about investment and the reduction of regulatory barriers. As such it is similar to the single European market though not nearly as comprehensive. It also constitutes an intrusion into national sovereignty over economic policy. While UK voters rebelled against the single European market, continental voters reject the single transatlantic market. This is no coincidence.

Proponents of TTIP are making the same mistake as the Remain supporters did ahead of the UK referendum on EU membership in June. They are exaggerating the economic impact of their case and running the equivalent of a Project Fear campaign. The Austrian government’s growing rejection of TTIP and a similar EU-Canada trade deal drew an angry response from Elmar Brok, head of the foreign affairs committee of the European Parliament and member of Ms Merkel’s Christian Democrats. Mr Brok attacked Christian Kern, Austria’s chancellor, as irresponsible and said his actions were not compatible with “serious politics”. A transatlantic free trade deal would, he says, bring economic advantages to Austria and Germany…

A more convincing argument is the one used by Mr Kern who says that TTIP would strengthen the power of multinational companies at the expense of elected politicians…

Continue reading…


Who is in charge of destroying economies?


A dog whistle to Trump supporters.
by Jon Rappoport
March 11, 2016
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
Who sets that policy?  Who keeps it intact, despite new legislators and Presidents exiting and entering office?

Who keeps pushing new economy-destroying trade treaties, like the upcoming TPP?  Who demands that these treaties must be ratified?

A number of groups—but one group has been virtually forgotten.  Its influence is enormous.  It has existed since 1973.

It’s called the Trilateral Commission (TC).
In a minute, I’m going to print a stunning piece of forgotten history, a 1978 conversation between a US reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission.

I discovered the conversation in the late 1980s, and ever since then, I’ve been looking at it from various angles, finding new implications.  Here, I want to point out that the conversation was public knowledge at the time.

Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it.  Understood its meaning.

But no one shouted from the rooftops.  No one used the conversation to force a scandal.  No one protested loudly.

The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the US Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy (which includes trade treaties) were agents of an elite shadow group.  No question about it.

And yet: official silence.  Media silence.  The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements.  Carter was himself a covert agent of the Trilateral Commission in the White House, a willing pawn, a rank con artist, a hustler.  He had been plucked from obscurity and, through elite TC press connections, vaulted into the spotlight as a pre-eminent choice for the Presidency.

To boil down the 1978 conversation between the reporter and two Trilateral Commission members, and the follow-on response:

“The US has been taken over.”

“Yeah, so?”

Many people think the TC, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.

Think again.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

For example:

* Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary

* James Jones, National Security Advisor

* Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee

* Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members:

* George HW Bush

* Bill Clinton

* Dick Cheney

* Al Gore

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller:

“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Okay.  Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s through-the-looking-glass—a conversation between reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

When Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal?  One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; ratify trade treaties that effectively send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and undercut their domestic manufacturers, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.

And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order.

What kind of order?

One planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”

The top Trilateral players, in 2008, had their man in the White House, another formerly obscure individual, like Jimmy Carter: Barack Obama.  They had new trade treaties on the planning table.  Obama was tasked with doing whatever was necessary to bring those treaties, like the TPP, home.  To get them passed.  To get them ratified.  No excuses.

That’s why, months ago, when anti-TPP criticism and rhetoric was reaching a crescendo, when Obama was seeking Congressional fast-track approval of the treaty, he was in a sweat and a panic.  He and his cabinet were on the phones night and day, scrambling and scraping for votes in Congress.  This was the Big One.  This was why he was the President.  To make this happen.

His bosses were watching.

These men run US policy, when and where it counts.  They don’t tolerate failure.

This is also why, after Obama was inaugurated for his first term, he shocked and astonished his own advisors, who expected him, as the first order of business, to address the unemployment issue in America.  He shocked them by ignoring the number-one concern of Americans, and instead decided to opt for his disastrous national health insurance policy—Obamacare.

Why?  Because he never had any intention of trying to dig America out of the crash of 2008.  That wasn’t why he was put in the Oval Office.  He could, and would, pretend to bring back the economy, with fudged numbers and distorted standards.  But really and truly, create good-paying jobs for many, many Americans?  Not on the TC agenda.  Not in the cards.

It was counter-productive to the TC plan to torpedo the economy further.

It still is.

The Matrix Revealed by Jon Rappoport
Now you have deeper background on the source of the political/media establishment’s panic and hysteria about Donald Trump.  That establishment has received its marching orders.  Take Trump down.

As far as the Trilaterals are concerned, it doesn’t matter whether The Donald is just blustering and bloviating about bringing jobs back to America, creating new prosperity, and “making America great again.”  What matters is, he is raising the issue forcefully, out in the open.  And huge numbers of people are responding.  They’re confirming that the Obama economic recovery is a lie.

Trump has opened up an unprotected front in the war to sink the US economy.  Suddenly, his supporters, like shock troops, are pouring through.

The censorship blocking discussion of the true state of the union has been cracked.

The genie must be put back in the bottle.

But by whom?

What Presidential candidate can now convince the people that all is well, good jobs are plentiful, and the country is prosperous again?  Who can float that absurd lie and make people believe it?

If she can stop coughing, sputtering, cackling, switching accents, and grinning like a circus clown on meth, the task falls to Hillary.

Good luck with that one.

Maybe she should come right out and say: “You know me.  I love wars.  Put me in the Oval, and I’ll launch more wars than you can shake a stick at.  And then you’ll see some goddamn prosperity.  Everyone has a job in a full-bore wartime economy.”


To #TPP or not to TPP – that is Jokowi’s question

New Mandela

I think its a wrong question. The right question “Is Jokowi a minion of the bank$ter$?”


Indonesia’s president needs to be wary of Washington’s overtures when it comes to world’s largest trade agreement.

In February, Indonesia President Joko ‘Jokowi’ Widodo was in the United States to attend the ASEAN-US Summit.

The sit-down in Sunnylands was one of the most important recent high-level meetings between ASEAN and Washington — especially after the regional countries decided to elevate the status of their relationship with the US into a “strategic partnership” last year.

In a press conference before boarding the presidential carrier to California, Jokowi outlined a number of important points.  First, his trip to the US was about strengthening a “partnership for peace and prosperity.” This vision stresses that both the US and ASEAN countries have an obligation to contribute to global peace and wealth.

At the same time, the relations between the two should bring about mutual benefits for the people of both ASEAN and the US. Beyond the rhetoric there were some signs that these noble goals could be made reality.

During his visit, Jokowi brought up several ways that the US and Indonesia could work together, including increasing cooperation in the field of small to medium enterprises, entrepreneurship, innovation, and development of the digital economy.

Meanwhile, President Barrack Obama asked the Indonesians to lead a special session on the issue of terrorism. Indonesia, as Jokowi emphasised, can share much needed experience and insight when it comes to preventing radicalisation and combating terrorism.

But it’s fair to say that the ASEAN-US Summit was also a tool for Washington to advance its own interests, mainly in the areas of geopolitics and economics. The geopolitical aspect includes the South China Sea, which has now become the “new battlefield” between Washington and Beijing.

Not less important is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was discussed extensively during the Summit under the guise of enhancing trade and investments between ASEAN and the US. Four ASEAN countries have already signed up to it — Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam. Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand are currently weighing up the pros and cons of participating in what is supposedly the world’s largest free trade agreement.

The US Ambassador to Indonesia Robert Orris Blake Jr recently reiterated the strategic importance of Indonesia for the TPP. These include the country’s very large market, the rapid growth of the middle class, and the large number of youth.

The past six months have seen a serious discussion at the governmental level about the possibility of Indonesia joining. As always, there are pros and cons in this debate. There are those who are very supportive of the initiative, even though they have not yet seen or read the detailed documents. There are also those who prefer to be cautious because Indonesia will only be a market for foreign products.

Late last year, Jokowi stated that the government was carefully examining the benefits and the drawbacks of participating in the TPP. It was said that there was a possibility for Indonesian products to enter the TPP market. However, Jokowi also believed that Indonesia could simply become a large market for the US and its allies.

It is hoped that after the Summit meeting in Sunnylands the Indonesian government will be able to truly represent its people on the issue. Undeniably, Jakarta should protect the sovereignty of its national economy as well as small businesses.

Why? Because that is what has been repeatedly said by Washington when putting forward the TPP agenda. In his speech in front of the 12 ministers from the TPP participating countries one year ago, Obama made this clear.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership finished negotiations on an agreement that reflects America’s values and gives our workers the fair shot at success they deserve. This partnership levels the playing field for our farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers by eliminating more than 18,000 taxes that various countries put on our products.

Obama’s speech clearly indicates the TPP’s real roadmap for the future. The government in Jakarta should not deviate its course by blindly following the direction of other countries or partnerships.

Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is a PhD scholar at the University of Manchester.


#TPP: The Latest Assault on Free Trade

Misses Institute

October 7, 2015

free tradeThe Trans Pacific Partnership is just the latest assault on free trade, although, like previous assaults before it, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, it is labeled as having something to do with free trade.

Today’s Mises Daily article describes it best: agreements between governments have nothing to do with free trade. This was the understanding of the early laissez-faire liberals. To have free trade, governments merely need only refrain from restricting it. And more specifically to the situation in the US, to allow free trade, the US government merely need refrain from prosecuting people who attempt to trade with foreigners who do not have the official stamp of approval from the US government. (See also Carmen Dorobat’s article from yesterday.)

To support restrictions on free trade is to support the jailing and prosecution of peaceful private citizens who trade with foreigners. Whatever the motivation, whether it is to attempt to punish foreign regimes (as with supporters of the Cuban or Iranian embargoes), or protect certain favored industries, the fundamental mechanism behind restrictions on trade is the prosecution and punishment of private entrepreneurs who engage in peaceful trade.

The TPP, like all other trade agreements of its type, was designed to serve the strategic interests of the governments involved, and has nothing to do with opening up new opportunities for free trade among ordinary members of the domestic societies that are taxed to finance the governments involved. There is no doubt that certain large corporate interests with political power will benefit from agreements like TPP. Large interests have the clout and the resources to change and shape these agreements to favor them. Small enterprises and businesses, and small entrepreneurs will only endure greater restrictions.

The New York Times reports how US allies are using the TPP as a “check on China.” It’s a national “security” scheme and has nothing to do with freer trade for you and me. Meanwhile, the CBC (Canada) admits that the TPP will do little to actually lower your grocery bill or the price of automobiles. So, if a trade agreement does nothing to actually make goods more available to the public, what does it have to do with free trade? The answer is: nothing.

The TPP and the Trade Rhetoric

The final and most important effect of this rhetoric is that when the TPP will fail to bring about the touted benefits—as it will not in fact promote a wider and freer division of labor—the market will become the scapegoat once more. And governments will again be called in to address the ‘market failure’. To paraphrase Elinor Dashwood (of Austen’s Sense and Sensibility), the market will suffer the punishment of a badly done trade agreement without enjoying any advantages. Read more


What Washington Isn’t Saying About the #TPP ‘Victory’


stop TPP

Manuel Pérez-Rocha, policy analyst at Institute for Policy Studies, says that the stated purpose of the agreement — to eliminate tariffs — has distracted people from its more subtle goal of protecting corporate profits